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: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Well my first questions is why do you think creationist believe God magics animals into earth ? That's absurd. First I have a question for you OP, if evolution is true should we not occasionally see new life start up all on its own? I mean life started that what according to evolutionist so I'd say life would still need to occasionally pop up from inorganic material. We don't see that happening ever.
Now you just posted evidence against evolution. You said 99% of all species are extinct. The majority of species today are heading toward extinction thanks to entropy. So my point is what you are saying shows that this reality is in a state of decay. The total opposite of what evolution claims.
God created us out of dust. The atoms that make us only form in the belly of stars meaning we are in a sense star dust. As for animals , I'd say God created the first archetypes, and DNA can handle the rest. God created DNA and made it sophisticated enough to create all the life today from those archetypes.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Well I dont think God just magically drops new species, but care to provide evidence that a cell could appear without appearing as a whole? I would say the cell had to appear whole. A cell is a precise piece of biological machinery that uses a 4 bit code known as DNA that also had to come into existence all at once with all the information necessary in order for that machine operate properly and survive.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: peter vlar
How do you get the Egg(Evolution) without the Chicken(Lifes Origin)?
Why do you assume I am looking at such small time spans? I dont care how long it takes for it occur again the fact is that if it occurred once based of of random chance(which by the way is mathematically absurd as in higher than 1 in 10^50) then it should occur again based of random chance.
How does it show that? Evolution states that over time everything gets more specialized correct? Yet, when certain specializations take hold other favorable traits lose part or all of their function. An example of this can be seen in experiments done on antibiotic resistance. As a bacteria gains a resistance to a drug it loses other favorable functions. As a result, when the drug is removed those bacteria die off and the previous unresistant bacteria again takes population majority as the resistant bacteria die off. If everything gets more specialized over time what does that mean as you rewind time? Everything is more adaptable because they are more versatile.
Read this: thetruthwins.com...
I see a reality in a state of decay. A fallen world. Idc if you agree these are just my opinions.
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Abiogenesis and evolution AREN'T the same thing. While yes, if the conditions arise again that cause life to appear on the planet, then yes new life will appear, BUT that has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution will take over AFTER the life has appeared.
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis so it is FAR from proven, but it didn't stat with a cell appearing whole. It started with the building blocks of RNA and DNA first, then evolved into RNA which then evolved into DNA which then evolved into cellular structures. When Abiogenesis talks about the origin of life, it is actually speaking about the origin of the BUILDING BLOCKS of life not life itself. Once the building blocks appeared, evolution could take over and evolve them into more complex things, life being one of them.
This has nothing to do with entropy. The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution. The Earth isn't a closed system. It gets most of its energy from the sun. So until the sun runs out of energy, the Earth doesn't have to worry about entropy.
originally posted by: Hellas
a reply to: Krazysh0t
But we do know the 99% of species on the planet are extinct.
Wait what?? How do we know that for a fact? Because somebody said so? It is a theory. Same as the dating of rocks. Or the age of our planet, the Big Bang etc.. Nothing more than theories.
And I don't see how you can use one theory against another and seem intelligent by doing that..
In fact, every now and then, God drops a new species. Some are members here, too..
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
I am quite aware of that. However, If evolution is true, and no creator of life is necessary then life must have arisen randomly from something completely unknown. If this is the case I see no reason(if completely absurd probabilities aren't taken into account as you do with evolution) why new life shouldn't rise again against all odds just as it did the first time. I am not saying this is a frequent even but we should see evidence of it in the fossil record and things like that. Evolution will take over? Evolution isn't a force it has no will.
Problem. RNA doesn't self replicate. DNA has never been shown to exist in nature outside of a cell. As you said hypothesis so I won't dog it to much but its a bad one. Why? DNA itself implies that their is an intelligence behind it. How? Ok, lets say you get in your car and your mom left you directions to a party. You read the note and first it says, "Drive five miles north." Do you think its possible to reduce the information from those scratches on paper conveyed to you by your mom in terms of physical and chemistry? I think not because it is abstract and implies an intelligent being as its Creator.
