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.

 

Logical Flaws In Progressive Creationism, Concerning Order Of Events.

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: UB2120


There are limits to human comprehension and God is infinitely more than we can ever comprehend.


in spite of god being so vast and incomprehensible, you can always find someone who knows exactly what he wants and why. theyll even tell you what he will do to you if he doesnt get it. i find that strangley contradictory.
edit on 20-9-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm





a point of nothing cannot be dense or hot, let alone infinitely dense and infinitely hot. do use your common sense and stop trying to redefine scientific concepts. maybe if you took the time to actually learn what these things mean, you wouldnt need to depend on non-answers so much.


Once again your are trying to use a word that you cant even fathom to describe something your not even sure was there.

The problem with there being a really small point of matter is that quantum mechanics forbids wavelike-particles from entering a space smaller than their wave=length. Also even on a microscopic scale spatial dimensions are needed in order for their to be an infinitely dense and hot ball of matter. Once you get to the hypothetical time=0 you also reach a point in which spatial dimensions as a whole cease to exist. You say NOTHING can't be infinitely dense and I would pose that only nothing can be infinitely dense. Only nothing can be compacted to a point where there is no space as quantum mechanics forbids wavelike particles from entering a space smaller than their wave length. When you tell me that the singularity looked like a really hot ball you are imagining that sphere within a spacial realm, and I am sorry but there was no space, and the funny thing is even energy(heat) requires space in order to exist. Yet, we know when time=0 there is no space. So once again we are stuck with only nothing. Without space and time there is no potential for existence. The only logical thing in this reality that precludes space and time is nothing. The words infinitely hot lose their meaning as we know it because the space is so small energy as we know it cannot fit within that wavelength. I am not redefining any scientific concepts.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped


"Tell that to the Hindus."

The neighbors that lived next to me growing up were Hindu. Hindus are actually far closer to a monotheistic religion than many people realize. In Hindu theology there are not many Gods, but one God who manifest in many different forms.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


Once again your are trying to use a word that you cant even fathom to describe something your not even sure was there.


i think "infinite" is more of an expression in this context. lets go with "incalculably hot and dense". now we can stop playing word games because i am not interested in bandying semantics or definitions with you.


The problem with there being a really small point of matter is that quantum mechanics forbids wavelike-particles from entering a space smaller than their wave=length. Also even on a microscopic scale spatial dimensions are needed in order for their to be an infinitely dense and hot ball of matter. Once you get to the hypothetical time=0 you also reach a point in which spatial dimensions as a whole cease to exist. You say NOTHING can't be infinitely dense and I would pose that only nothing can be infinitely dense. Only nothing can be compacted to a point where there is no space as quantum mechanics forbids wavelike particles from entering a space smaller than their wave length. When you tell me that the singularity looked like a really hot ball you are imagining that sphere within a spacial realm, and I am sorry but there was no space, and the funny thing is even energy(heat) requires space in order to exist. Yet, we know when time=0 there is no space. So once again we are stuck with only nothing. Without space and time there is no potential for existence. The only logical thing in this reality that precludes space and time is nothing. The words infinitely hot lose their meaning as we know it because the space is so small energy as we know it cannot fit within that wavelength. I am not redefining any scientific concepts.


so now you are a theoretical physicist. i wonder why im so disinclined to take you seriously on that. maybe because you got your education on google. and armchair philosophy. we are the only ones left in this discussion anyway, so im gonna leave you to it. its obvious im not going to have any semblance of a meaningful conversation with you. ciao.

oh and hail satan.

edit on 20-9-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120




We, as a species, need to look at what is similar among religions instead of focusing on the differences. Just because I call God the Universal Father and someone else calls him Vishnu doesn't mean it is a different God. It's more that we have different view points or angles. God is too big to be completely defined by any one religion.


