To those who don't accept evolution, but do accept the scientific method...

Another_Nut
so you admit now " it doesn't mean a damned thing until it actually happens." meaning once it does it will no longer be a hypothetical and id will be fact and everything ive said will be true

that scare you , maybe , just a little lol

and who said anything about machines (unless u ment them in the biological sense, as all creatures are machines,which im sure you did lol) im taking about life. not some ipad.

in closing

stop avoiding , get with the facts , or just go

lol

edit on 17-11-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

So that was the really long winded version of "No, I don't actually have any evidence of ID created life". ID is an explanation proposed by creationists I.e. conservative Christians so get off your high horse. When you appropriate the terminology you have to expect to get lumped in, especially when asked for clarification if what you think the intelligent designer is. I'll be happy to get with the facts once you provide any.

reply to post by addygrace

I hear all the time that there can be order in small parts of a chaotic system. But how and why? What examples do we have of this ever occurring outside life? Here's what we see; a universe or multiverse ruled by the second law of thermodynamics. Inside this multiverse we have an extreme case of order, called life. Why do we assume the chaos of the universe allows for life, randomly?

It doesn't require life, it just requires additional energy. If you're looking for an example that occurs naturally, look at the spontaneous generation of micelles from surfactants in solution.

Artlogic

first what does intelligence or design have to do with a diety?

humans think and design all the time.

if we create life is that not intelligent design and creation (no deity needed ty)

get off your anti-god kick and lets discuss this

edit on 17-11-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

I see you still didn't follow, ID is a creationist concoction, god is implied.
Recreating a natural process is not design.
Life simply has to have been a natural occurance, there is no other way it could occur....
The nonsense that is ID is entirely dependent on "god did it/magic", if not, who pray tell (Lolz) are the designers, and who in turn designed the designers? So on and so forth....
Any other questions you have were addressed in my first reply, you should probably read it again (and the links)....

ahh infinite regression the last bastion of thr doomed.

lets take a closer look at itshall we.

who created my creator? who created his? so on and so forth.

well lets say humans create a new life form shall we?

si now we have created a new lifeform. we made it smart.

and we send him and 3 others of his kind to a planet

where they reproduce.

after 50 generations and a loss of their beginings one of these lifeforms says to another

"i dony believe our history.that we werr created on) another planet and sent here is silly. if we had a creator who created him?"

now that might sound likr a smart arguement to the others. he may even get people to believe him

but that in no way makes him anyless creation of human design

now if you went to that 50th gen lifeform and proved that he was a creation does that automaticlly imply ((according to infinite regression logic, that humans have a creator?

Another_Nut

Artlogic

first what does intelligence or design have to do with a diety?

humans think and design all the time.

if we create life is that not intelligent design and creation (no deity needed ty)

get off your anti-god kick and lets discuss this

edit on 17-11-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

I see you still didn't follow, ID is a creationist concoction, god is implied.
Recreating a natural process is not design.
Life simply has to have been a natural occurance, there is no other way it could occur....
The nonsense that is ID is entirely dependent on "god did it/magic", if not, who pray tell (Lolz) are the designers, and who in turn designed the designers? So on and so forth....
Any other questions you have were addressed in my first reply, you should probably read it again (and the links)....

ahh infinite regression the last bastion of thr doomed.

lets take a closer look at itshall we.

who created my creator? who created his? so on and so forth.

well lets say humans create a new life form shall we?

si now we have created a new lifeform. we made it smart.

and we send him and 3 others of his kind to a planet

where they reproduce.

after 50 generations and a loss of their beginings one of these lifeforms says to another

"i dony believe our history.that we werr created on) another planet and sent here is silly. if we had a creator who created him?"

now that might sound likr a smart arguement to the others. he may even get people to believe him

but that in no way makes him anyless creation of human design

now if you went to that 50th gen lifeform and proved that he was a creation does that automaticlly imply ((according to infinite regression logic, that humans have a creator?

I like this bit lol! --"i dony believe our history.that we werr created on) another planet and sent here is silly. if we had a creator who created him?"
Spelling aside (yikes!) that would be a smart clone
Do you really think you are providing anything new there?
No matter how you try to dodge it, the question still remains....
The first cause of life has to be a natural occurrence, or there would not be anything or anyone to do any "re-creating"....

You are an interesting one, believes in ID without a designer.

