Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Intelligent Design; Does Modern Genetic Research Mean Darwin's THEORY of Evolution Belongs In The..

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Intelligent Design; Does Modern Genetic Research Mean Darwin's THEORY of Evolution Belongs In The Museum???


I have been watching a great little documentary that is actually quite thought provoking.

The documentary focuses on scientific observations that lead to the conclusion that life and the universe are by Intelligent design.

Many areas of Science are explored such as the Golden Ration (number 1.618 displayed in all the Universe) to DNA related science that reveals no source of new genetic material ever being evidenced in species' genetic structure.

I really do think that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is practically debunked by modern Science. There are so many holes in it and it cannot explain itself under modern scientific scrutiny.

Here's the video...



I'd welcome a discussion!!!





edit on 28-12-2013 by Revolution9 because: better preentation.




posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   



I found this video interesting as well, I have not had the opportunity to view your video but I will and wanted to add this one as well. I would like at some point to Take all the claims Trey makes write them down and see if I get similar answers as well as counter answers just to satisfy my own suspicions and skepticism. Either way great post and this is a very interesting and hotly debated topic. I hope this thread turns out to be very condusive into some form of understanding. Thanks for posting!



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Good post
and video

Check this out also

To complement your point there is the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
They note this effect in the video

science.howstuffworks.com...
Here’s what it means:




You've just checked into your hotel room for a weekend's getaway. Thrilled by the accoutrements, you immediately walk onto the room's balcony to take in the eighth floor view. Unfortunately, the guardrail gives way the instant you lean on it. You plummet, falling head over heels toward the pavement of the street below. You scream, but for some reason you don't feel the splat and splintering of every bone in your body. No, instead you find yourself immersed in an immense, soft bed. Of all the vehicles to fall into, you managed to hit an open trailer full of defective pillows from the local bedding factory. Why is it that conditions were just right for your survival? Cosmologists often apply this question to life on Earth with the Goldilocks principle, which ponders why Earth is "just right" for life. The anthropic principle tackles an even greater question: Why is the universe itself just right for life? For instance, when you compare the electromagnetic force to gravity, we find that electromagnetism is 39 times stronger, according to physicist and author Victor J. Stenger. And that's handy because if the two powers were more evenly matched, stars wouldn't burn long enough for life to develop on an orbiting planet. Scientists refer to this as an anthropic coincidence, or a coincidence related to mankind's very existence.




Here's another example that Stenger reminds us of: A vacuum in the universe is a lot less dense than we previously thought (139 times less dense, in fact). That's significant because if the original higher estimates had been correct, the universe would have blown apart eons ago. So if certain conditions in our universe were just a little off, life would have never evolved. Just how is it that we're so fortunate? Of all possible universes, why did ours turn out like it did? In 1974, astronomer Brandon Carter tackled this quandary by introducing the anthropic principle. Carter hypothesized that anthropic coincidences are part of the universe's very structure and that chance has nothing to do with it. He proposed two variants:




Weak anthropic principle: This response to anthropic coincidence may sound like a slice of common sense. Simply put, Carter pointed out that if our universe weren't hospitable to life, then we wouldn't be here to wonder about it. As such, there's no sense in asking why. Strong anthropic principle: In this version, Carter draws on the notion of the Copernican Principle, which states that there's nothing special or privileged about Earth or humanity. He states that since we live in a universe capable of supporting life, then only life-supporting universes are possible.


Basically this is a proof for ID but the orthodox scientists have tried everything in the book to refute this and all they come up with is the Multiverses theory something they cant substantiate. en.wikipedia.org...

The OP is right, Darwin may be in trouble.
edit on 28-12-2013 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 


Thanks so much.

I'll watch that video right now. I lap all this stuff up.

Very fascinating when science meets God, lol!


+13 more 
posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Revolution9
 


Would you mind listing a few specific points to the documentary? Considering that Evolution is a natural phenomenon, and Darwin's analyses of that phenomenon (The Theory of Evolution) are two separate entities, it would seem to be a rather uneducated assumption to say that Evolution is wrong, there for god exists.