This is that lets please everyone approach, and say all religions lead to the same place. I think as a species we should look at what is both different and similar. Vishnu and Yahweh are different Gods. Apparently Yahweh and what you are calling the Universal Father are both different as well. According to Biblical theology, all religions(Some people who label themselves Christian fall into this category as well) lead to Sheol. I think religion is Satan's best weapon. Christ is all I am sure of. Christ and what he did for me. Vishnu never became human and suffered as we do. YHWH did. If you want to get into Egyptian creation myths I will let Genesis fight that battle for me as the author of Genesis aimed his work at demythologizing the Egyptian Gods. I am sorry but saying all religions follow the same God is just hogwash as it violates the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle numerous times.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm



i think "infinite" is more of an expression in this context. lets go with "incalculably hot and dense". now we can stop playing word games because i am not interested in bandying semantics or definitions with you.


I am sorry, but your wrong. Infinitely dense is a mathematical expression, and semantics doesn't have a place in math unless you want to ignore Science.



so now you are a theoretical physicist. i wonder why im so disinclined to take you seriously on that. maybe because you got your education on google. and armchair philosophy


Why dont you show information that proves what I just said wasn't scientific instead of running out of the conversation when you see that what you thought you knew wasn't quite what you thought it was.

T=0 means no spacial dimensions? True or false?

Matter(Energy) needs spacial dimensions to exist? True or false?

You want to play as though what I said made no sense yet I know for a fact it was all accurate when it comes to Science. So why act as though I am not being honest with my information.




oh and hail satan.


Hey at least I am getting somewhere if you hail Satan you at least acknowledge YHWH



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: UB2120


There are limits to human comprehension and God is infinitely more than we can ever comprehend.


in spite of god being so vast and incomprehensible, you can always find someone who knows exactly what he wants and why. theyll even tell you what he will do to you if he doesnt get it. i find that strangley contradictory.


Why do you find it contradictory? Do you feel that this "someone" is correct in his belief of God? God is not wrathful or vengeful. Unfortunately there are many who still do not know God or understand Jesus.

When once you grasp the idea of God as a true and loving Father, the only concept which Jesus ever taught, you must forthwith, in all consistency, utterly abandon all those primitive notions about God as an offended monarch, a stern and all-powerful ruler whose chief delight is to detect his subjects in wrongdoing and to see that they are adequately punished, unless some being almost equal to himself should volunteer to suffer for them, to die as a substitute and in their stead. The whole idea of ransom and atonement is incompatible with the concept of God as it was taught and exemplified by Jesus of Nazareth. The infinite love of God is not secondary to anything in the divine nature.

All this concept of atonement and sacrificial salvation is rooted and grounded in selfishness. Jesus taught that service to one’s fellows is the highest concept of the brotherhood of spirit believers. Salvation should be taken for granted by those who believe in the fatherhood of God. The believer’s chief concern should not be the selfish desire for personal salvation but rather the unselfish urge to love and, therefore, serve one’s fellows even as Jesus loved and served mortal men.

Neither do genuine believers trouble themselves so much about the future punishment of sin. The real believer is only concerned about present separation from God. True, wise fathers may chasten their sons, but they do all this in love and for corrective purposes. They do not punish in anger, neither do they chastise in retribution.

Even if God were the stern and legal monarch of a universe in which justice ruled supreme, he certainly would not be satisfied with the childish scheme of substituting an innocent sufferer for a guilty offender.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120




utterly abandon all those primitive notions about God as an offended monarch, a stern and all-powerful ruler whose chief delight is to detect his subjects in wrongdoing and to see that they are adequately punished,


I believe you are misunderstanding God and those who believe YWHW and Jesus are the same. God is not just a Father, but a perfectly Just Judge. A perfectly Just Judge cannot let any evil go unpunished, likewise however he cannot punish those who are righteous.



