It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

page: 17
28
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 05:11 AM
link   

SuperFrog

EnPassant
Many people don't believe in God because they are indoctrinated. This is a false view of religion. Many people believe for far more complex and substantial reasons than this.


You are turning this discussion around toward religion and its origins.

You might not know, but there was evolution even in religion. From earlier polytheistic religions to monotheistic religions, first one being in Egypt made by Akhenaten, to today's Abrahamic religions. From Proto-Indo-European religion to today Christianity and Islam with all those links and similar stories.

See, scientists do study religion and today in most of colleges you can take religion class, but not class where you will study verses from Bible, but class where you will learn all diversity in religion and its evolution through time.

Today we have no evidence for many stories from bible and accounts, including account about Abraham, Jesus. We know Muslim prophet Muhammad really existed, but story behind Islam is just copy/paste from earlier and/or upgraded story we already know existed and predates Islam. His private life is another controversy, from God telling him to marry very young girl to accounts written hundred of years after his death. (Hadith collection, that is written several generations after Muhammad's death or Ibn Kathir's collection written about 700 years after his death)

I took that class out of curiosity, as I never had any religious education and since then have read Bible and Qur'an. After reading it, I would have to agree with Penn and Teller Bull# - Bible. Please see it and let me know what you think....







edit on 5-1-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)


Those guys are entertainers. To rely on any of there shows for real answers to life is ridiculous. Because think about it, they do a show and that somehow makes them experts at the subject of the show? I don't htink so. We get there opinion from each of there shows. But that's all it is, just there opinion. And there opinions aren't always right. I'm sure they think 911 was nothing more than the jets. And that everything else we here on the 6oclock news is the gosple true of life.




posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Could our species, indeed every species of DNA based life, not have been intelligently designed...to evolve?

This ID Vs Mutation based evolution, is obviously circular and always will be dependent on belief systems..it's pointless and only serves ego.

Both CAN be correct, the two positions are not mutually exclusive.

The REAL question, would apply to both scenarios....WHO initiated the design, or WHAT caused the DNA to form...it's basically the same question.

And please if you decide to answer this post with your own hypothesis (as that is what either position is in reality), i have heard of 'god' so i do not need or want a religious education replete with verses and sermons as indeed i have heard of Darwinian theory, so the same applies to that too.


edit on 6-1-2014 by MysterX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 06:31 AM
link   

spartacus699
Those guys are entertainers. To rely on any of there shows for real answers to life is ridiculous. Because think about it, they do a show and that somehow makes them experts at the subject of the show? I don't htink so. We get there opinion from each of there shows. But that's all it is, just there opinion. And there opinions aren't always right. I'm sure they think 911 was nothing more than the jets. And that everything else we here on the 6oclock news is the gosple true of life.


Actually those guys are not just entertainers. Just as most of other atheist, they are forced to learn lots about religion - probably much more than they even like.


They bring valid points and apart from your clear ad hominem, I don't see much of answers to what they tell in that video.

As for true entertainer and someone who dared to touch somewhat taboo - nobody did it ever better then George Carlin:



Now, that is real entertainer and a bit more...

edit on 6-1-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   

begoodbees

Krazysh0t
reply to post by begoodbees
 


This is TERRIBLE reasoning. We have PLENTY of fossils showing evolution in action. Just because we cannot witness it firsthand doesn't mean we cannot collect the evidence for it and substantiate its veracity other ways.

You know we can prove criminals commit crimes without video evidence of them doing it too right?


You see fossils and make assumptions on how the came about. There is a big difference between assuming and knowing. by your logic if I find 100 porche 911's from different years that is evidence that they have evolved on their own from simple to complex instead of being made the way they are/were.


www.roadandtrack.com...

Also as I have already stated, science is about observation and experimentation not speculation and assumption.
edit on 5-1-2014 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)


No not even slightly. Don't put words in my mouth. We KNOW for a FACT that all Porches were manufactured by people. We can look at old Porsche 911's and see how it has developed, but that doesn't change the fact that we know it was created by people.