I rather not spend over an hour per video that has been posted here on old, rehashed arguments that are fundamentally flawed from when they were conceived, due exclusively to a biased view of someones personal religion.

So again I ask, could you list off a few specific arguments you found to be the most revealing to you? Also, the specific points in the video would be nice, so we don't have a misinterpretation on what the presented argument is suggesting.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 


I'll swat up on all your info, too. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Only if old school creationist theories are granted respective exhibits right beside it. If Darwinism is to be put in a museum out of old age and irrelevance, then let the old school creationist theories join it. What I'm trying to say is, if you feel it is necessary to junk Darwinism, then you have more than enough reason to junk all the other tried-and-failed theories too.
edit on 28-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost147
 


One thing the video points out that the universe is fine tuned for life
And that HAS to be by design.

Many of the known scientific facts of the universe if off by I percent would destroy life.

Its too fine tuned to be random

If you hear the examples you would be convinced



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost147
 


Really this is from a scientific perspective. I'm not joking. The people on these videos are scientists.

It is too complex really hence why I shared the video.

I am just speculating that Science may be moving on from Darwin. It was a great model while it lasted and has indeed led to opening many more doors.

I am simply stating that Darwin's Theory cannot be demonstrated on a genetic level, which it can't. I know that is upsetting to people, but I would urge just to watch one of these videos being posted to see what we are finding out these days. There are some mind blowing discoveries in physics and quantum theory, too.

edit on 28-12-2013 by Revolution9 because: typo.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost147
 


Sure that wont be an issue give me a little bit and I will highlight what I found to be some of the most compelling arguments made, it is condusive to utilize both sides of the story. If you wouldn't mind will you also present what points he made in this video to be the most bunk and why? I know the video is quite long and I am not challenging you to a pissing competition but it would be nice for a change and actually have something tangible as far as substance for a talking point or at least a place to start. I will return with a synopsis and IMO most compelling arguments in awhile so if not and edit to this post it will be one in reply to you. Thanks for encouraging a civil discussion!! Star4u brother

For some reason I thought that the last post you made was addressed to me I must've mis read that
edit on 28-12-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Revolution9
 


If you believe that we evolved from apes, then you believe in the tooth fairy. If you believe that some guy in a book did it, then you believe in the Easter Bunny.

What's left, well ask Zackaria Sitchin, Lloyd Pye (now gone), Jim Marrs, Dr. Joseph P. Farrell, Bruce Rux,
Robert Bouval, Graham Hancock, John Anthony West, Schwaller de Lubicz, Hermes Trismegistus.

We've been hoodwicked and rely on a good dosage of snake oil, the defence rests it's case.


+5 more 
posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   

DNA related science that reveals no source of new genetic material ever being evidenced in species' genetic structure.


Well your video is wrong right there. We have seen a number a mutations that add "information" into DNA. For example insertion and duplication. If we've never seen genetic material added to DNA please explain Down's syndrome.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 


Fine tuned for life? The vast majority of the universe is a vaccuum. The harshest of environments.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


How did self replicating RNA transform into an organism by means of mutation into dna and turned into a creature that crawled out of some spooky primordial ooze into a symbiotic environment condusive to life? And then how did this original species turn into many species in the same environment that allowed it to live as is without predators as it would have been one original in the way way beginning (I will even leave plants out of this even though I understand it is fundamentally wrong to do so) or is it that the original species crawled out of this ooze different within the same environment for some reason with the inherent will to eat each other for no reason?



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Willtell
reply to post by Ghost147
 


One thing the video points out that the universe is fine tuned for life
And that HAS to be by design.

Many of the known scientific facts of the universe if off by I percent would destroy life.

Its too fine tuned to be random


The fundamental flaw with this argument is that it applies to life as we know it, not life in general. In fact, we don't necessarily know what specific elements and/or energies (light, for example) is required for life in general.