20 And the Lord said, “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. 21 I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know.” 22 Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before the Lord. 23 Abraham came near and said, “Will You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will You indeed sweep it away and not [t]spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it? 25 Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth [v]deal justly?” 26 So the Lord said, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will [w]spare the whole place on their account.” 27 And Abraham replied, “Now behold, I have [x]ventured to speak to the Lord, although I am but dust and ashes. 28 Suppose the fifty righteous are lacking five, will You destroy the whole city because of five?” And He said, “I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.” 29 He spoke to Him yet again and said, “Suppose forty are found there?” And He said, “I will not do it on account of the forty.” 30 Then he said, “Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak; suppose thirty are found there?” And He said, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.” 31 And he said, “Now behold, I have [y]ventured to speak to the Lord; suppose twenty are found there?” And He said, “I will not destroy it on account of the twenty.” 32 Then he said, “Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak only this once; suppose ten are found there?” And He said, “I will not destroy it on account of the ten.” 33 As soon as He had finished speaking to Abraham the Lord departed, and Abraham returned to his place.


Thats Genesis 18 and you will notice that Abraham is really worried that God is acting out of character when he destroys Sodom and Gomorrah. Yet God assures Abraham that He would never ever be able to destroy everything in Sodom and Gomorrah unless everything there is unrighteous.




. The whole idea of ransom and atonement is incompatible with the concept of God as it was taught and exemplified by Jesus of Nazareth.


Now when I say God is perfectly just I am referring to a characteristic of God. God doesn't always take delight in what his character demands of him. So if God is perfectly Just and perfectly Loving how is he to forgive sin? How then is he to forgive sin? God's answer to this clashing of his character was Jesus. Those who accept Jesus have a high priest who goes before God on their behalf. When the part of God that is perfectly Just sees my sin and is required to punish me for it Jesus steps in and tells God that he knows me and that he has already taken on the punishment required for Justice so that I may be as clean as he. Jesus is God displaying his love for all of mankind.




The believer’s chief concern should not be the selfish desire for personal salvation but rather the unselfish urge to love and, therefore, serve one’s fellows even as Jesus loved and served mortal men.


A believer's concern is not for salvation as the have already obtained it. I think what you are misinterpreting as concern for their own salvation is really concern for other peoples salvation. That concern comes from love.




The real believer is only concerned about present separation from God. True, wise fathers may chasten their sons, but they do all this in love and for corrective purposes. They do not punish in anger, neither do they chastise in retribution.


I believe you also misunderstand why people go to hell. People go to hell because the choose to. God punishes sin because he is required to not necessarily because he wants to. The Bible even tells you that it is God's will that none shall perish. God doesn't want to throw anyone into hell, but he cannot stop people from making the decision to go there on their own. He offered mercy all a person has to do is accept that they sin and need someone to remedy that. Hell is a choice.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Once an individual's concept of God progresses beyond the confines of a circumscribed religion and accept him as the Universal First Source and Center of all things and beings you will understand that you cannot box God into a stereotypical pattern as most organized religions tend to do.

The first step, in my opinion, is realizing that the Universe is teeming with intelligent life. The planets of space are peopled with mortal beings who can know and love God. When you accept this your concept of God must expand. The Bible was from a time when most didn't even know life existed on the other side of the world, let alone on the planets of space. So it naturally developed along the lines that creation consisted of God, a few angels and man.

Within that confined box it is easy to see how and why some of the ideas in early religions developed the way they did. For religion evolves just like plants and animals. God is aware of this, he is no respecter of persons. He will grant salvation to most primitive and advanced religionist just the same. Even though one may be further along in personal development than the other doesn't mean that God loves one more than the other.

What most people consider religion is really a stagnated version of what it should be. Jesus himself warned his followers of this very thing. The parable of the Talents discusses this. Also, why do you think Jesus never wrote anything on a permanent surface? He understood men and their preferment of ease. If he were to write down a bunch of rules, though they may be good and just for his day, they may not work in future times. Life must grow, develop and adapt. Religion is really about life and life cannot be crystallized.

