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.
Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
reply to post by B.A.C.
Carbon, considered necessary for life, is amazingly versatile.
Burning an object basically infuses it with oxygen. Oxygen and hydrogen work together regulate the pH balance of everything.
Living beings are mostly water. The difference between a puddle of slime and a living being is probably the abundance of carbohydrates, including organic matter, which use water in a variety of ways.
Minerals, like iron and magnesium, also come into play.
All of these things help conduct electrical current, which is yet another feature of living beings.
As for the original topic, the most common theory I've heard in that regard is that the "elohim" created humans using genetic engineering.
"Whenever two amino acids unite, a water molecule is released. Two molecules of water must be set free in assembling a nucleotide from its components, and additional water is released in combining nucleotides to form nucleic acids. Unfortunately, the formation of water in an environment that is full of it is the chemical equivalent of bringing sand to the Sahara. It is unfavorable, and requires the expenditure of energy. Such processes do not readily take place on their own. In fact, the reverse reactions are the ones that occur spontaneously. Water happily attacks large biological molecules. It pries nucleotides apart from each other, breaks sugar-to-phosphate bonds, and severs bases from sugars."
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Science also claims that this has nothing to do with evolution, even though Darwin himself wrote The Origin of the Species.
Science calls the study of the origin of life Abiogenesis. Which is the study of how life could have developed out of inanimate matter. Basically something from nothing.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
The scientific method is all about predictions. Not reality.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Science presents evolution as fact, not theory. Go read up on it.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
I've never been much for the elohim theory. Who created them, then?
And so forth..
[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]
Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by B.A.C.
First of all... How is this a conspiracy? A theory is not a conspiracy.
For this to be a conspiracy, every scientific mind which has studied and reviewed abiogenesis would have to be part of some sinister 'club'.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Science also claims that this has nothing to do with evolution, even though Darwin himself wrote The Origin of the Species.
Science calls the study of the origin of life Abiogenesis. Which is the study of how life could have evolved out of inanimate matter. Basically something from nothing.
Right... It has nothing to do with evolution.
Evolution occurs after abiogenesis.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
The scientific method is all about predictions. Not reality.
Nope, religion is all about predictions (and poor ones at that).
The scientific method is all about trial and error/peer review.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Science presents evolution as fact, not theory. Go read up on it.
Do you present religion as fact and not hypothesis?
What's that smell...
Hypocrisy? So that's what it smells like .
[edit on 3-3-2009 by TruthParadox]
Originally posted by Mozzy
how many times can we split the same hair? jeez people quit acting retarded.
go to school, take a biology class and count the times you hear the word evolution. it's not that big of a deal. yeah they teach it but they don't preach it. they mostly teach you about cell structure and mitosis and things like that.
it's only freaks like you people that bring up evolution as some kind of steamroller that's brainwashing you into believing that satan wants to kill your babies.
who cares about evolution? quit getting your panties in a bunch it doesn't matter.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Read this:
A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
A hypothesis consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
For something to be a conspiracy doesn't take EVERYONE to be involved. One person can and has been involved in a conspiracy.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Isn't molecules "evolving" into life a type of evolution? What's the difference between this and anything else evolving?
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Not sure where you see I'm presenting religion as fact.
Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Originally posted by B.A.C.
I've never been much for the elohim theory. Who created them, then?
And so forth..
[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]
Regardless of how they originated, they created humans
“After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past
Originally posted by Lasheic
Evolution is a fact. Even most all creationists now accept the fact that evolution happens, albeit they try to make a false distinction between "Micro" and "Macro" evolution.
OP is merely showing a brilliant lack of understanding the difference between scientific and colloquial nomenclature. In science, Evolution is a theory - which is the highest status a hypothesis can attain. To go higher, you need to enter into the realm of mathematics. A theory is a framework devised to explain facts. No explanation will EVER be called a "Fact of Science", because that implies there is nothing more to learn - and science does not operate by proving things, but by disproving.
However, in colloquial terms, evolution is a fact. Just as gravity is a fact. Just as cells are a fact. Just as atoms are facts. Yet, you will never find a "Fact of Atomics" or "Fact of Gravity", even if some scientists may say that gravity is a fact, or atoms are a fact.
15th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism 1 & 2: Evolution is a "Theory".
Insofar as Abiogenesis, defining the boundries of "Life" is still rather iffy. As said before, Virii are still rather a grey area between life and non-life. Fire, as well, has been used quite often as an example of the fuzzy boundary between what we call life and non-life.
The earliest forms of life proposed by Abiogenesis were probably nothing at all like what we could currently consider life. And if you doubt that chemicals can self-assemble and self-replicate, then might I ask how you explain this?
Journal of Nature: Self-Replicating Peptides
[edit on 3-3-2009 by Lasheic]
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Originally posted by B.A.C.
I've never been much for the elohim theory. Who created them, then?
And so forth..
[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]
Regardless of how they originated, they created humans
Wow, that's a pretty absolute statement, elaborate.
.
[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]