100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Evidence for a Designer... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Yes, that is exactly the key here - "relevance". It must be relevant to someone or it is a meaningless fact in a vacuum. It is the relevance itself that gives it meaning. In fact, you could say that the relevance is the meaning. Only if you change the meanings of the terms. One could say anything. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But the year 3000 people won't even remmeber what religion was. Thank 'God'.  Does that mean intelligent design goes away too? Not at all. By then we will be Gods. We will be designing all kinds of creature, humans, and worlds. We are the designers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G,nite you-ins...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But the year 3000 people won't even remmeber what religion was. Thank 'God'. Does that mean intelligent design goes away too? Not at all. By then we will be Gods. We will be designing all kinds of creature, humans, and worlds. We are the designers. So does that mean that intelligent design goes away too? Your answer didn't answer that question at all. We may have blown ourselves up by then and be living like we did a few hundred years ago. We may have finally torn the environment up so bad we need to live at the bottom of the ocean. Etc.... We could always consider ourselves gods with the definition you have given or implied. Influencing our environment and ourselves with technology and progress. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G,nite you-ins... Night Creative, I am off too. Nite everyone,. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see what you're saying. I'm not thinkning that far "advanced". It sounds like your looking that the Human DNA and asking, where does the program start in a fertlized egg. Actually I don't think even that is known in detail. But that's not what I'm refering to. That's way too far 'down the road' of evolution. What the Human Genome Project is claiming is that the Human Genome contains all the DNA sequences that ever were, right back to the very first primordial cell. That's what they believe. It never quit. It's started and kept self-programming and it still contains all the information from day one. That's what they are implying. So what I'm looking at it not really the 'human' DNA sequence, but that very first DNA sequence that all life on Earth shares. What I'm looking to answer is, "What was the very first DNA sequence that got it all started?" I'm going clear back to the very first primordial 'cell'. I'm asking, "What was the very bare minimum of DNA sequence that was required to get life started, in general". The Human Genome Project holds that all life on Earth shares about 25% of their DNA in common. So the boot-up sequence that I'm talking about would definitely be within that 25% of DNA that is common to all life on Earth. The actual sequence that I'm interested in may no longer even be used. It may have gone unused for billions of year. Still it would just get carried along anyway because it's like data on the hard drive. It's sticks around whether it's being used or not. In fact, the people who don't believe in evolution via fossil records are going to be in for a real eye-opener! When the Human Genome Project really gets underway they are going to be able to show precisely how everything evolved and precisely what it evolved from and where it took off from each line, etc. There was a gentleman that posted in this very thread who still doesn't believe in macroevolution. But that's not going to be an option when the Human Genome Project is finished. They are going to be able to say precisely what animals we evolved from in detail. It's going to be an exciting time! In fact, I don't know what you are studying for, but if you could get in on that Human Genome Project I think you would love it. That's going to be the most exciting field of research in this millenium. At least for next few decades anyway. Unless of course, the LHC collider comes up with something to top it. But keep your eyes peeled, because it won't be long before the Human Genome Project has so much to say about evolution that old fossilized bones won't even be needed anymore. Our DNA contains our entire evolutionary history in precise digital detail. Give them a few more decades, a century at the most, and they will have a complete in-depth picture of precisely how we evolved including every single animal species in the entire line that lead up to us. (even including extinct species that we might not even have fossil for). In fact, in theory they could actually bring back any one of those animals by simply truncating the DNA at a certain point and turning the required genes on and off. I'll bet they will do it too! They'll start small with things like rodent, and then work up with more monkey-like animals, but where will they stop? They already have the ability to bring back the Neanderthal if they wanted to! Or our early form of Cro magnon. It's amazing. In fact, they could potentially bring back a lot of extinct species this way. Genetic engineering is going to become such a hot topic in this millennium that people are going to completely forget about any religions. But the year 3000 people won't even remmeber what religion was. Oh, I do believe macroevolution is/was possible, I just haven't seen physical evidence yet. I am analytical by nature, I desire to know how everything works. That doesn't change the fact that the "Big Bang" (which I do not refute) wasn't intentional. I still think we (earth, universe, life) was created by inteligence, not by chaos. So why do I believe the Bible? Aside from the lack of evidence that we evolved from apes, so many of life's unknowns are explained in it. There has been too many coincidences that lead me to believe it is truthful (evidence to support it too). Too many ancient documents not from the Bible that support the stories. So where does that leave me? Even though the Bible states that mankind cannot understand the true nature of God, let alone look upon His face, I still want to try. What if "God" is energy, (light, radiation, magnetic). If that be the case, binary code it is... But I still think there has to be inteligence... