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: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   

OneManArmy

DNA is a "program" for life. Thats a scientific fact.
Programs are programmed, by programmers.

Or are you saying that isnt what DNA is?


ahhh. but DNA is self replicating. It does its thing without outside intervention.

No one programs an individual persons body.

But don't despair. If god or aliens designed humans a scientist will discover the fact.
It's just a matter of time.





posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   

grey580

OneManArmy

DNA is a "program" for life. Thats a scientific fact.
Programs are programmed, by programmers.

Or are you saying that isnt what DNA is?


ahhh. but DNA is self replicating. It does its thing without outside intervention.

No one programs an individual persons body.

But don't despair. If god or aliens designed humans a scientist will discover the fact.
It's just a matter of time.




Even self replicating computer programs(viruses) require a programmer.
Aliens didnt create the universe though.
Im sure that due to the fact that they are "alive" they would be a DNA program themselves.
We have realised ourselves that it doesnt take being a God to "hack" DNA, but for life to start in the first place, I personally think it does. Call it a leap of faith, but its no different from a leap of faith that it just happened by chance.
At least my "leap of faith" keeps some sort of purpose to life. Because it would be pretty pathetic if there was no purpose for it at all.

Beware Mysticism follows:

In my opinion the material universe is a means to an end of experiencing "stuff", in an illusion of separation to stop the single consciousness that is God from being bored.

/mysticism

edit on 201312America/Chicago12pm12pmTue, 17 Dec 2013 13:30:21 -06001213 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

neoholographic
The genetic code is a clear example of intelligent design.

Actually the genetic code is a clear example of evolution. However, let's entertain the idea that you're right. Now please go ahead and explain e.g. why the present day code has 6 codons for Argine, but only one or two for Tryptophan, depending which genetic code we infer. What is the intelligent design perspective here? Remember, you wrote it's a clear example of intelligent design, so answering my question shouldn't be hard at all.
edit on 17-12-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   

rhinoceros

neoholographic
The genetic code is a clear example of intelligent design.

Actually the genetic code is a clear example of evolution. However, let's entertain the idea that you're right. Now please go ahead and explain e.g. why the present day code has 6 codons for Argine, but only one or two for Tryptophan, depending which genetic code we infer. What is the intelligent design perspective here? Remember, you wrote it's a clear example of intelligent design, so answering my question shouldn't be hard at all.
edit on 17-12-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


Instead of arguing over the materials that DNA or even life is made of, how about we ask the big question, where did DNA, and the original "spark" of life come from?
We simply do not know, no amount of intellectual grandstanding can answer the question of the origin of life.
We can all guess, but thats all we can do.
That, IMO, is what makes the subject interesting. From genius to idiot, none of us can answer the question of the "Source" of life.

DNA is a requirement of life, so can you answer where life came from?
You say yourself, it shouldnt be hard to answer.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Which is precisely why creationism vs. evolution is a stupid argument. That is like saying apple vs. orange.

The argument should be creationism vs. abiogenesis.

Evolution, as stated above, has been observed. It happens. Our own children are not 50% of each parent, but more like 49.999-something-around-100-decimal-places of each.

* Rates of Spontaneous Mutation

What I am seeing are people arguing evolution is wrong because they have a problem with abiogenesis. At least learn enough to talk a common language. All some of these posts are showing is how little is known about science.

I accept the compiled data that supports the Theory (capital T) of Evolution. I find no conflict with my religious beliefs.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   

OneManArmy
Instead of arguing over the materials that DNA or even life is made of, how about we ask the big question, where did DNA, and the original "spark" of life come from?
We simply do not know, no amount of intellectual grandstanding can answer the question of the origin of life.
We can all guess, but thats all we can do.
That, IMO, is what makes the subject interesting. From genius to idiot, none of us can answer the question of the "Source" of life.

DNA is a requirement of life, so can you answer where life came from?
You say yourself, it shouldnt be hard to answer.

