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: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   

EmpathicBandit
well written.


whether divine or otherwise, a rational mind would be ignorant to not consider and accept the overwhelming plausibility of intelligent design.

S+F


Great point.

Like I said, it's self evident. You can look at a shopping cart or a new Dodge Magnum and you know they're instructions of letters, numbers and symbols put into a sequence by intelligence that produced that shopping cart or that Dodge Magnum.

What happened with the convoluted theory of evolution is, they built a theory based on the end result of these instructions. Now that we have discovered these instructions(DNA) it becomes clearer and clearer with every discovery that intelligent design is a self evident truth.

How do regulatory sequences evolve? It makes no sense. The sequence is given meaning by intelligence and then the machinery reads and decodes these instructions for production.

Look at the TATA box:


A TATA box is a DNA sequence that indicates where a genetic sequence can be read and decoded. It is a type of promoter sequence, which specifies to other molecules where transcription begins. Transcription is a process that produces an RNA molecule from a DNA sequence. The TATA box is named for its conserved DNA sequence, which is most commonly TATAAA. Many eukaryotic genes have a conserved TATA box located 25-35 base pairs before the transcription start site of a gene. The TATA box is able to define the direction of transcription and also indicates the DNA strand to be read. Proteins called transcription factors can bind to the TATA box and recruit an enzyme called RNA polymerase, which synthesizes RNA from DNA.


The promoter sequence doesn't evolve. How can a sequence of letters evolve that instructs other molecules where transcription begins? It's really a silly notion. Intelligent Design puts letters, numbers and symbols into a sequence that instructs not the convoluted theory of evolution that's was put together by Darwin before we knew about the instructions.




posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
there we go.

Evolution and origins are different things.

So what if DNA was designed? We will never know. Not DNA but lets say something more basic, like first reproduction event and RNA. Evolution takes care of the rest.

Evolution still holds as to how life adopts to current conditions based on what it finds best for survival, no?

my two cents.

For the sake of me, I don't understand why pips cannot live with something that is yet not known? Why immediate answers are needed to go on with every day life?

cheers



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
It's far too easy in this kind of discussion to forget that time is an illusion and that the whole idea that anything has to be "created" is a baseless assumption.

(Personally, I think people who believe in a creator give him/her/it/them way too much credit. Even I can think of ways such things as the human body could be better designed to make them function and last longer than they do. The creator unfortunately produces "D" quality stuff.)



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
If anything aliens may have been responsible for our brains accelerated development, but to call any of our evolution either intelligent or by design is just ludicrous....

I present to you the human mouth and all its monumental flaws - now if (insert a god here) can't get something as simple as a mouth and teeth right..... then whatever 'god' you speak of is really not intelligent at all, nor can they design..... unless your 'god' is a callus sadistic bastard.

Mickierocksman



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   

EmpathicBandit
well written.


whether divine or otherwise, a rational mind would be ignorant to not consider and accept the overwhelming plausibility of intelligent design.

S+F


I would dare say that a rational mind would be ignorant to not demand evidence over blindly accepting what someone else considers "overwhelming plausibility" yet doesn't support said plausibility. Was I so overwhelmed by it that I didn't see it?



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   

grey580
reply to post by neoholographic
 


It is self evident you don't have a clue about how science works.

Good science is backed up by fact & observation of those facts.

Ok so you say that ID self evident.

Prove it with scientific fact.


You would need to prove it with scientific evidence, the facts contained in scientific evidence, have a nasty habit of changing, or to be simply in error, and hence the evidence itself. Not to forget either, that Intelligent design is something out of the scientific community, who may just also be clinging to their historical religious beliefs. Their plausibility however is as good as any cattle market court in the land, where the 'facts' and 'evidence' is so often about 99% rarified 'blue' air, and 1% truth. Anyway, evolution is progressive so science says, with the caveat that certain sideways, 'strains' die out. Yet, look around you, with all the examples of us 'humans' who are defective in some way, those people are not strains, they are defective, they have disability, yet they were born. This is where the real science should be paying attention since they are members of our species. it's no use dreaming about intelligent design, or evolution as if one idea is an argument against the other, it's not. We are what we are, beyond that we know nothing.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
It's really simple, one of these things has evidence to back up it's claims, and the other does not.

Remember people, it's not about what you know, it's about what you can prove.

The Creationists, don't have a shred of hard evidence to back up what it claims to know.

On the other hand, Evolutionists, have millions of pieces of evidence and studies to back up it's claim.


Example: Say this was about a man on trial for murder. The DA(evolutionists) comes in with a pile of evidence, video of the murder taking place, multiple witnesses, they have emails, texts and phone records (even gps locations) showing that the defendant was at the right place and time, and had a motive.

The Defense lawyer only has the defendant as a witness, no one (other than himself) could verify his whereabouts on the day in question, and his only real evidence is "He claims he wasn't there"( even though all the evidence says otherwise). Then when they see that isn't working. The defense resorts to poking holes in ONE of the pieces of evidence provided.

This is a case that is open and shut. No judge in his right mind would let this man go free.

This is what it looks like to many in the scientific fields. When debating this subject.

You have the bible as your evidence, which doesn't get updated nearly as much(if at all) as the scientific books do. You do not have anything to prove your claims of creation. The only thing I have EVER seen a creationist do is poke holes in the evolutionary theory, and never bring evidence to the table that has been tested and proven, by an unbiased independent source.