Again I ask, who or what is it that you claim created life, not only here on earth but throughout the universe, which any logical person would surely agree is teeming with the stuff....

I await your revealing response,
Kind regards,
Artlogic.

Artlogic

Another_Nut

Artlogic

first what does intelligence or design have to do with a diety?

humans think and design all the time.

if we create life is that not intelligent design and creation (no deity needed ty)

get off your anti-god kick and lets discuss this

edit on 17-11-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

I see you still didn't follow, ID is a creationist concoction, god is implied.
Recreating a natural process is not design.
Life simply has to have been a natural occurance, there is no other way it could occur....
The nonsense that is ID is entirely dependent on "god did it/magic", if not, who pray tell (Lolz) are the designers, and who in turn designed the designers? So on and so forth....
Any other questions you have were addressed in my first reply, you should probably read it again (and the links)....

ahh infinite regression the last bastion of thr doomed.

lets take a closer look at itshall we.

who created my creator? who created his? so on and so forth.

well lets say humans create a new life form shall we?

si now we have created a new lifeform. we made it smart.

and we send him and 3 others of his kind to a planet

where they reproduce.

after 50 generations and a loss of their beginings one of these lifeforms says to another

"i dony believe our history.that we werr created on) another planet and sent here is silly. if we had a creator who created him?"

now that might sound likr a smart arguement to the others. he may even get people to believe him

but that in no way makes him anyless creation of human design

now if you went to that 50th gen lifeform and proved that he was a creation does that automaticlly imply ((according to infinite regression logic, that humans have a creator?

I like this bit lol! --"i dony believe our history.that we werr created on) another planet and sent here is silly. if we had a creator who created him?"
Spelling aside (yikes!) that would be a smart clone

Do you really think you are providing anything new there?
No matter how you try to dodge it, the question still remains....
The first cause of life has to be a natural occurrence, or there would not be anything or anyone to do any "re-creating"....

You are an interesting one, believes in ID without a designer.

Again I ask, who or what is it that you claim created life, not only here on earth but throughout the universe, which any logical person would surely agree is teeming with the stuff....

I await your revealing response,
Kind regards,
Artlogic.

im working on that . i was hoping for some interesting responses and dialogue but hey its ats.

i think consciousness (intelligence) is a part of the cosmos as something akin to dark energy.

it can touch upun our universe but cannot fully interact .

who knows what its motivations or limits are

my idea goes something like tiins

first intellegence forms. this is singularity and the big bang

first inflation can be seen as the first wave colllapse

pause as it contemplates its own existance where upon it splits creating two seperate intellegences

this combining of wave collapses creates second inflation'

ending with the formation of the universe

ex[;ain more if interested but gtg for a min

MarsIsRed
I would like to ask a question of those who, for whatever reason, do not accept evolution as a valid explanation for the diversity of life today. If you use...

televisions, microwaves, computers, cars, medications, electricity, gas, health care, refrigerators, mobile phones, dentists, cameras, synthetic clothing etc (the list is far to long to continue)

...it suggests that you accept the scientific method.

My question... which part of the application of the scientific method to explain the diversity of life do you disagree with.

(please don't use the 2nd law of thermodynamics - here's why (go to 43m38s, and watch for 5 minutes

most inventions that you mention here do not come directly from science... they come from a long method of trial and error. And most of them can be claimed as discoveries and invention...

the scientific method taken from the blackboard to experiment say like Newton using a prism to show that white light contained the entire spectrum is a way of providing truth or fact to his idea.

evolution is supposed to be a fact which already exists like light exists... show me please.

I think evolution is just function of nature, things dies and becomes part of something else but i dont believe humans came from monkeys theories.. Also "to ennoy ppl" i will say that i believe history is clouded with lies and secrecy, its obvius even these days and as far we can study the history, lies, lies and more lies, can believe what ever we want to but truth might be totally different thingy we can even imaginate atm.

romilo
I think evolution is just function of nature, things dies and becomes part of something else but i dont believe humans came from monkeys theories.. Also "to ennoy ppl" i will say that i believe history is clouded with lies and secrecy, its obvius even these days and as far we can study the history, lies, lies and more lies, can believe what ever we want to but truth might be totally different thingy we can even imaginate atm.

the body is possibly bound here by gravity, but I don't believe the soul is bound.

your body may get recycled on carousel like in Logan's Run, but your essence I don't believe does... on this plant anyway.

reply to Another_Nut

Fascinating concept, although for me I feel matter is required for consciousness, as perception itself implies. perhaps one day we will have a better understanding of the great and secret show....at least thou art thinking for ones self and outside the box, that in itself is to be commended.
The world has enough sheeple already.
Good luck

reply to post by Artlogic


we will know when it is time I think?

countless NDE's dating back to the 4th century BC leave this great mystery to be pondered... and they can not be dismissed...