Deoxyribonucleotides are synthesized from ribonucleotides. Ribonucleotides can come about by strictly abiotic processes (empirically proven). Short ribonucleotide polymers can spontaneously arrange themselves into autocatalytic sets (empirically proven). Many lines of observations support the idea that life was once strictly RNA based, e.g. RNAs catalyze many core functions even today. So where did the "spark" of life come from? Judging from the evidence we have, it come about by natural processes. One could say that life is an emergent property of the Universe the same way tornadoes are an emergent property of the Universe. If the conditions are right, it just happens.
edit on 17-12-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

rhinoceros

OneManArmy
Instead of arguing over the materials that DNA or even life is made of, how about we ask the big question, where did DNA, and the original "spark" of life come from?
We simply do not know, no amount of intellectual grandstanding can answer the question of the origin of life.
We can all guess, but thats all we can do.
That, IMO, is what makes the subject interesting. From genius to idiot, none of us can answer the question of the "Source" of life.

DNA is a requirement of life, so can you answer where life came from?
You say yourself, it shouldnt be hard to answer.

Deoxyribonucleotides are synthesized from ribonucleotides. Ribonucleotides can come about by strictly abiotic processes (empirically proven). Short ribonucleotide polymers can spontaneously arrange themselves into autocatalytic sets (empirically proven). Many lines of observations support the idea that life was once strictly RNA based, e.g. RNAs catalyze many core functions even today. So where did the "spark" of life come from? Judging from the evidence we have, it come about by natural processes. One could say that life is an emergent property of the Universe the same way tornadoes are an emergent property of the Universe. If the conditions are right, it just happens.
edit on 17-12-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

One could also say that God did it. Using golden geometry and universal constants to create the building blocks of all things.
"If the conditions are right, it just happens" - Does it? Do you have empirical evidence for this?
Can you create life from non life?
The evidence on the origins of life are very limited, we are barely getting off this rock we call home. Yet we think we can solve one of the greatest mysteries of the universe without leaving the front yard of our 'house'.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Evolution reminds me of this toy.

www.samstoybox.com...

You can create pretty pictures with this spiral toy above.

a5.mzstatic.com...

Simply use your pencil and spin.

www.davekoelle.com...

But by simply changing the small hole you decide to put your pencil in will create a whole knew design.

Is this intelligent design? It can all be explained with math.

www.davekoelle.com...

Or is it growth from a single point? It is found all through out nature.

www.ecotree.net...

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...:ANd9GcQqz9IAVZXHGHSB0GR6zOC9E_fTuZB98NwoR13gEQKLKHPXionA

The only part not explained is the beginning of that point of growth to me. Spontaneous growth from nothing? Why does not happen still today? What caused it? Big bang where nothing blew up and created everything? Doubt that. Everything that ever was is still here just changed into a different form. Nothing has ever truly been destroyed. So was it all ways here? That is hard to except for many. But they believe in a God who all ways existed? Sounds as bad as the Big Bang to me.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

OneManArmy
One could also say that God did it. Using golden geometry and universal constants to create the building blocks of all things.

Sure, but that makes the whole story more complex. You now need an origin story for the Universe creating entity, and further, claiming any knowledge about this entity is quite silly, don't you think? Anyway, this has nothing to do with the "ID movement". They claim that life as such was directly designed in contrast to indirect design via natural constants as you suggested. If you really want to give credit for something, give it to randomness. Had the Big Bang been perfectly symmetrical, all the matter and antimatter would have cancelled each other out and we wouldn't be here. Nothing would. The Greeks had a Goddess for this, Eris (also known as Discordia).


OneManArmy
"If the conditions are right, it just happens" - Does it? Do you have empirical evidence for this?
Can you create life from non life?

Yes, autocatalytic RNA sets have been observed to emerge spontaneously from mixtures of short RNA polymers. There's no universally accepted definition of life, but autocatalytic RNA sets self-replicate and fall under the domain of natural selection, so they should qualify as life just as much as any other self-replicating biological entities like bacteria, trees, rabbits and humans.
edit on 17-12-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


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


I understood the purpose of your post.
Although neither had been mentioned or even belong in this thread, you linked together "Home schooled" and "Cheating", and then you linked them with "Intelligent Design".

Hmmm, a person who does such a thing could be called a?

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



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Yes, it's a clear example of intelligent design. Intelligence can give different sequences of letters, numbers and symbols different meanings.

For instance, I can say the fly was buzzing around the house or I can see a driver going fast on the highway and say man, he can fly.

I can say that dog is mean or this is my dog.

I can say I'm going home to take a nap or he's sliding into home plate.