Now lets go back to cells. During protein synthesis, an mRNA molecule copies a DNA molecule and carries it to a ribosome, and the ribosome then takes in the necessary information from the 4 bitcode its been given and follows the instructions its given to make whatever protein its been told to make. Now do you think its possible to reduce the information conveyed from the mRNA molecule(the note) to the ribosome(you) in terms of physics and chemistry? Once again abstract information is portrayed and once again it should imply intelligence behind it. Does it prove God? No, but it does prove that life have an intelligent beginning imo.
Isaac Asimov defines the First Law of Thermodynamics as follows:
"To express all this, we can say: ‘Energy can be transferred from one place to another, or transformed from one form to another, but it can be neither created nor destroyed.’ Or we can put it another way: ‘The total quantity of energy in the universe is constant.’ When the total quantity of something does not change, we say that it is conserved. The two statements given above, then, are two ways of expressing ‘the law of conservation of energy.’ This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make."
The entire universe is a closed system because the total energy is conserved.
Now to say that the laws of energy have nothing to do with evolution is not intellectually honest. All processes are energy conversion processes, and seeing as how everything in this reality is a kind of "process" then it deems that the laws of energy apply even to evolution which needs energy in order to function.
originally posted by: jjkenobi
Surely you can see the point in bringing up abiogenesis in an evolution argument? You are all smart individuals. The whole point of Creationism is that God started life. God is the creator. Step 1 on how we are all here today is life starting. Without the first spark or breath of life starting Evolution is not even a player in the game. Evolutionists have no answer for this and instead want to completely ignore the topic and skip to step 2 which is the diversity of life on the planet. For me as a Creationist Step 2 is not as important - with the exception that man was formed separately from the animals as indicated in Genesis. If God created one cell that eventually evolved into a bear, or one bear that evolved to all the types of bears, or individually created each bear species, of if He even made a million bears pop whole into existence - the point is God is the Creator.
originally posted by: jjkenobi
Surely you can see the point in bringing up abiogenesis in an evolution argument? You are all smart individuals. The whole point of Creationism is that God started life. God is the creator. Step 1 on how we are all here today is life starting. Without the first spark or breath of life starting Evolution is not even a player in the game. Evolutionists have no answer for this and instead want to completely ignore the topic and skip to step 2 which is the diversity of life on the planet. For me as a Creationist Step 2 is not as important - with the exception that man was formed separately from the animals as indicated in Genesis. If God created one cell that eventually evolved into a bear, or one bear that evolved to all the types of bears, or individually created each bear species, of if He even made a million bears pop whole into existence - the point is God is the Creator.
originally posted by: Cypress
originally posted by: Hellas
a reply to: Krazysh0t
But we do know the 99% of species on the planet are extinct.
Wait what?? How do we know that for a fact? Because somebody said so? It is a theory. Same as the dating of rocks. Or the age of our planet, the Big Bang etc.. Nothing more than theories.
And I don't see how you can use one theory against another and seem intelligent by doing that..
In fact, every now and then, God drops a new species. Some are members here, too..
The dating of rocks is not just a theory. Radiometric dating
originally posted by: Hellas
originally posted by: Cypress
originally posted by: Hellas
a reply to: Krazysh0t
But we do know the 99% of species on the planet are extinct.
Wait what?? How do we know that for a fact? Because somebody said so? It is a theory. Same as the dating of rocks. Or the age of our planet, the Big Bang etc.. Nothing more than theories.
And I don't see how you can use one theory against another and seem intelligent by doing that..
In fact, every now and then, God drops a new species. Some are members here, too..
The dating of rocks is not just a theory. Radiometric dating
Of course it's a theory since you need a reference point/rock where you need to be sure 100% of its age. And that is not the case, because we just guess the age
originally posted by: Phantom423
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Phantom423
Historical documents (which the Bible actually is, and has been proven to be) cannot be compared with fossil evidence dug out of rocks. Nor are historical documents the same as scientific theories. Apples and oranges.
No, evolution is NOT proven, not even close.
Ok - I'm ready. Do you want to debate the evidence? Statements like "evolution is NOT proven" are not enough.
We'll debate the hard evidence, point by point. Agreed?
Regarding the Bible and rocks, you were quite impressed with the human footprint and dinosaur footprint found together (or so you think anyway). An historical document can be a fraud too. No one witnessed the event so anything is possible.