Religion is supposed to be individual and unique, just like life. Religion does not mean going to church on Sunday or whatever your given religion calls for. It is to be a part of you, everyday.




edit on 23-9-2014 by UB2120 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-9-2014 by UB2120 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
a reply to: Tangerine

Why are you accusing anyone of lying. Relax. I am sure some scientists have claimed that everything came from nothing. This is yet another mystery right? Unless you know beyond a shadow of doubt the origins of everything. Also, evolution and the big bang are closely related since well it takes the said chaos of the big bang to give way to the possibility of life to form and evolve.


Might as well go ahead and give an example, check out the book:

"A Universe from Nothing:..." by Lawrence M. Krauss (physicist)

If he doesn't really mean nothing, or "nothing isn't nothing anymore....in physics", then he shouldn't have used the word "nothing" in the title of his book just adding to my suspicions of deception, con-artistry (I think that isn't actually an officially recognized word) and him being a philosophical BS-talker and false logic/shallow argument teacher/indoctrinator/propagandizer. It's all a big joke in terms of logic and reason.

Besides that, it was also pretty silly for Tangerine to bring up the empty argument that "the theory of evolution does not address ultimate origin" while the OP clearly is referring to "Chemical to Human Evolution", which I understand him to mean chemical evolution, A.K.A. abiogenesis (Tangerine, google "chemical evolution" please and you'll see, you may also use a dictionary).

And when we're talking about the Big Bang to earth process we're talking about cosmic evolution, another sub-section of the philosophy of evolution not mentioned or adressed in modern/current definitions for the theory of evolution (if you're going with the one about allele frequencies). And the forum title has "origins" in it, so nobody should probably be using the term "theory of evolution" on this forum, unless in the context of adressing the entire philosophy of evolution (or all evolutionary philosophies) which most definitely does include wild fantasies (hypotheses) concerning our origins (chemical evolution/abiogenesis being one of them).

In closing I'd like to leave everyone here with something Isaac Newton said in his most famous scientific work (with the mention that "scientists" is a term that was invented later and back then they were called natural philosophers):

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
― Isaac Newton

The conclusion of design concerning the observed machinery in a living cell is a general Conclusion from Experiments and Observations by Induction, or otherwise known as Inductive Reasoning and explained by Michael Behe quite well at 2:13:00 till 2:20:40 in this video (wish I could find a shorter video for ye, but just skip ahead):


edit on 6-10-2014 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

There is no "philosophy of evolution". I'm not sure where you got that phrase from. There is the theory of evolution also known as Modern Evolutionary Synthesis and then there is the word evolution which means to change over time. You are confusing the two and trying to combine them into one overarching "philosophy of evolution", but that isn't what scientists do and is a GROSS misrepresentation of science.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: whereislogic

...and then there is the word evolution which means to change over time.


Chemical evolution would then translate to chemical change over time, yet there are a variety of changes that can happen over time to chemicals that have nothing to do with abiogenesis (making that term rather vague and inaccurate). Again I encourage you to actually use google when reading a comment encouraging the reader to do that (it wasn't only meant for Tangarine if others want to comment on it as well), or a dictionary (I've read your previous comments on this board as a lurker, this conversation will be short, I will wait for you to post something from a dictionary or something like that so I know you actually did use google to learn something, and not just talk for the sake of talking and disagreeing with people, and no, I don't agree to disagree, I hate that saying, truth and science, i.e. knowledge, is far removed from you at this point, not saying this to insult you, but to make you and everyone who reads your comments wake up, I stopped reading them, also because your name is so appropiate making it easier to remember not reading them, sorry about that if that feels like one below the belt, it is the truth).

A similar thing can be said for Cosmic Evolution, where the first link that shows up for me on google says "Cosmic Evolution - From Big Bang to Humankind" ( a link from Harvard) and the 3rd link has "Cosmic Evolution: The Rise of Complexity in Nature, published by Harvard University Press, 2001."