Only a few years ago did we think that organic life must have sunlight to survive. It was suggested that even the ocean barring creatures which have no light at all, thrived from the corpses and food chain of life that were involved in light. Therefore, they also gained it's nutrition through others.

That is, until we discovered an area in which there was no light at all, nor any way to feast upon others that had in some way been affiliated with it. Instead, they thrived from thermal vents in the deep oceans, and life thrived around this, despite there being no way to gain sustenance from light.

This, among many other cases, is why our idea of life and what it really needs to survive is not a finite definition, but merely what we can currently study. This is also why no scientific theory, hypothesis or even law is definitive, for we do not have access to any other forms of nature excluding what we can study here on earth, or view from earth.

One could also argue why life is an apparent rarity in the cosmos, if it is indeed fine-tuned for it.

Lastly, as should be obvious, why would a god - who is all powerful - need to wait for billions of years to create life on this planet? Ironically, the Anthropic Principle is actually an argument against an all powerful deity. Why would he/she/it not be able to create life in a universe which doesn't sustain it, yet sustain it himself/herself/itself? It would actually prove a higher power, if the latter was the case.

I have my strong suspicions that both of these films are indeed rehashing arguments that have been proven - time and time again - to be fundamentally flawed at its conception. If this is the pinnacle of the arguments, I'm not very impressed.


Willtell
reply to post by Ghost147
 
If you hear the examples you would be convinced


I would be glad to hear more, if you're willing to share.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Oh, I don't know, genetics might have a little bit to do with evolutionary theory ... this comes out of my primer biology textbook from my long-ago college days:

"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)." DJ Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, 1986; p.12



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Revolution9
reply to post by Ghost147
 


Really this is from a scientific perspective. I'm not joking. The people on these videos are scientists.

It is too complex really hence why I shared the video.


I would be more compelled to view the video if I didn't highly suspect that it contained, otherwise, bogus material. That's why I'm asking for someone who has viewed it to point out a few specific arguments. If they are compelling enough, I will be more inclined to view the full video.


Revolution9
reply to post by Ghost147
 
I am simply stating that Darwin's Theory cannot be demonstrated on a genetic level, which it can't.


Also, The Theory Of Evolution only deals with genetic levels. Genetics is what the entire theory is based on, and why it thrives
edit on 28/12/13 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Ghost147

Revolution9
reply to post by Ghost147
 


Really this is from a scientific perspective. I'm not joking. The people on these videos are scientists.

It is too complex really hence why I shared the video.


I would be more compelled to view the video if I didn't highly suspect that it contained, otherwise, bogus material. That's why I'm asking for someone who has viewed it to point out a few specific arguments. If they are compelling enough, I will be more inclined to view the full video.

Also, The Theory Of Evolution only deals with genetic levels. Genetics is what the entire theory is based on.
edit on 28/12/13 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



This should garner a fair enough comment, if no one else gives you one, I just did!



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
[in response to your latest post] I believe this is what you were referring to as your argument? Just clarifying.


Brotherman
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


How did self replicating RNA transform into an organism by means of mutation into dna and turned into a creature that crawled out of some spooky primordial ooze into a symbiotic environment condusive to life?



You're defining Abiogenesis, which is not Evolution. Evolution only deals with what occurs to life once it already exists. Abiogenesis is how life is created, and there is no universally accepted explanation for this currently.




Brotherman
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


And then how did this original species turn into many species in the same environment that allowed it to live as is without predators as it would have been one original in the way way beginning (I will even leave plants out of this even though I understand it is fundamentally wrong to do so) or is it that the original species crawled out of this ooze different within the same environment for some reason with the inherent will to eat each other for no reason?


This is still Abiogenesis, to a degree. However, there is never just a "one", that suddenly appears and everything grows from it. The most likely case was that a number of intensely basic organic materials began to grow at once, thus leading to the competition you're referring to.

Once again, however, this is still not Evolution, but Abiogenesis.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Revolution9
 


Thank you for the video. I was actually reading a book about this very topic.





new topics

top topics


active topics

 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join