Your post simply proves my point. Intelligent Design is self evident. Intelligence can take letters, numbers and symbols and put them into a sequence and give that sequence meaning. It can then build machinery that can read these sequences and build everything from cars to organisms.

There has to be a semiotic system that uses DNA and RNA to represent the sequence of amino acids in each protein. You then need machinery or a cybernetic system to read these sequences.

Again, these are the hallmarks of intelligent design. Intelligence gives letters, numbers and symbols meaning and then it builds machinery to read and regulate the production of these sequences.

Nature can give you design. It can give you a beautiful mountainside or a snowflake. You will not see a snowflake translating regulatory sequences on another snowflake which will give you a snowflake production factory.

You said this:


So where did the "spark" of life come from? Judging from the evidence we have, it come about by natural processes.


What evidence?

When you say a "natural process" what do you mean? Where's the evidence that the natural process didn't emerge from consciousness or intelligence? As far as I can tell, a natural process encompasses your subjective view of reality and is essentially meaningless in the context of this debate.

Where's the evidence that a natural process excludes intelligence or consciousness? Here's the definition of a natural process:


a process existing in or produced by nature (rather than by the intent of human beings)


Where's the evidence that a natural process excludes things like intelligence or consciousness? Where the evidence that consciousness emerges from the material brain? Where's the evidence that the human brain is more than just a measuring device? Where's the evidence that the material brain can recall specific memories at will? How does the material brain know the difference between these memories? How does the material brain know which memories I wish to recall?

This all points to intelligent design.

This is what happened. Darwin came up with a convoluted theory of evolution. People begin to say, we don't need God, we have Darwin! Then the instructions(DNA) were found. This shattered the convoluted theory of evolution. Evolution absent an intelligent agent belongs in middle earth with the Hobbits.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   

GR1ill3d
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.



Sorry but your case has no merit as it's based on pure speculation, imagination and most of all blind chance with no real foundation.

Evolution for a lack of better word is the UNREALITY - the unicorn.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

However, . . . none are so blind as those who WILL NOT see.

And, when their PERCEIVERS have been blinded from within . . . there's not an easy cure. God Himself won't violate their free will--certainly not usually and not beyond a certain point by presenting repeated evidence.

Rebellion and idolatry of the self, pleasures, hedonism, have a high cost. And one of those costs is advancing spiritual and existential, cosmological blindness.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I love the joke about satan and God agreeing to a contest to create man from the dust of the earth.

Then God tells satan

"Get your own dirt."



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Phage
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...


For a start a lot of old cultures seemed to believe we were "made in a jar", especially the Sumerians who go as far to say that humans who did not have "parts of the gods" in them were animals who lived in barns. If you say that isn't enough evidence, a book of stories, then my response would be isn't that what Christianity and the idea of God being the intelligent designer is based on? (See the story of Gilgamesh)

I never said there was anything solid or that I believed it, I just wondered why intelligent design had to specifically mean the Christian God? It seemed like a closed minded argument.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Blue Shift
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.)


yeah, you could have been an angel. not human.

i wonder how life would be on earth if we were all angels.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Mickierocksman
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


so you believe aliens?

why would you want to be perfect?

if everyone else was perfect, would you be willing to help anyone?
no, because no one would need help.
everyone would be perfect.

everyone would be funny and smart and beautiful.

perfect teeth and mouth? sup wit mouth?

everyone would be jimi hendrix, all the same color, making the same money.

sounds friggin boring to me.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


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


yeah you are a regular einstein. waaaaaayyyy above our heads.


expound or explain.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



In science, there are things that are self evident. For example, an apple falling from a tree, rain, the seasons, snow or the sun shining.


It is self evident that apples fall to the ground because they are alive. It is self evident that rain is sent by a benevolent sky god. It is self evident that the seasons were carefully designed to be useful to mankind. It is self evident that the snow is composed of small, elfin beings and it is self evident that the Sun is the supreme deity.


Science can now tell you why the sun shines or why an apple falls to the ground.


In other words, science frequently shows that the "self evident" explanations for things are usually wrong. Are you sure this is the approach you want to take in this thread?



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 07:26 AM
link   
So if I believe that the Easter Bunny exists then it does exist? Fantastic, now where are my chocolate eggs?



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join