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.

 

Clear evidence of Intelligent Design

page: 8
35
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: iterationzero

Can you define what you mean by "true atheists" and "hard-science materialists"? Do you mean here at ATS or in the world in general?

Atheism in general and as Faith I mean. For example:


Both ends of the spectrum are certainties. Both "faith-based" as it were. I mean pretty much the same thing with "hard-science materialists."

Where might you land on that spectrum? And it's very, very cool when a member that's been around as long as you have comments and engages.



posted on Dec, 30 2022 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: iterationzero

Can you define what you mean by "true atheists" and "hard-science materialists"? Do you mean here at ATS or in the world in general?

Atheism in general and as Faith I mean. For example:


Both ends of the spectrum are certainties. Both "faith-based" as it were. I mean pretty much the same thing with "hard-science materialists."

Where might you land on that spectrum? And it's very, very cool when a member that's been around as long as you have comments and engages.


Might there be a wee bit of space for an armchair agnostic in the room?



posted on Aug, 2 2023 @ 07:11 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 2 2023 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Taking into Account Infinite Dimension's , that's just a Drop in the Bucket . Intelligent Design Implies a Supreme Creator of All Things then . I Bet the Atheists in Our World are Pissed at that Idea.......


(post by KaraAlexander removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Aug, 27 2023 @ 08:05 PM
link   
What kind of Mind comes up with the concept of space, then generates it?

Absolute non-existence cannot exist, by example of why, it self-annihilates the instant consciousness considers it, thus making non-existence - exist. It is now an existence and is no longer pure non-existence.



posted on Sep, 20 2023 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: iterationzero

Can you define what you mean by "true atheists" and "hard-science materialists"? Do you mean here at ATS or in the world in general?

Atheism in general and as Faith I mean. For example:


Both ends of the spectrum are certainties. Both "faith-based" as it were. I mean pretty much the same thing with "hard-science materialists."

Where might you land on that spectrum? And it's very, very cool when a member that's been around as long as you have comments and engages.


I'm a staunch atheist. I hold 0 belief in gods, or the supernatural.

I'm open to the possibility such things could exist though. I don't see anything that would inherently forbid them from existing and if provided with compelling (direct) evidence of such things, I could change my mind.

I can see where people could be persuaded by direct personal experience, and sympathise with that, but this amounts to anecdotes and isn't necessarily going to persuade those who don't have such experience (nor should it IMO).

I see nothing unreasonable or irrational in that (a belief in something's "non existence", especially with 100% certainty is irrational if nothing else). For atheists I know, the lack of good evidence simply makes god an irrelevance. Unless of course they feel that religion is misrepresenting certain areas of science or they have an interest in human belief itself (these would be a very small number though).

Calling bull# on the claims of any particular religion doesn't necessitate a 100% belief that god doesn't exist. Any more than calling bull# on claims of bigfoot, aliens or fairies requires a 100% belief in their non existence. It's more a way of noting the evidence doesn't support the claims.

Atheism and agnosticism are different subjects. One pertains to belief (atheism means literally to be without belief in god). Agnosticism pertains to knowledge (agnosticism is the lack of knowledge, in this instance knowledge of god).

It became a fashionable (if disingenuous) way for certain people to remain atheists, while avoiding the "atheist" label by portraying themselves as agnostics. Especially some "celebrity scientists" whose intended audience is in large part religious believers.

Though I did hear one popular science "educator" explain that he didn't like the "atheist" label as he had no real interest in beliefs. As an educator he was more interested in (presumably scientific) "knowledge" and thus preferred the label of an "agnostic". Seems fair enough, but I would point out that to have so called "knowledge" itself requires belief (what evidences or justifies it being the difference) and having no belief in god is atheism by definition anyway. Whether someone likes the label or not.

A similar type of disingenuousness is noticed among theists who like to define atheism for atheists themselves. I'm wondering if they have a similar belief structure around their own "afairyism" (unless of course they believe in fairies). Most reasonable people realise that the lack of evidence combined with the knowledge of subjects such as folklore and human psychology makes them more likely to be mythological beings.

Agnosticism (having no knowledge of god or his existence) is inherent to atheism.

It is also not uncommon among theists.

It's possible to have a belief in god, without having any direct knowledge of god. I have actually heard ministers quite honestly proclaim this as their position, one based entirely on faith. It was also common in the ancient world where belief in god/s was common, but knowledge of the gods was considered forbidden to mortals.



posted on Sep, 22 2023 @ 04:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quintilian
...

Calling bull# on the claims of any particular religion doesn't necessitate a 100% belief that god doesn't exist. Any more than calling bull# on claims of bigfoot, aliens or fairies requires a 100% belief in their non existence. It's more a way of noting the evidence doesn't support the claims.

