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.

 

Creationist Quackery, Part 150, 001 : Creationists Say Aliens Don't Exist, So Let's Stop Looking!

page: 27
10
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




I don't remember abiogenesis being discussed at all when I was in high school.


Just for further clarity, were you in high school in the past 40 years? No offense, I don't know how old you are.




posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Krazysh0t
We are going down a rabbit trail here, the point I'm making is Creationists reject abiogenesis. And quite often the term "Evolution" is equivocated with abiogenesis and not variations within the species. I see no reason Biblically not to accept for example that 2 pairs of breeding dog-like creatures are not responsible for all the varying dog-type creatures we see today.


The only people who make that equivocation are Creationists. Scientists have no problem separating the two ideas.


This was my point earlier, reject it if you will:

"Evolutionists often commit the fallacy of equivocation on the word evolution. This word has a number of meanings. Evolution can mean “change” in a general sense, but it can also refer to the idea that organisms share a common ancestor. Either meaning is perfectly legitimate, but the two meanings should not be conflated within an argument. Many evolutionists seem to think that by demonstrating evolution in the sense of “change,” that it proves evolution in the sense of “common descent.”


First off, don't call believers in evolution, "evolutionists." It is an insulting and derogatory word made up by the anti-evolution camp to make it sound like evolution is a religion. Second, evolution, when mapped out, looks like a tree diagram from computer science with each generation being a new branch of the tree. Naturally, there is a singular point that is the origin of the tree. This point is the "common ancestor". The only thing that evolution isn't doing is explaining where that common ancestor came from. But the theory of evolution is valid regardless if you look at the entirety of life on the planet or just a subsection (like mammals). This is because evolution itself is a VERY recursive process


Fallacy of equivocation


No, it isn't.


You might hear them say something like, “Creationists are wrong because we can see evolution happening all the time. Organisms are constantly changing and adapting to their environment.” But, of course, the fact that animals change does not demonstrate that they share a common ancestor."


Maybe don't take your arguments from Answers in Genesis. That site is probably why you falsely believe that evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing.

For one, if you are looking at a tree structure, do you deny that the tree has an origin point? So explain to me why evolution (also a tree structure) cannot have an origin point.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Krazysh0t




I don't remember abiogenesis being discussed at all when I was in high school.


Just for further clarity, were you in high school in the past 40 years? No offense, I don't know how old you are.



I am 29 years old and went to high school from 1999 - 2003. Abiogenesis wasn't discussed ONCE during high school. It wasn't discussed during Chemistry (despite being a chemistry topic) in 9th grade. It wasn't discussed during Biology (despite being a biology topic) in 10th grade. And it wasn't discussed during Physics (not sure why it would be discussed here anyways) during 11th grade. I didn't take a science in the 12th grade. I also didn't hear mention of Abiogenesis when I took sciences in college (but that was Physics 201 and 202, so it's understandable there).

As a correlation, we did talk about evolution during Biology.
edit on 12-1-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




I am 29 years old and went to high school from 1999 - 2003. Abiogenesis wasn't discussed ONCE during high school.


It was discussed in my Science class and my Biology class, I vividly remember arguing with my Biology teacher in the middle of class about it. I graduated in 1995.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




The only people who make that equivocation are Creationists. Scientists have no problem separating the two ideas.


LOL. Remember a post or two back you making the statement that you have argued with a ton of Creationists who reject change within the species? Likewise, I have argued with an untold number of people that claim that since we see change within species that proves we all have come from a common ancestor. The ignorance on this isn't a one way street my friend.




Maybe don't take your arguments from Answers in Genesis. That site is probably why you falsely believe that evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing.


When did I say they were the same thing? I began this dialogue by pointing out abiogenesis and change within the species IS NOT the same thing, and IS NOT science because it is neither observable nor repeatable.




edit on 12-1-2015 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Well great. So we've proven that not all high schools teach the same things, which makes this statement:

You CANNOT claim that since it is taught in every single textbook in our schools as the method in which life came to be on this planet we call Earth.
untrue.