Fossils found in the ground aren't the same thing as an old Porsche. You just tried to switch around the topic with a fancy version of the watchmaker fallacy.

Fossil evidence


The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time.


Fossils & Evolution - Fossil Evidence Supports Evolution


That the fossil record in general suggests evolution is certainly an important piece of evidence, but it becomes even more telling when it is combined with other evidence for evolution. For example, the fossil record is consistent in terms of biogeography — and if evolution is true, we would expect that the fossil record would be in harmony with current biogeography, the phylogenetic tree, and the knowledge of ancient geography suggested by plate tectonics. In fact, some finds, such as fossil remains of marsupials in Antarctica are strongly supportive of evolution, given that Antarctica, South America and Australia were once part of the same continent.


You obviously have a poor understanding of how science works if you think that Evolution isn't real science.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   

spartacus699
so what did it come from?


Do you honestly want to know? It seems like you have no desire to know and would rather repeat the lie of 'everything from nothing' since it suits your agenda to do so.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

spartacus699
so what did it come from?


Do you honestly want to know? It seems like you have no desire to know and would rather repeat the lie of 'everything from nothing' since it suits your agenda to do so.


well so far in 39 years I've yet to hear a more plausable explaination. No I am open to theories for sure. You don't have one though most likely or you wouldn't be busting my balls



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   

spartacus699
well so far in 39 years I've yet to hear a more plausable explaination.


Then I resubmit my previous comment. The Big Bang does not postulate 'everything from nothing' and you have never bothered to try and understand how it is constructed, hence the reason you posted that remark.


No I am open to theories for sure. You don't have one though most likely or you wouldn't be busting my balls


The one I am supporting is the one you do not understand, the Big Bang. Try reading about a topic prior to making foolish regurgitated comments that have no basis in how that topic may operate.




edit on 6-1-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

spartacus699
well so far in 39 years I've yet to hear a more plausable explaination.


Then I resubmit my previous comment. The Big Bang does not postulate 'everything from nothing' and you have never bothered to try and understand how it is constructed, hence the reason you posted that remark.


No I am open to theories for sure. You don't have one though most likely or you wouldn't be busting my balls


The one I am supporting is the one you do not understand, the Big Bang. Try reading about a topic prior to making foolish regurgitated comments that have no basis in how that topic may operate.




edit on 6-1-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer


what... like it being the collision of universes. or some other theory that a rocket scientist created while relaxing in his hottub? get real.

One other thing to think about. Have scientists found a way out yet?

Michio Kaku who created string theory. He said:

"the laws of physics are a death warrant to all intelligent life in this universe. There's only one way to escape the death of universe, and that is to leave the universe".

Could man come up with such a solution in our lifetime, or ever? Maybe but it would take forever. meanwhile you don't have to to piss and moan on what's the best escape route. The only hope you have is to hope there's a God out there. If there's not then that's the end for us. Or if there is and you don't pay him any homage then what if he doesn't accept you into his kingdom? Trying something gives you hope. Trying nothing then what hope do you have? The only thing you then end up doing is being like an atheist who ends up actually haven't to hope there isn't a God who they've insulted there for there whole life, and hope there's no repercussions. And maybe there won't be. Who knows. But what if there is?



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   

spartacus699
Michio Kaku who created string theory. He said:

"the laws of physics are a death warrant to all intelligent life in this universe. There's only one way to escape the death of universe, and that is to leave the universe".


I am sure that Heisenberg will turn in grave after statement like this.
Or should I say, in his hot tub.


Just as other suggested, take your time, read about subject before makin' any other statements like this one...

edit on 6-1-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 





Then I resubmit my previous comment. The Big Bang does not postulate 'everything from nothing' and you have never bothered to try and understand how it is constructed, hence the reason you posted that remark.


Wrong. It is exactly what it does postulate. How do you think the singularity can expand? The singularity is what we know as Our expanding universe.

The medium that make up the Space between the galaxies, planets and stars are observed to be expanding. In other Words the vacuum of Space is expanding equally in all directions. That can only happen if the Space that surrounds Our universe " the expanding singularity" is of a absolute vacuum. That would mean that the singularity came from a absolute empty inifnite Space.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   

spartacus699
what... like it being the collision of universes.