"According to the 2013 PLOS ONE article by Thonnard et al., "near-death experiences cannot be considered as imagined event memories. On the contrary, their physiological origins could lead them to be really perceived although not lived in the reality."

en.wikipedia.org...

Please also consider these points.

Processes that takes place in the physical world, such as large scale processes that take place when planets and solar systems forms or lesser scale processes that takes place when oil or soil forms are real evolution.

The architecture of all kind of organic life forms are fixed and determined by rules in their genes. It’s not possible to change or override those rules by natural means, that’s why animals and human beings will look exactly the same forever.

It’s really that simple. Everybody knows this. The basics of the evolution theory was however made before real knowledge about the human genome was known, so the entire theory has eventually backfired. So why is mainstream science still clinging to it? I think everybody knows the answer to this too.

Somewhere in the brain there is a control block which basically describes the physical bodies of all life forms. If you for instance were to lose an arm, the brain will still ‘know’ about it. That’s why many people who loses some of their limbs still can feel phantom pain in those lost limbs. It’s because the control block in the brain that describes our body still contain information about the limb and when some systems tries to access the lost limb, it causes pain. It’s not possible to alter these control blocks , because they are part of the brains operating system and thus those control blocks can only be read , not altered.

By adding this last information , I only want to illustrate how tightly the brain and it’s body are connected. Any changes in such a complex systems would have fatal consequences, even if they happen real slow.

helius
Please also consider these points.

Processes that takes place in the physical world, such as large scale processes that take place when planets and solar systems forms or lesser scale processes that takes place when oil or soil forms are real evolution.

The architecture of all kind of organic life forms are fixed and determined by rules in their genes. It’s not possible to change or override those rules by natural means, that’s why animals and human beings will look exactly the same forever.

It’s really that simple. Everybody knows this. The basics of the evolution theory was however made before real knowledge about the human genome was known, so the entire theory has eventually backfired. So why is mainstream science still clinging to it? I think everybody knows the answer to this too.

Somewhere in the brain there is a control block which basically describes the physical bodies of all life forms. If you for instance were to lose an arm, the brain will still ‘know’ about it. That’s why many people who loses some of their limbs still can feel phantom pain in those lost limbs. It’s because the control block in the brain that describes our body still contain information about the limb and when some systems tries to access the lost limb, it causes pain. It’s not possible to alter these control blocks , because they are part of the brains operating system and thus those control blocks can only be read , not altered.

By adding this last information , I only want to illustrate how tightly the brain and it’s body are connected. Any changes in such a complex systems would have fatal consequences, even if they happen real slow.

edit on 18-11-2013 by helius because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-11-2013 by helius because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-11-2013 by helius because: (no reason given)

I'm not sure where you may have learned such a thing outside of conservapedia, but I'm 100% certain that that is grotesquely inaccurate.

reply to post by Artlogic


Off course you are 100% sure.

Suppose evolution caused people to grow two more arms on their shoulders or a third eye in their forehead. In order for the brain to use those new ‘devices’ several genes have to be updated or even some added. This updates the operating system , allowing the system to operate the new ‘devices’. But in every operating systems (which the brain is) , it needs additional information. Suppose you plug in a new device in your usb port on your pc. The operating system won’t be able to use this new device , unless you give the operating system some information and rules about the thing you just plugged in. It’ called a driver, but in other system it’s called a configuration table. Every time something is connected to the system, the configuration table have to be updated . The system needs information about the new arms or the third eye. It needs to know the details. For instance how many fingers there are on each arms and so forth.
The absolutely insanity by the evolution theory is that some people seems to believe that any organic life form can change to anything almost by mere coincident. That’s not how it works in real life. We are talking about some mega-complex systems that only can operate after strict rules and carefully planning.

reply to post by MarsIsRed


To anybody who doesn't believe in evolution, two words for you knuckle draggin' mouth breathers. Antibiotic Resistance. That is evolution. Incremental changes and responses to a dynamic environment. Those changes that work get kept and survive.

helius
reply to post by Artlogic

 

Off course you are 100% sure.