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that is exactly the key here - "relevance". It must be relevant to someone or it is a meaningless fact in a vacuum. It is the relevance itself that gives it meaning. In fact, you could say that the relevance is the meaning. Only if you change the meanings of the terms. One could say anything. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Pan wrote: So why do I believe the Bible? Aside from the lack of evidence that we evolved from apes, so many of life's unknowns are explained in it. There has been too many coincidences that lead me to believe it is truthful (evidence to support it too). Too many ancient documents not from the Bible that support the stories. I don't even need to reference science to see that the Bible is false. You say that so many of life's unknowns are explained in the Bible. Could you share a few? I've been all through that book and I never seen anything useful in it that was even remotely unique from any other source. If you're speaking about the Christain Bible that includes the New Testament with Jesus, all I can say about that is that Jesus didn't even agree with Yahweh. I don't how anyone could believe that he was his son. He was crucified for blaspheme precisely as Yahweh had commanded his followers to murder such heathens. Of course, if you're sticking only to the Old Testament or Torah, then at least you avoid that contradiction. But I have tons of problems even with that. It's just looks like Zeus on LSD to me. Even Zeus wasn't as jealous and as male-chuavinistic as Yahweh. Although I guess they were both appeased by blood sacrifices. I have a hard time taking any mythologies seriously that have their gods being appeased by blood sacrifices. Like wux was saying earlier, if we're going to consider an Intelligent Designer let's try to stay focused on the "Intelligent" part. Whatever being created this universe is already in deep **** with wux. No need to have the "Intelligent Designer" lusting for blood sacrifices, asking people to stone their unruly children to death, or being obsessed with desire to become the King of Kings and Lord of Lords to rule over a bunch of pathetic humans who supposedly can't even keep from sinning unless he gives them the strength to refrain from it. With all due respect, if the creator of this universe is like the Bible describes, I'd be so disappointed, I'd rather atheism was true. We'd be better off with no god at all that to have a glorified Hilter as a God. Picking and choosing only a very few people to serve him and casting the rest into a fiery furnace? Wasn't one Hitler enough?  I don't think we need any gods like that, thank you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JaneStar1
on
Mon 11/02/09 11:41 PM
|
|
Most/all of the evidence we have is purely circumstantial. There really isn't a 100% proof. And, since the same discussion is being conducted for over 2000 years, the truth will never be derived logically. It seems we're gonna have to wait until somebody invents a time machine -- putting all arguments to rest.
The human mind is naturally ovewhelmed with the sheer beauty of the universe -- that's really beyond of our comprehension "How could such a harmony have evolved by itself, i.e. without any "blue-print" (e.g. design)???" Yet, it seems very perplexing that the designer had chosen to remain annonimous for all that time! After all, gods are known to dispense both rewards & panishment... But on the global scale (or rather a cosmic scale) there hasn't been any major Global scale catastrophy (i.e. collision with the stellar objects, invasion of aliens, etc.) in over 2 thousand years (except of the Tunguska meteor which exploded above the Siberia forest in 1905)... It might be hypothesized the effect of that meteor has split the global society into two camps -- when Russia's exploded with the social unrest -- 1. 1905 (peaceful), 2. 1917 (revolution)! Although such a political split has only resulted in further competition and, consequently, in rapid progress! Yet, the real progress began only 24 years after the World War I ended in 1921 and WWII was comming to the end in 1945 -- when the German scientists working at the US labs created an A-bomb -- and the subsequent arms race with the soviets began (eventually transforming into the space race...) Its quite possible the aliens might already be here! (when in 1969 R. Nixon was shown a corpse of an alien, he's ordered it to be hidden and never be shown to anybody!) *** However, as long as they do not directly affect our well being, it is unreasonable suspecting them of a sininster agenda! As to the question of the designer, we might soon find out!  But, frankly, WHO CARES??