Do you feel that the evidence and accompanying argumentation presented in support of the existence of the God explained in the Bible, is of about equal quality and quantity as that presented for the existence of "bigfoot, aliens or fairies"? (you can scratch "aliens" from that question if you feel the situation is different for bigfoot and fairies compared to aliens)

And when I'm talking about evidence for God's existence, I'm not talking about some personal mystical experiences. I'm talking about the type of evidence presented and discussed in this playlist:

Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories

Talking about "phantom creatures" like bigfoot or fairies:

Chapter 7: “Ape-Men”—What Were They? (Life—How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?)

...

Where Are the “Links”?

However, have not scientists found the necessary “links” between apelike animals and man? Not according to the evidence. Science Digest speaks of “the lack of a missing link to explain the relatively sudden appearance of modern man.”⁠15 Newsweek observed: “The missing link between man and the apes . . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule.”⁠16

Because there are no links, “phantom creatures” have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they had really existed. That explains why the following contradiction could occur, as reported by a science magazine: “Humans evolved in gradual steps from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists contend, in sudden jumps from one form to another. . . . But other anthropologists, working with much the same data, reportedly have reached exactly the opposite conclusion.”⁠17

Thus we can better understand the observation of respected anatomist Solly Zuckerman who wrote in the Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh: “The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily to-day as they did 50 years ago and more.”⁠18 He noted that, all too often, facts were ignored, and instead, what was currently popular was championed in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Who are believing in "phantom creatures" like pink unicorns, mermaids (see the aquatic ape hypothesis), walking whales and the like again, without proper evidence?

In evolution’s chain there are so many thousands of links missing that there is no proof a chain even exists. But to limit ourselves to the links between ape and men, consider the facts on the shattered Piltdown man. In 1908 a small piece of skull was found in a gravel pit at Piltdown in Sussex County, England. In 1912 another bit of a cranium was found, and then a jawbone with three molars. Several years later an eye tooth was found in a rubbish heap. Though found at different times and in different spots, the bits were put together and Piltdown man was born. A few evolutionists argued that the pieces did not belong together, but the majority ruled and, with no proof but much dogmatism, proclaimed a missing link. Its age? Five hundred thousand years. Proof? No, just more dogmatism. Now the five hundred thousand years have dwindled to fifty thousand and some scientists have even cut it to ten thousand.

Mr. Piltdown’s antiquity is gone, his position as a link is shattered, but the dogmatism of his evolutionary sponsors remained. It remained demonstrated relative to other so-called links between ape and man.

However, there is absolutely no proof of any missing links between man and ape. Of the famous missing links evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith said: “We cannot trace modern man back to any of these extinct types.” Professor Branco of Berlin University said: “Paleontology tells us nothing on the subject—it knows no ancestors of man.” Professor Virchow declared: “The man-ape has no existence and the missing link remains a phantom.” Austin Clark of Smithsonian Institution said: “Missing links are misinterpretations.” And when their finds do not support their theory the evolutionists conceal that evidence, as evolutionist Hooton, Harvard professor of anthropology, admits: “Heretical and nonconforming fossil men were banished to the limbo of dark museum cupboards, forgotten or even destroyed.” Incidentally, when Hooton heard of the disgrace and demise of the Piltdown man he termed it “tragic.” Little wonder, since he had staunchly defended it in his writings.

But the evolutionists will continue parading their “links” and will propagandize for them with unabated dogmatism. From beginning to end, the evolution theory is supported by assertions, not evidence. Any who argue against it are not authorities, any who criticize it are not scientific; so they say to intimidate and scare off critics and jam the theory down people’s throats by the tyranny of authority. So it is not only links that are missing, but proofs and unprejudiced approaches and scientific methods that are missing. Despite hot denials, evolution is accepted on “faith” and faith alone.

Now their faith in Piltdown man is gone. Their words about him are false, their wisdom turned out to be folly. (1 Cor. 3:19)

In light of my question at the start of this comment, this video may be of some interest, they are discussing the claim that there is no evidence for God('s existence), and related or similar opinions, the definitions for "evidence" and "argument" are also quoted (could also be useful information when thinking about the subject of what qualifies as either). Of particular note is what is said concerning attitudes towards any presented evidence or accompanying argumentation, as well as the demonstration of that attitude by TJ Kirk (timeframes: 2:14 - 3:40, 7:44 - 9:00):

edit on 22-9-2023 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2023 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

As for the philosophical aspect, the question of life's meaning and purpose is indeed a profound and ongoing debate. The perspectives vary widely, with some finding meaning in different aspects of existence, and others contemplating the philosophical concept of nihilism, which suggests that life lacks inherent meaning.



posted on Oct, 11 2023 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Almighty Omnipotence can't fail at being the creator.



posted on Oct, 12 2023 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
It's clear that there's nothing "natural" about the universe. When you're stuck inside of 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time, you believe that our "material" shell is the sum of all existence.