Though, no offense but since you seem to think Abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution, I'm not surprised you got into an argument about it with your teacher.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
LOL. Remember a post or two back you making the statement that you have argued with a ton of Creationists who reject change within the species? Likewise, I have argued with an untold number of people that claim that since we see change within species that proves we all have come from a common ancestor. The ignorance on this isn't a one way street my friend.


Common ancestry isn't abiogenesis and is part of the theory of evolution. What the theory of evolution doesn't describe is HOW that common ancestor came to be, which is what Abiogenesis, Panspermia, and even Biogenesis try to explain.


When did I say they were the same thing? I began this dialogue by pointing out abiogenesis and change within the species IS NOT the same thing, and IS NOT science because it is neither observable nor repeatable.


Yes, but you continually come back and try to suggest that abiogenesis is a part of the theory of evolution.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, what else should I have done when he was trying to teach us that the complexity of life we see today all came from some primordial soup billions of years ago? That we aren't special, just the result of millions of chemical reactions over a long period of time.

That's religion, not science, it's a belief in something neither observable nor repeatable. And I see no reason why he should be able to teach me his particular religion over mine.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




What the theory of evolution doesn't describe is HOW that common ancestor came to be, which is what Abiogenesis, Panspermia, and even Biogenesis try to explain.


And ID.




Yes, but you continually come back and try to suggest that abiogenesis is a part of the theory of evolution.


To MILLIONS of people it is!




edit on 12-1-2015 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

ok - so we have got to this stage and you still dont understand the scientific principles of observability and repeatability

please paradon me - i have to go bang my head against a wall



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: NOTurTypical

ok - so we have got to this stage and you still dont understand the scientific principles of observability and repeatability

please paradon me - i have to go bang my head against a wall


No, by all means.

Scientific Method

Empirical - Definition


edit on 12-1-2015 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, what else should I have done when he was trying to teach us that the complexity of life we see today all came from some primordial soup billions of years ago? That we aren't special, just the result of millions of chemical reactions over a long period of time.


We aren't special. Do you have any proof to say that we are?


That's religion, not science, it's a belief in something neither observable nor repeatable. And I see no reason why he should be able to teach me his particular religion over mine.


Did you study how the scientists claimed to observe their findings or did you just write it off because we don't have access to time machines to go back and see it for ourselves? You know that the word "observe" as defined by science is a BIT different than the layman version correct?

Observation in science


Observations play a role in the second and fifth steps of the scientific method. However the need for reproducibility requires that observations by different observers can be comparable. Human sense impressions are subjective and qualitative making them difficult to record or compare. The idea of measurement evolved to allow recording and comparison of observations made at different times and places by different people. Measurement consists of using observation to compare the thing being measured to a standard; an artifact, process or definition which can be duplicated or shared by all observers, and counting how many of the standard units are comparable to the object. Measurement reduces an observation to a number which can be recorded, and two observations which result in the same number are equal within the resolution of the process.

Senses are limited, and are subject to errors in perception such as optical illusions. Scientific instruments were developed to magnify human powers of observation, such as weighing scales, clocks, telescopes, microscopes, thermometers, cameras, and tape recorders, and also translate into perceptible form events that are unobservable by human senses, such as indicator dyes, voltmeters, spectrometers, infrared cameras, oscilloscopes, interferometers, geiger counters, x-ray machines, and radio receivers.

One problem encountered throughout scientific fields is that the observation may affect the process being observed, resulting in a different outcome than if the process was unobserved. This is called the observer effect. For example, it is not normally possible to check the air pressure in an automobile tire without letting out some of the air, thereby changing the pressure. However, in most fields of science it is possible to reduce the effects of observation to insignificance by using better instruments.

Considered as a physical process itself, all forms of observation (human or instrumental) involve amplification and are thus thermodynamically irreversible processes, increasing entropy.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
And ID.