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But the year 3000 people won't even remmeber what religion was. Thank 'God'. Does that mean intelligent design goes away too? Not at all. By then we will be Gods. We will be designing all kinds of creature, humans, and worlds. We are the designers. So does that mean that intelligent design goes away too? Your answer didn't answer that question at all. We may have blown ourselves up by then and be living like we did a few hundred years ago. We may have finally torn the environment up so bad we need to live at the bottom of the ocean. Etc.... We could always consider ourselves gods with the definition you have given or implied. Influencing our environment and ourselves with technology and progress. Read it again. I said "Not at all." But you are thinking too small. Who says we (mankind) will still be living only on the earth? Mankind could be all over the universe and in many stages of development, even primitive. We may have discovered doors to other dimensions, or migrated to other planets or ascended to a different density. The problem with trying to discuss these possibilities with materialists atheists is that they don't think beyond the earth or beyond third dimensional reality. This is a multi-dimensional universe. We probably would not consider ourselves "Gods" but we might realize that there are no "Gods" only designers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wrong. Your statement requires the evidence to be "sufficient." Someone has to decide and or agree what "sufficient" is. It is not proof until it meets the idea of "sufficient evidence" and that is decided by agreement. So the judge or jury decide and agree that the evidence is sufficient, and the call it "proof.'" It is an agreement. no no no no no. nearly four billion people in the world agree that god is fact; twice the number that disagree. and yet god is not proven. In your opinion. God is not proven in your opinion. I have spoken to many born again Christians to whom God is proven. Therefore God is only not proven according to some people. correct. in science god is not proven. god is only proven to the delusional. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All of the unexplained things in this world.
All the sweet nothings. All the happy accidents. All the similarities. All the uniqeness. Can you truly say this was all an accident? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All of the unexplained things in this world. All the sweet nothings. All the happy accidents. All the similarities. All the uniqeness. Can you truly say this was all an accident? can only say that there is no evidence of a design or designer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wrong. Your statement requires the evidence to be "sufficient." Someone has to decide and or agree what "sufficient" is. It is not proof until it meets the idea of "sufficient evidence" and that is decided by agreement. So the judge or jury decide and agree that the evidence is sufficient, and the call it "proof.'" It is an agreement. no no no no no. nearly four billion people in the world agree that god is fact; twice the number that disagree. and yet god is not proven. In your opinion. God is not proven in your opinion. I have spoken to many born again Christians to whom God is proven. Therefore God is only not proven according to some people. correct. in science god is not proven. god is only proven to the delusional. That would be an insult to most people who believe in God. Perhaps we are all 'delusional" and Science is simply an observation of that manifested delusion. What makes you think your delusion of reality has any more significance than anyone else's? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 11/03/09 07:28 AM
|
|
All of the unexplained things in this world. All the sweet nothings. All the happy accidents. All the similarities. All the uniqeness. Can you truly say this was all an accident? can only say that there is no evidence of a design or designer. You can say that until the cows come home but it does not change the fact that I have shown evidence of intelligent designs and intelligent designers in this thread. I have proven that we are the designers. I have given examples of the science we are currently engaged in and where it is inevitably going to lead. And yet you can state that there is "no evidence of a designer." I can also state that you do not exist. That does not make it so. I would like you to tell me then why the evidence I presented and explained is "not evidence" of a designer to you. I would also like to ask you where you think our current science is headed with their genetic engineering and cloning, DNA mapping, particle smashing, etc. How far will they go? I believe it is obvious that they will re-design the human race, seed new worlds, and eventually unlock the secret of the fabric of this universe and be able to create new life and new galaxies. If that is not design I don't know what is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can say that until the cows come home but it does not change the fact that I have shown evidence of intelligent designs and intelligent designers in this thread. I have proven that we are the designers. I have given examples of the science we are currently engaged in and where it is inevitably going to lead. And yet you can state that there is "no evidence of a designer." you've not shown me one speck of evidence that i find credible or convincing. but we've been through that already. I can also state that you do not exist. That does not make it so. not in the least. but i never stated that a designer does not exist. i simply said that i've seen no credible evidence that convinces me that one exists. i never said you are wrong bean. i'm simply not convinced that you are right and that there indeed is a designer or a design. i've nothing to