It's like thinking the parts created the whole. The parts are just icons or interfaces designed by intelligence that are avatars for information and higher dimensions.

First off, local realism is dead and it has to be. This is because what we call subatomic "particles" aren't particles in the physical sense. They don't have an independent physical reality. They come from invisible quantum fields and also have a wave like nature. So they can't be locally real.

Death by experiment for local realism
www.nature.com...

The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It
www.scientificamerican.com...

Here's some quotes from Heisenberg and Planck about this:

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.”
― Werner Heisenberg

“[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
― Werner Heisenberg

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”
― Max Planck


Say you have a quantum pool table and you have the 8 ball and 3 ball on the table. Quantum Mechanics violates the principle of locality. This is what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance." Locality says the 8 ball has to touch the 3 ball in order to affect the 3 ball. QM says the 8 ball could be on one end of the table and the 3 ball could be at another end of the table and if I turn the 8 ball clockwise, instantly the 3 ball will turn counterclockwise. There could be one in New York and one in San Diego and the same thing will happen instantly.

It also violates the principle of realism. Einstein asked is the moon still there when I'm not looking at it. Subatomic "particles" don't have independent states that exist as measured states prior to measurement. With classical objects, you can say the table is brown even when I'm not interacting with it but with quantum systems, you could only say it's brown when it's measured and observed.

How can anything be real in the physical sense if the basic building blocks of what we call matter isn't real in the physical sense? The Bible tells us the universe doesn't have an independent existence and that the Word(Jesus) holds all things together.

Colossians 1:16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.


The Bible also tells us that things that are seen are made by things which do not appear.

Hebrews 11:3 “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

Powerful stuff!

Look at this website, the things that can be seen are the reply button or the start a new thread button. These are just pixels on the screen that allow you to easily navigate through the website. Without design, we would not even be able to understand the content of this site. So these are all very important professions. For self-development, you can read this www.jpost.com... article that can help you with employment, and will be useful even for those who are interested in such c They were made by lines of computer code from an intelligent mind that do not appear. The Bible tells us the visible comes from the invisible and isn't some independent physical reality. Look how quantum fields are described:

These INVISIBLE FIELDS sometimes act like particles, sometimes like waves. They can interact with one another. They can even, some of them, flow right through us. The theory of quantum fields is arguably the most successful scientific theory of all time. In some cases, it makes predictions that agree with experiments to an astonishing 12 decimal places.
www.quantamagazine.org...

Let's get to the piece de resistance, THE GENETIC CODE!

Myself and many others on this forum have shown that the high level of engineering in the genome didn't and couldn't come from the primordial goo. Look at this article:

Harvard stores 70 billion books using DNA
www.computerworld.com...

70 billion books in a drop of DNA! They have also encoded DVD's and PDF files into DNA. Here you have a powerful storage medium, more powerful than any supercomputer, with information encoded on its sequence and they say non-intelligence sprung forth from the primordial goo and created a storage medium that the smartest engineers on the planet haven't duplicated. It strains credulity.

Sadly, a natural interpretation of evolution has become too big to fail. It's a way for people to deny God and to deny their spiritual nature. They say they don't need God because they have evolution and that's just a lie. It's a crutch for those still stuck in 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time and they think that's the sum of all reality.

Hubert Yockey said this in his book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life.

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

The tools of information theory that we use to build modern civilization with error correcting codes and encoded information just ended up in the genome and came from the primordial goo. Who was in this goo, Nikola Tesla?

Let's look at the Genetic Code:



The A,C,G and T stands for adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T) and in RNA thymine changes to U(uracil).

What's the 1st thing you notice? If you look at the first 2 letters in each row, they are the same.

CONT'D

In fact, this is a very deep and interesting topic for discussion, and I am glad to take part in it. It's a very interesting philosophical question for me, and it may even push someone to develop professionally or inspire them to create artistic masterpieces, so I'm glad that this is being discussed here.
edit on 12-10-2023 by WalterChandler because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2023 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: tkwasny
What kind of Mind comes up with the concept of space, then generates it?

Absolute non-existence cannot exist, by example of why, it self-annihilates the instant consciousness considers it, thus making non-existence - exist. It is now an existence and is no longer pure non-existence.


Or it has always existed in perhaps another form but when we observe it then contemplate it do we not manifest and/or make it fit within our human abilities/parameters? What if our eyes only viewed existence in x-ray vision? Then existence and matter would manifest and appear quite differently.




top topics



 
35
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join