It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:28 AM


I didn't say "I don't care to know".

Dismissing ID because we don't know the identity of the designer is like junking the proposition that an architect designed the pyramid simply because we don't know his name and identity.

Read my post again. I didn't dismiss ID because the proponents don't know the identity of the designer, I dismiss it because they're not even looking for the answers. I don't know if they're just lazy or if they don't think there are any answers to find. Either way, they're clearly not contributing to our knowledge.

Even with the lets find out attitude, Evolutionary scientists have only presented ideas on as to how it may have happened, but have been able to replicate the process.

For example, consider the question "how did sexual reproduction evolve?" All I have found on google searches are a number of what may have happened scenarios....none of which have been observed or replicated. If an unproven hypothesis can pass off as science, then the ToE loses credibility as legitimate science.

You're just not paying attention to what I'm posting. Presenting ideas (i.e. hypotheses) is part of the scientific process, a process in which the ID camp is currently not participating. Come on, just give us a working hypothesis already. If you can't apply the scientific method to the propostion of design, how is it science?

posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:41 AM

But you know that information is separate from the ink its written with. The same applies to DNA, where the information is a separate entity from the DNA that holds it.

Really? Can you give an example of information that isn't tied to a physical medium? What part of the process from DNA to protein is non-physical?
edit on 22-12-2013 by radix because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 07:54 AM
Only self evident in this topic is that someone has no idea what he is talking about...

Speaking of intelligent design... this is one of occasion when creator could not make up his mind...

posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 10:12 AM
reply to post by neoholographic

I just have 3 scripture verses to quote real quick, then my computer time is just about up and I'm done with ATS for the day,

Merry Christmas and God bless to everyone!

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools

Psalm 14:1 The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt

Psalm 19:1-4 The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.
Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their words to the end of the world.

posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 01:07 PM
The great pink unicorn is self evident. Look at DNA. The flying invisible crocodile is self evident. Look at DNA. I could go on all day. Nothing is self evident. That is something made up by creationists in a poor attempt to justify their faith. They keep squeezing their guesses about god and ID into what science hasn't fully learned yet and call it a day. They aren't seeking legitimate truth, they are looking to cherry pick the parts they like to support their belief system. They aren't doing any research, they are only attempting to peddle their religion as fact on others. It's dishonest and illogical. Meyer is a fraud, just like most of the ID crowd. Why can't you guys ever be honest about it and promote the positives of your faith instead of lying and trying to go against science to prove your religion? I guess Jesus' teachings really don't matter to you guys.
edit on 24-12-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 01:22 PM
reply to post by Barcs

Because they are delusional, they only want to pick and choose the warm fuzzy parts that justify their delusion, disregarding all the contradictions that expose the lie.

Just look at the post above, the poster picks the warm fuzzy parts of scripture, parts that judge and condemn those who dare not fall for the delusion.

Why not post scripture that approves of murder, rape, and slavery?

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

How about a god that would make a rape victim marry her attacker.

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

A god who cares more about a mans property then the victim.

(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

How's that for warm fuzzy.

posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 02:29 PM
reply to post by flyingfish

Because they are delusional, they only want to pick and choose the warm fuzzy parts that justify their delusion, disregarding all the contradictions that expose the lie. Just look at the post above, the poster picks the warm fuzzy parts of scripture, parts that judge and condemn those who dare not fall for the delusion. Why not post scripture that approves of murder, rape, and slavery

Humans with their instruments can only see less than 5% of the universe.

I think it is ridiculous to mock people who believe in a Designer.

How many rapes occur in western society on an annual basis?

How are those modern laws workin' out?

Deuteronomy 22:25-27 New Living Translation (NLT)
25 “But if the man meets the engaged woman out in the country, and he rapes her, then only the man must die. 26 Do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no crime worthy of death. She is as innocent as a murder victim. 27 Since the man raped her out in the country, it must be assumed that she screamed, but there was no one to rescue her.

The translation you cited is clear.

The man who rapes a woman is to be but to death.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 New Living Translation (NLT) 28

“Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered, 29 he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver.[a] Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he may never divorce her as long as he lives

The translation you cited does not say rape.

This would be however be a deterrent to two kids getting carried away. 50 pieces of silver could have amounted to up to 200 days wages, he would be expected to marry the girl and could never divorce her.

That is to say if the girl, her father and brothers are agreeable to this.

If the girl was raped, the rapist would face her family.

Bearing false witness (by the girl) was also punishable by death.

I am in favor of the bibles standard of putting rapist's to death.

The final passage you sited was not about rape. The woman did not cry for help during or afterward.

It was a case of adultery.

posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 05:45 PM

Only self evident in this topic is that someone has no idea what he is talking about...

Speaking of intelligent design... this is one of occasion when creator could not make up his mind... got this all wrong my friend.

God's sense of humor in display - it's self evident don't you see?

God created the platypus to confound evolutionist.

In other words, God is asking you mr. Evolutionist, from where did the "grab-bag" platypus "evolved" from?

A beak like a ducks, webbed feet and fur like an otter’s, a tail like a beaver’s, leg spurs like a rooster’s, which inject poison like the fangs of a pit viper, lays eggs like a bird, no teeth and many more bizarre features and attributes.

So is it a reptile becoming a mammal?

Or mammal becoming a bird?

Or a bird becoming a reptile?

So mr. Evolutionist, since you're much smarter that the creator of the platypus, tell us, what is it then?