Suppose evolution caused people to grow two more arms on their shoulders or a third eye in their forehead. In order for the brain to use those new ‘devices’ several genes have to be updated or even some added. This updates the operating system , allowing the system to operate the new ‘devices’. But in every operating systems (which the brain is) , it needs additional information. Suppose you plug in a new device in your usb port on your pc. The operating system won’t be able to use this new device , unless you give the operating system some information and rules about the thing you just plugged in. It’ called a driver, but in other system it’s called a configuration table. Every time something is connected to the system, the configuration table have to be updated . The system needs information about the new arms or the third eye. It needs to know the details. For instance how many fingers there are on each arms and so forth.
The absolutely insanity by the evolution theory is that some people seems to believe that any organic life form can change to anything almost by mere coincident. That’s not how it works in real life. We are talking about some mega-complex systems that only can operate after strict rules and carefully planning.

Erm....I don't think you have quite grasped the concept yet. Natural selection as a whole is not something you have looked into is it?
The time scales/life cycles involved also seems to have passed you by....
Since evolution isn't real in your universe, you may want to look into getting a medical bracelet that states clearly that you only want to be treated with old drugs, no need for the new stuff, because virus's and bacteria can't evolve....

Good luck

I weep for the state of the education system....

Artlogic

helius
reply to post by Artlogic

 

Off course you are 100% sure.

Suppose evolution caused people to grow two more arms on their shoulders or a third eye in their forehead. In order for the brain to use those new ‘devices’ several genes have to be updated or even some added. This updates the operating system , allowing the system to operate the new ‘devices’. But in every operating systems (which the brain is) , it needs additional information. Suppose you plug in a new device in your usb port on your pc. The operating system won’t be able to use this new device , unless you give the operating system some information and rules about the thing you just plugged in. It’ called a driver, but in other system it’s called a configuration table. Every time something is connected to the system, the configuration table have to be updated . The system needs information about the new arms or the third eye. It needs to know the details. For instance how many fingers there are on each arms and so forth.
The absolutely insanity by the evolution theory is that some people seems to believe that any organic life form can change to anything almost by mere coincident. That’s not how it works in real life. We are talking about some mega-complex systems that only can operate after strict rules and carefully planning.

Erm....I don't think you have quite grasped the concept yet. Natural selection as a whole is not something you have looked into is it?
The time scales/life cycles involved also seems to have passed you by....
Since evolution isn't real in your universe, you may want to look into getting a medical bracelet that states clearly that you only want to be treated with old drugs, no need for the new stuff, because virus's and bacteria can't evolve....

Good luck

I weep for the state of the education system....

i weep for the same past amd prrsent.

the past taught conformity

the prrsent teaches thr same

but if yiu dont see the anaogly between simple programing terms and the underpinnings of dna

ir a factory and a cell.

and hoe we cant yet duplicate either the u see how hard it is for me to believe you know much about either

sounds like his education and understanding are far beyond yiur own

helius
reply to post by Artlogic

 

Suppose evolution caused people to grow two more arms on their shoulders or a third eye in their forehead.

Evolution wouldn't cause that. Evolution simply promotes change. If a colony of organisms evolve in a changing environment, those that have beneficial adaptations will, on average, do better than those that have no adaptations. It's that simple.

MarsIsRed

charles1952
Are you saying that mankind has invented a vast array of different products by using his mind, therefore, the vast array of life forms on earth is explained by a form of evolution?

No, of course not!

Perhaps you misunderstand differing opinions to your own.

Evolution is simple, beautiful and great.

PS - to Charles1952:

I wrote that tongue in cheek. But, in true internet fashion, it came across as extremely rude. I apologise.

MarsIsRed

helius
reply to post by Artlogic

 

Suppose evolution caused people to grow two more arms on their shoulders or a third eye in their forehead.

Evolution wouldn't cause that. Evolution simply promotes change. If a colony of organisms evolve in a changing environment, those that have beneficial adaptations will, on average, do better than those that have no adaptations. It's that simple.

tripe

evolution (selective random mutation) has caused those things.

and those people were fails and died out like all mutants do

adaptation is not mutation nor does it change one species into another

mutatons die.

please shoe me a sucessful mutant from any species