They sure don't like to discuss entropy, which is also a change over time. The change they talk about seems to be very specificly related to the other evolutionary philosophies (also note that I edited my other comment to include that description for what I call the philosophy of evolution, meaning all evolutionary philosophies related to the Pagan "Mother Nature did it' religious philosophers who came up with these philosophies, allbeit in slightly different form).
edit on 6-10-2014 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: whereislogic

...and then there is the word evolution which means to change over time.


Chemical evolution would then translate to chemical change over time, yet there are a variety of changes that can happen over time to chemicals that have nothing to do with abiogenesis (making that term rather vague and inaccurate).


That's why abiogenesis is called abiogensis and not chemical evolution. Duh. Sure it is a TYPE of chemical evolution, but it isn't the only type of chemical evolution.


Again I encourage you to actually use google when reading a comment encouraging the reader to do that (it wasn't only meant for Tangarine if others want to comment on it as well), or a dictionary (I've read your previous comments on this board as a lurker, this conversation will be short, I will wait for you to post something from a dictionary or something like that so I know you actually did use google to learn something, and not just talk for the sake of talking and disagreeing with people, and no, I don't agree to disagree, I hate that saying, truth and science, i.e. knowledge, is far removed from you at this point, not saying this to insult you, but to make you and everyone who reads your comments wake up, I stopped reading them, also because your name is so appropiate making it easier to remember not reading them, sorry about that if that feels like one below the belt, it is the truth).


If you knew ANYTHING about my posting history, you'd know that I rarely if EVER write posts without backing up my claims with links. Clearly you DON'T read my posts, or at least never gave them their proper due like you are claiming. You'd also know that if someone actually respects and entertains my points by properly refuting them (instead of sinking to ad hominems and deflections) I will engage them very well, but you don't see that a lot on these forums because the people who take a stance against evolution can't seem to learn proper debating tactics and ALWAYS use fallacies, deflections and ignore points. Though it is very telling about your predisposition to come out with your first response to me by basically saying that you aren't going to listen to anything I tell you.

Here, from dictionaries:
evolution

noun
1.any process of formation or growth; development:
the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2.a product of such development; something evolved :
The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3.Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4.a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5.a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
6.a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements:
the evolutions of a figure skater.
7.an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.


Since this definition just utilizes the word "evolve" I posted the definition of evolve below.

evolve

: to change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or more advanced state : to develop by a process of evolution


In other words, change over time.


A similar thing can be said for Cosmic Evolution, where the first link that shows up for me on google says "Cosmic Evolution - From Big Bang to Humankind" ( a link from Harvard) and the 3rd link has "Cosmic Evolution: The Rise of Complexity in Nature, published by Harvard University Press, 2001."


What is your point? I never said that the cosmos didn't evolve. I just said that star formation theory, the big bang and other cosmic development processes AREN'T part of this umbrella term "philosophy of evolution." If a scientist uses the term cosmic evolution, he isn't referring to the theory of evolution. He is just describing how the cosmos changed over time.


They sure don't like to discuss entropy, which is also a change over time. The change they talk about seems to be very specificly related to the other evolutionary philosophies


What does entropy have to do with anything?


(also note that I edited my other comment to include that description for what I call the philosophy of evolution, meaning all evolutionary philosophies related to the Pagan "Mother Nature did it' religious philosophers who came up with these philosophies, allbeit in slightly different form).


The words you are looking for are hypothesis and theory NOT philosophy. By the way, the reason you cannot lump all these ideas together is because none of them are dependent on any other one to be true. They all stand alone with their own evidence supporting them.

You clearly don't know how science works and are just making crap up about it then pretending like I'm uneducated on the matter. You are mixing layman terms with scientific terms and pretending like they are interchangeable when they aren't. YOU are the one who is misinformed. Science isn't a religion, stop pretending like it is. All science cares about is the scientific method and following the evidence.