Creationism is a futile endeavor. While I applaud people for having their own beliefs (which is asinine as you are just parroting what you have been told to parrot.) you are trying to fight a losing battle, against this modern age.

Evolution exists, it's verified and proven. How it all got here is still a mystery. But claiming you KNOW how it got here is some of the most arrogant BS I have ever heard come out of anyones mouth. You claim to know this "god" and what not, but that is such a failure of understanding about it all, it's ludicrous.

This god is so all mighty and all powerful to create this huge universe with trillions of stars, galaxies, planets, black holes, comets, asteroids, etc etc.. a universe that is so huge we can't even fathom it's size. HOW COULD YOU EVEN BEGIN TO SAY YOU KNOW HIS ULTIMATE PLAN, OR ANYTHING ABOUT him/her/it?

I suggest you do a reality check the next time you get into a debate such as this.
edit on 12/16/1313 by GR1ill3d because: spelling.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Very interesting seeing what people think!

Hope you don't mind me chipping in but although the chances of this universe and everything in it coming about by chance are quazibillions and computazillions to one.Didn't it have to happen eventually?
And It only had to occur once,as any highly intelligent being could in theory create their own universe,in a computer simulation for instance?



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 01:06 AM
link   
It's the Krypton factor.

edit on 17-12-2013 by infinitedreamer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 01:13 AM
link   
The debate between evolution and creation (intelligent design) will continue for the foreseeable future. The evolutionist thinks he came from some slime pit or kicks it off planet too some imaginary slime pit and thinks aliens started it.

The creationist has only that which is around him as evidence of design in the same way a person looking at a building concludes that there must have been a builder since there is a building here. Whereupon the evolutionist says, where's your proof? If the creationist points to the structured design and complex materials in intricate arrangement, the evolutionist states it was simply done by wind, rain, lightning and random chance. Then points to old wooden buildings, brick buildings and mud huts as proof that the cement and steel buildings evolved from the mud huts.

Even Thomas Edison was smarter than the average evolutionist. The evolutionist thinks they have it figured out and Edison quite aptly said; "we don't know 1/10 of 1% about anything". Just because we have discovered things since Edison does not mean that we know really any more than we did then.

Anyone that says that there IS NO God is speaking from the standpoint of ignorance. Such a statement is an absolute and requires 100% knowledge of everything to be valid. How can one claim that something does not exist without 100% knowledge of the entire universe? We still have no idea how big the universe is let alone even have 1% of the knowledge contained therein. Even at this point we are not even looking at the other dimensions which science says there are at least 10. If you claim that you know something it is painfully obvious that you have not lived long enough to realize that you in truth know nothing.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by iRoyalty
 


What if an advanced, space faring species wanted to do an experiment to see how life can form from bio-material constructed in a lab?

Problem solved.
Oh. Wait. Where did they come from?


I only have theories on this, obviously nothing solid, but I could say the same for God couldn't I?
What evidence is there to support your "theories"?



The thing is, it's a false dichotomy to pit "ID" against science because "ID" inherently includes a "why"? Science is not concerned with why things are they way they are, only how they work.
Life started. So what?
Life has changed and continues to change.

Will and how will life continue? Now, that would seem to be something that really matters and understanding how life changes can help to answer that question. On the other hand "God did did it" leads to what? "God will end it." Terrific.

I don't give a flying...whatever...how life started on Earth or anywhere else. I'm really glad it did start on Earth and find it an interesting thought about whether it started elsewhere but does the "answer" really affect me? Not a bit.

Why are those "of faith" so offended by those who are not?

Questions...



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   
I m surprised about the nice and insightfull dialogue that developed from the OP... thought it s going to be a religious debate with curse words involved... who knew... nice one, ATS



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by pstrron
 

Thats the nail on the head blackbeard!



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by EmpathicBandit
 


Plausibility is in no way = to self-evident.

Here is an example.
“It is self-evident that those who believe in intelligent design were either home schooled or they only passed science class by cheating.”

-or-

“It is plausible that those who believe in intelligent design were either home schooled or they only passed science class by cheating.”

One of those sentences does not need to be backed up by evidence to remain valid.


A home schooled child does not need to cheat, they're intelligent enough to do their own research instead of having it fed to them.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


However they may not be intelligent enough to see the true meaning of my post. It seems so.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 01:49 AM
link   
by that i meant that made sense.How about a bacteria couldn't change a lightbulb or even have it explained to it?It's beyond poor old bacterias comprehension isnt it?

How about,especially if its experiencing the universe at a different rate,being so small,how could it understand something that goes so slowly,as we would appear,as mr bacteria you might have 3 generations of off-spring bacteria in the time it takes mr human to wipe his arse 3 times to create them.I expect



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 01:51 AM
link   
The Watchmaker argument, assigning a design to something simply
because it appears to be as such is a mistake. Humans can be wrong.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by bloodreviara
 

all the time i bet!Although we are not making a bad go of understanding the visible universe as we see it.
It's just all the bits we cant see are a mystery and even beyond that no doubt.

I should add,i don't have a fn clue either!(edit :reason;lack of intelligence for sure.)


edit on 17-12-2013 by infinitedreamer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


If a proposition is self-evident it does not need additional evidence to support it.

A self-evident proposition is something like 'I am thinking' or 'water is wet'.

Intelligent design is a far from self-evident proposition.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Astyanax

A self-evident proposition is something like 'I am thinking'

I'm not sure this is so self-evident where ID proponents are concerned.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join