No, that is Brane Theory and not the Big Bang, they are different. I feel bad for you, instead of educating yourself on the subject you hide behind insults and superstition.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   

spy66
Wrong. It is exactly what it does postulate. How do you think the singularity can expand? The singularity is what we know as Our expanding universe.

The medium that make up the Space between the galaxies, planets and stars are observed to be expanding. In other Words the vacuum of Space is expanding equally in all directions. That can only happen if the Space that surrounds Our universe " the expanding singularity" is of a absolute vacuum. That would mean that the singularity came from a absolute empty inifnite Space.


There is no 'space around our universe', the singularity contained all matter and space, the singularity is what expanded not a medium surrounding it.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

spy66
Wrong. It is exactly what it does postulate. How do you think the singularity can expand? The singularity is what we know as Our expanding universe.

The medium that make up the Space between the galaxies, planets and stars are observed to be expanding. In other Words the vacuum of Space is expanding equally in all directions. That can only happen if the Space that surrounds Our universe " the expanding singularity" is of a absolute vacuum. That would mean that the singularity came from a absolute empty inifnite Space.


There is no 'space around our universe', the singularity contained all matter and space, the singularity is what expanded not a medium surrounding it.



Yes there is.

And Our universe only have finite Space consisting of finte matter and particles. And it is expanding into a Space that is absolute empty.

How in hell would Our finite Space expand and become larger if there aint no larger Space surrounding it?

Our universe aint the only one. There must be at least one larger.

The singularity is a finite. That means it aint infinite. Meaning it didnt always exist. That means there is a Space older than Our singularity. Meaning there must be a Space surrounding the singularity.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   

spy66
And Our universe only have finite Space consisting of finte matter and particles. And it is expanding into a Space that is absolute empty.


Then you do not understand the Big Bang which does not state that the singularity had finite matter, it contained infinite matter and space and finite time.


How in hell would Our finite Space expand and become larger if there aint no larger Space surrounding it?


Because the theory (which you claimed to understand) poses that space was infinite and still is.


Our universe aint the only one. There must be at least one larger.

The singularity is a finite. That means it aint infinite. Meaning it didnt always exist. That means there is a Space older than Our singularity. Meaning there must be a Space surrounding the singularity.


You are confusing the metaverse with the Big Bang, the singularity was/is infinite and only finite in time, which is of course relative to the observer. The universe is not expanding into another universe, it is just expanding.

It would do you some good to read up on the theory before arguing against it.



edit on 7-1-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


So let me guess?

Your not a genetics scientist?

You dont work in a lab?

You didnt go to college?

You dont understand biology?



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


The singularity consists of infinite matter but finite time. No kiding; What is the difference there between the singiularity being finite?

The singularity is still finite. And so is Our universe. It dosent matter if it is formed by the infinite.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   

spy66
The singularity consists of infinite matter but finite time. No kiding; What is the difference there between the singiularity being finite?


I do not understand what you are asking.


The singularity is still finite. And so is Our universe. It dosent matter if it is formed by the infinite.


And what scientific observations are you basing you determination on that the Big Bang singularity was finite in matter?

Additionally, you statement makes not logical sense, how can something be finite if it were formed by something infinite?



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Isn't 'imagination" such a wonderful thing.

It is good to see people stretching the bounds of logic to such an infinite degree.


Maybe someone should write a book.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
this vid covers alot of ground, for the dinosaur stuff start at 58.50.





posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


I was actually hoping for a legitimate link to evidence, not something that's been debunked repeatedly for a decade and a half. .i really appreciate you trying, but this is what happens when people who have no formal training attempt to put together a puzzle without knowing whAt the box top looks like. when Klaus starts off with the alleged side by side human and Dino foot prints and is still trying to sell the garbage I'm almost offended that nobody does their due diligence to find out that all of these instances can be ascribed to the following- metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks. And that was only the first thing I saw at the time stamp you said to begin at.
edit on 7-1-2014 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join