PS: For someone harping on my screen name, your screen name is a rather good question since you clearly aren't using any.
edit on 6-10-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: whereislogic

That's why abiogenesis is called abiogensis and not chemical evolution. Duh. Sure it is a TYPE of chemical evolution, but it isn't the only type of chemical evolution.


Abiogenesis has been referred to as chemical evolution by Darwinists (you can see some examples on wikipedia), regardless of there being other types of chemical evolution as well. If the OP mentions "Chemical to Human Evolution" I can only understand that to mean the chemical evolution of abiogenesis followed by biological evolution, how else are you gonna get there? So why can't I talk about chemical evolution of the abiogenesis type? Do the other terms/types of chemical evolution that show up on google for example when searching for chemical evolution somehow negate the abiogenesis meaning? Is the subject of abiogenesis forbidden to be named next to the subject of evolution? Why is there a link to abiogenesis when searching for chemical evolution yet no mention about abiogenesis or chemical evolution in the dictionary listings that you posted (thanks for posting it) while biological evolution is listed under the 3rd definition? Might it be a no-go zone as Ian Juby describes in this video:

www.youtube.com...
edit on 7-10-2014 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Stop trying to abuse the dictionary. Evolution within the context of understanding and explaining speciation has nothing to do with any of those other definitions you are throwing out.

Watch, I can play this game too:

A pole is a long stick.
A Pole is also someone from Poland.
Therefore Polish people are long sticks.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: whereislogic

That's why abiogenesis is called abiogensis and not chemical evolution. Duh. Sure it is a TYPE of chemical evolution, but it isn't the only type of chemical evolution.


Abiogenesis has been referred to as chemical evolution by Darwinists (you can see some examples on wikipedia),


Darwinists... Really? You do realize that isn't a word right? It is just a made up slur from people who don't properly understand the current theory of evolution (mostly of the Christian variety). Modern Evolutionary Theory has nothing to do with Darwin as evolutionary theory has left him in the 1800's. For someone who tried to get on me about not being educated, you certainly are allowing your own ignorance to show.


regardless of there being other types of chemical evolution as well. If the OP mentions "Chemical to Human Evolution" I can only understand that to mean the chemical evolution of abiogenesis followed by biological evolution, how else are you gonna get there?


One process (abiogenesis) may lead to the other (evolution) but that doesn't mean that one requires the other.


So why can't I talk about chemical evolution of the abiogenesis type?


Never said you couldn't. I just said that abiogenesis is just one type of chemical evolution that science describes.


Do the other terms/types of chemical evolution that show up on google for example when searching for chemical evolution somehow negate the abiogenesis meaning?


No, I never claimed that they did.


Is the subject of abiogenesis forbidden to be named next to the subject of evolution?


AHA! Now we get to our first real question. Abiogenesis is just a hypothesis and is just one possible answer to how life arose in the universe. Evolutionary theory starts with the premise that life already exists. So you cannot use one to disprove the other. I can just as easily remove abiogenesis from the picture and say that God farted and life was the result and it would still make evolutionary theory valid since evolutionary theory picks up from there.


Why is there a link to abiogenesis when searching for chemical evolution yet no mention about abiogenesis or chemical evolution in the dictionary listings that you posted (thanks for posting it) while biological evolution is listed under the 3rd definition?


Because abiogenesis is a hypothesis and hasn't been moved up to theory territory. Also it may be confusing to list abiogenesis in that definition since you would have to understand the processes involved that qualify it as a type of evolution. Last thing that dictionary.com needs is for people to make the incorrect link that the Abiogenesis hypothesis is part of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis theory.


Might it be a no-go zone as Ian Juby describes in this video:

www.youtube.com...


I can't and therefore as a rule don't watch videos on ATS. Besides the inability to watch them, they aren't proof of anything and can be made to say anything you want with proper editing.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join