It's self - evident you know.

posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 09:03 PM
God is beyond the understanding of normal human beings.

God created so many different type of species of life (Veda counts 8.4 million species, and Veda actually does not count many species as separate as science does; so Veda's 8.4 million would be much greater than science).

Earth is a remarkably bountiful planet. It is a fact that astronomers are searching the nearby stars for planets similar to earth, and are yet to find one which is so ideal for life.

In Sanskrit literature - earth is called 'mother' as it feeds and nourishes the child.

So earth supports very large amount of life. But life is there on other planets, and it must be as common as the stars.

Life adapts to environment. Even life that originated was specific to a planet. This is the reason for differences between human races, as some races have reached new/distant planets beyond the point of their origin.

posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 09:32 PM
reply to post by GargIndia

Yes yes yes! it all is beyond our understanding but you seem to associate an omnipitant being with the tiny part that is within YOUR view of the universe as YOU see it!
Face it,your best guess is the big bang or whatever the latest smartarse tells you.sorry mate but a smart guy like yourself should realise that this universe is but a speck.You simply can not know and you should accept that its impossible to know! And-worse--
You are filling in the blanks with some supernatural being that somehow thinks or behaves like you!
I Dont mind people telling me all about their vision of god,but i would really like to hear where their designer/god came from,i mean,a universe outside this one for instance?Im laughing at that because surely a universe above him gave him the ability!!who's running that?Oh right,god again...psstfft.i spit on your god.and all the levels of gods who made them.There is no god behind this universe or his(gods),it just carries on forever in all directions and me,you,and every body else are lucky to get the chance to experience it.imao of course.merry christmas all by the way

posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 10:06 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it only about 500 years ago that it was considered a "self evident truth" that the earth was the center of the universe much to the chagrin of Galileo? Times, they be a changin'. Would it not be a self evident truth that the world was devoid of color and appeared like a black and white TV from the perspective of a color blind person?

posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 10:25 PM
Agreed peter vlar,but with the visible universe opening up,like it has in the last 500 years,is'nt it about time we left this designer/god model behind us?
It could be time to leave your gods behind you Peeps.Its time to accept the bigger picture.
dESIGNERS and G0dS just not hitting my spot no more

posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 03:26 AM

reply to post by neoholographic

Be prepared to defend. Don't give up and never surrender.

Good luck to you sir and god speed...

And just to stay on topic, my belief doesn't matter, because it's self evident

That is true - Intelligent design is self evident and provable. And what is the proof - All of science which continues to discover what is verifiable and whose math and formulas are repeatable prove that what we are discovering possess intelligent design - any book of science whether simple or advanced and whose formulas stand up to verification prove our universe posses an inherent intelligent design. BUT what is not provable is that 'a creator' made it that way. True, this is possible - but it is also possible that the intelligence of creation is inherent within the structure of existence and that no specific entity or creator is at the root of it.

posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 06:53 AM
reply to post by infinitedreamer

This reminds me of late George Carlin's take on religion:

Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bull# story. Holy #!

And every time they are proven wrong, from geocentric universe, age of universe to impossible accounts like great flood or for example above mentioned platypus... they have an answer - God works in mysterious way.

Which brings me back to greatness of George...

Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of # you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.

No woman could or would ever # things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a #. Doesn't give a #, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.

posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 02:56 PM
reply to post by SuperFrog

This George Carlin looks interesting superfrog!thanks for the tip.

posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 04:06 PM

reply to post by SuperFrog

This George Carlin looks interesting superfrog!thanks for the tip.

George Carling was a legend.
He told the truth, and people laughed.
Another legend to check out is Bill Hicks.

posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 05:23 PM
reply to post by neoholographic

Scientists know ID is a good name for creation, even Darwin used it. It’s just that the term has been expropriated by the Fundamentalist who are having a huge fight with the material scientists, therefore the term is loaded

posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 05:27 PM
reply to post by SuperFrog

I liked George Carlin but actually to mock the concept of religion by saying ‘ invisible man in the sky” is ignorant.
When the CIA or FBI, or even his Wife who might have recorded Carlin or many other people under surveillance many times were invisible

If they could do it then I'm sure God could

As well satellites and we can hear what goes on earth from the heavens so his analogy was ridiculous.

posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 04:06 AM
reply to post by SuperFrog

What you have quoted (as said by Carlin) is the most common question asked by all people.

Every person sees the suffering in the world and asks why God does not fix it?

And the reasonable conclusion is that why should God fix that He (or She) did not cause in the first place.

The confusion is because people think that man and God are same.

'Veda' provides the answer that living being have souls, which is quite different from God.

God has put the souls in material bodies, so that souls can live their 'karmas', and created a special species in humans where soul has a chance to burn the 'karmas' and get salvation.

So God is not responsible (and not involved) for actions of humans.

The sorrow and pain in the society is due to action of humans. God gave a pristine Earth to humans with every comfort imaginable. If humans have converted that into hell, how can God be found responsible.

posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 05:16 AM
reply to post by neoholographic

ID or Intelligent Design is a most unfortunate expression because it has been seriously called into question by the facts of evolution. As a result there can be confusion about what has been questioned. Evolution, driven by intelligence, is not the same as Intelligent Design which is a particular school of thought. Debunking Intelligent Design is not equivalent to showing evolution is not guided by intelligence.

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in