prove. as an agnostic i cannot know of such things as gods or deities or "intelligent designers" or whatever such supreme beings are being referred to. you say there is a designer, not i, so you inherit the burdon of proving what you say, not me. you haven't done that in my view. just as i don't buy into the "evidence" that christians believe the bible to be i don't buy into what you call evidence. i see what you call evidence as nothing but conjecture. you disagree. so we understand each other's position. you think a designer exists. if find that to be highly implausible. I would like you to tell me then why the evidence I presented and explained is "not evidence" of a designer to you. we've been through this before as well. so here it is again. evidence to me, and science, is evidence that can be tested repeatedly which shows consistent and predictable results. evidence is not to me conjecture such as, "just look around you" or other such notions as to how wonderful and majical the universe is. I would also like to ask you where you think our current science is headed with their genetic engineering and cloning, DNA mapping, particle smashing, etc. How far will they go? no way to tell. science has learned more in the last ten years than it's learned in the previous time since man began to reason. we'll likely learn more in the next two years than we learned in the last ten. as our tools and techniques develope we ask questions we did not even know to ask fifty years ago. quantum theory is the perfect example. it's not unlike an entirely new language that we've only spoken for a few decades. questions that can only be asked in that language. where will it go? who knows but we can be sure we'll never get all the way there. indeed the more we learn the more we realize how little we actually know. I believe it is obvious that they will re-design the human race, seed new worlds, and eventually unlock the secret of the fabric of this universe and be able to create new life and new galaxies. highly implausible in my view. If that is not design I don't know what is. well when we begin creating new galaxies i'll take another look at the issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like you to tell me then why the evidence I presented and explained is "not evidence" of a designer to you. For the same reason is it not evidence of a pink and black elephantic smooge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 11/03/09 08:30 AM
|
|
I guess that you just don't understand that when I point to our current technology and advances in science and biological engineering I am pointing to proof of intelligent design. You are STILL looking for a supreme being.
i've nothing to prove. as an agnostic i cannot know of such things as gods or deities or "intelligent designers" or whatever such supreme beings are being referred to. You just don't get what I am saying. I find it astonishing that we evolved from primates to genetic engineers in such a short time span. I envision that given time, we will certainly re-design the human race. I see this as evidence... and proof of intelligent design. I am NOT talking about God. I am talking about intelligent design. I am an atheist and I do not believe in a supreme being, deity, or single creator of the universe. It seems to me I just can't get that across to people who still think I am trying to prove the existence of a God. You can't see the difference. You say you see no designs. That is why I say you are "blind." Forget about "God" I'm not talking about a god. I am talking about intelligence, and about design. Geeeeze.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't see...
I can't see... I am blind, I am blind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess that you just don't understand that when I point to our current technology and advances in science and biological engineering I am pointing to proof of intelligent design. You are STILL looking for a supreme being. i've nothing to prove. as an agnostic i cannot know of such things as gods or deities or "intelligent designers" or whatever such supreme beings are being referred to. You just don't get what I am saying. I find it astonishing that we evolved from primates to genetic engineers in such a short time span. I envision that given time, we will certainly re-design the human race. I see this as evidence... and proof of intelligent design. I am NOT talking about God. I am talking about intelligent design. i do get what you're saying. i just ain't buying. i understand you see these things as evidence and proof of intelligent design. i happen to classify intelligent design or a designer in the same category as gods and creators. if you see it differently great. that's the way you see it. now we both know that we view the issue differently and that there is little agreement in our views. I am an atheist and I do not believe in a supreme being, deity, or single creator of the universe. It seems to me I just can't get that across to people who still think I am trying to prove the existence of a God. You can't see the difference. i see that you call a designer something other than god and i call a designer just another god. not saying you think a designer is god. just saying that i see that believing in a designer is no different than believing in god. you can say you disagree all you want, but we still disagree. You say you see no designs. That is why I say you are blind. i said i see no evidence that i find credible or convincing that suggests there is a design. and the faa would disagree with you that i am blind. just another point of disagreement i suppose. |
|
|
|
|