ID and biogenesis are the same thing. Or rather, you could say that Biogenesis is the scientific term for ID.



To MILLIONS of people it is!


Those people are wrong and misinformed then. That doesn't mean that Abiogenesis or evolution is incorrect though.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




We aren't special. Do you have any proof to say that we are?


Why do we cry at a funeral? What is the point of crying over random chemical reactions and entropy?




Did you study how the scientists claimed to observe their findings or did you just write it off because we don't have access to time machines to go back and see it for ourselves?


Living cells have never been produced in experiment from non-living cells by the process of chemical reactions free of intelligence. It has never been observed by random chance. The fact that any scientist even attempting to set up conditions is intelligence being introduced directing the experiment. And please don't refer to the Miller experiment, he used the wrong atmosphere for his test.


edit on 12-1-2015 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Those people are wrong and misinformed then. That doesn't mean that Abiogenesis or evolution is incorrect though.


I would say that the discovery of DNA and microbiology have shredded the theory of abiogenesis. And I can't argue with the first sentence.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Krazysh0t




We aren't special. Do you have any proof to say that we are?


Why do we cry at a funeral? What is the point of crying over random chemical reactions and entropy?



Because we are sad. That certainly isn't evidence that we are special. We have examples of animals in the animal kingdom crying over lost ones.

When Animals Mourn: Seeing That Grief Is Not Uniquely Human



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Krazysh0t




We aren't special. Do you have any proof to say that we are?


Why do we cry at a funeral? What is the point of crying over random chemical reactions and entropy?



Because we are sad. That certainly isn't evidence that we are special. We have examples of animals in the animal kingdom crying over lost ones.

When Animals Mourn: Seeing That Grief Is Not Uniquely Human


I never said they didn't cry. Animals are part of Creation in my worldview. Tell me how random chemical reactions produced emotions. That is a soul. (mind, will, and emotions)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

The explanation for such a process is so long that I don't have time to sit down and explain to you how animals evolved the ability to be sad. None of it is evidence that we are special. Why is life existing on a small blue rock, orbiting an average sized star, in the backwaters, of its galaxy, located in a small galaxy, in a nondescript galactic cluster special? Our whole planet could get wiped out tomorrow and the universe would go on ticking like nothing happened.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NOTurTypical

The explanation for such a process is so long that I don't have time to sit down and explain to you how animals evolved the ability to be sad. None of it is evidence that we are special. Why is life existing on a small blue rock, orbiting an average sized star, in the backwaters, of its galaxy, located in a small galaxy, in a nondescript galactic cluster special? Our whole planet could get wiped out tomorrow and the universe would go on ticking like nothing happened.


Is that not an arbitrary conjecture? What empirical evidence do you have that creatures can develop emotions from random chemical reactions? How do you get from a series of chemical reactions to sadness or love, or a soul for that matter? Aren't you delving into a religious belief? Be intellectually honest.




Why is life existing on a small blue rock, orbiting an average sized star, in the backwaters, of its galaxy, located in a small galaxy, in a nondescript galactic cluster special?


My worldview says that is the place where He Sovereignly decided to place a creature He made in His image. And He created the universe and planets and stars, not just for our navigation and to tell times and seasons, but also to display His Majesty. That we are so unique and special that we are alone among trillions and trillions of galaxies. That's how special we are TO HIM..


edit on 12-1-2015 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   


Many way that evolution can be tested and potentially falsified have been proposed... Haldane's pre-Cambrian rabbits is just one of the more famous examples.
a reply to: iterationzero So there are a few ways they think it could be falsified but haven't as yet decided which one or if there may be another way .Seems like the job for Super Scientist to make known and receive the praise from the community as someone more important then both Newton and Einstein . Once that has been established then the skeptics can concentrating on falsifying the theory . Until then ,it cant be falsified and any debate on the matter is moot .




top topics



 
10
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join