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 madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Ubeen
The thing about bad science is that it is exposed by good science. It's laid bare quite quickly and leads to people losing their jobs.
Now, this argument isn't about bad science, it's about very good science. There isn't a shred of contradictory evidence against evolution, so there's nothing for the scientists to ignore.
Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE AGAINST
What with you quite apparently theist, I would expect you to grasp this.
(EDIT - okay, so I skimmed your post and replied without reading fully. Sorry for that)
Further, surely creation by a timeless, non-living conscious entity can equally be called "Abiogenesis", since it makes life from, well, non-life. It just does it from dust (dry matter) as opposed to a reactive sea of organic compounds (moist... kind of like every living organism except for dormant tardigrades... huh.)
edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
A while back there was a thread "The Gullibility of Evolutionists"
Well, I'd like to actually call into question the amount of education and research that the majority of creationists on here have with regard to the sciences.
I wonder how we can remedy this.
If it's B. - please show me one time where the science (not a being called this) of Abiogenesis has created life?
Please - enlighten us - show us one time where Abiogenesis has actually created life?
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
"There isn't a shred of contradictory evidence against evolution"?
Oh really?
What about all the gaps in the fossil records?
Do we have billions and billions of fossils showing each step from singel cell to human?
How does evolution magically kick in to over drive at certain times, is also another interesting question.
While these unknowns don't disprove evolution, until they are answered, they sure do provide an opportunity to find a "shred" of contradictory evidence, wouldn't you agree?
Now, back on topic, which belief is more ignorant?:
A. Atheists who believe in abiogenesis? - i.e. that we came from nothing; or that we came from proteins (abiogenesis) - which in turn came from nothing.
or
B. A Christian or any other religious persons belief that a supernatural being - who has no beginning or end - created us?
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
What about all the gaps in the fossil records?
Do we have billions and billions of fossils showing each step from singel cell to human?
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
How does evolution magically kick in to over drive at certain times, is also another interesting question.
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
While these unknowns don't disprove evolution, until they are answered, they sure do provide an opportunity to find a "shred" of contradictory evidence, wouldn't you agree?
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
A. Atheists who believe in abiogenesis? - i.e. that we came from nothing; or that we came from proteins (abiogenesis) - which in turn came from nothing.
or
B. A Christian or any other religious persons belief that a supernatural being - who has no beginning or end - created us?
Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
If it's B. - please show me one time where the science (not a being called this) of Abiogenesis has created life?
Please - enlighten us - show us one time where Abiogenesis has actually created life?
I wasn't saying A or B, but please, enlighten us, show us one time where a deity has created life?
Seeing as the genetic similarities between all known life on earth give it a single common ancestor, a non Y.A.C viewpoint would suggest a single origin of life, which would, in turn, mean that there is only one example available - and if God was there, he ain't telling whether he did it or not.
There is no absolute evidence that life originated of it's own accord, but considering that there are cell-like... things that we have trouble classifying as life or non-life (viruses, nanobacteria, prions), there is rather more to suggest that life came from some sort of organic liquid than some conscious dust-moulder. So while beliefs are your right, the one that dismisses the suggestion that life originated from a non-biological, non-conscious organic sea (some, possibly circumstantial evidence) is more ignorant than the one that dismisses the suggestion that life originated because something wanted it to (no evidence).
edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: I ain't french, neither.
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
I would rather believe in a super-natural being that may have created life (which is at least possible) and does not need to be created (which is at least possible).
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
I would rather believe in a super-natural being that may have created life (which is at least possible) and does not need to be created (which is at least possible).
Well, you are of course free to believe whatever you want...as long as you don't try to fool people into believing your belief is based on facts
So, just to be clear, Abiogenesis has not created life, right?
So you rather believe "life originated from a non-biological, non-conscious organic sea"? Where the sea, a physical substance with mass, still had to be created itself.
Rather than life coming from super-natural being that did not need to have a beginning or ending?
Is that right?
Because the last time I checked life is here, we are here, things are here. So something had to create them.
You would rather believe in something that has never created life (that's a fact) and still needs to be created itself (another fatct).
I would rather believe in a super-natural being that may have created life (which is at least possible) and does not need to be created (which is at least possible).
Which of us is more ignorant again?
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
I would rather believe in a super-natural being that may have created life (which is at least possible) and does not need to be created (which is at least possible).
Well, you are of course free to believe whatever you want...as long as you don't try to fool people into believing your belief is based on facts
Hi! Long time no talk to.
Agreed.
Just like I'm trying to make sure you guys don't fool people into believing your beliefs are facts too...
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Well, sorry to burst your bubble there, but given that science has to follow scientific method and backup its theories and claims with EVIDENCE, science actually states facts...at the very least to an extent FAAAAAAR above anything religious believers provide, which amounts to pretty much zero
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Well, sorry to burst your bubble there, but given that science has to follow scientific method and backup its theories and claims with EVIDENCE, science actually states facts...at the very least to an extent FAAAAAAR above anything religious believers provide, which amounts to pretty much zero
Yes. You are 100% right.
FACT #1: Abiogenesis or biopoesis has never created life.
FACT #2: The theory of evolution does not try and explain how life began.
FACT# 3: No science at all has ever created life.
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
FACT #1: Abiogenesis or biopoesis has never created life.
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
FACT #2: The theory of evolution does not try and explain how life began.
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
FACT# 3: No science at all has ever created life.