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.

 

Can someone show me evidence of man being created from dirt?

page: 17
19
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Guidance.Is.Internal
a reply to: Deaf Alien
You present a useless dichotomy. A theory, scientific or non-scientific, cannot be proven. Ever. It only stands until it is disproven by counterexample (again, ignoring the realm of pure mathematics). Even if you insist on dealing only with "scientific" theory, one can define creationism in such a way that it would lend itself to the scientific method.


A scientific theory stands on the evidence, a laymans theory (such as the one below) is very different. A scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation of a phenomenon whereas a layman's is a mere idea, guess or thought.


For instance, one can define creationism as the theory that the universe you observe has been constructed (at some level) by an intelligent being. Perhaps that intelligent being created the preconditions for the big bang. Or perhaps our consciousness is the byproduct of a simulation run on some level we cannot even comprehend. No mention of God, angels, or anything like that. Yes, it's "out there", but then again so is the BBT (no time or space before the bang?). When we frame creationism like this, it is really no different than trying to determine whether a particular rock formation was created by man or "naturally" occurred.


There would be evidence that could be collected to determine whether a rock formation was man-made or not, whereas with the claim for an intelligent designer there is no evidence to suggest that is the case. It's a flakey and vague hypothesis of which there are far too many to consider seriously.


Unfortunately, as in most debates, people become entrenched in certain mindsets because they don't clearly define the words they use (like "scientific", "creationism", "theory", etc). For instance, some would consider paranormal research to be "scientific" because some claim to have captured audio and visual data depicting these things. Others would consider it non-scientific because these tests cannot be replicated. Devil's in the details.


Replication is one of the main principles of the scientific method, so yeah the dismissal of such 'evidence' by actual scientists and not laymen is to be expected.




posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Andrew Crosse, a scientist in the 19th century, was able to spawn bugs (from the genus acarus) with nothing but silicates, electricity and water.

www.rexresearch.com...
www.cheniere.org...

He was trying to create crystal formations but incidentally created bugs that crawled and reacted to external stimuli. If some scientist can accidentally create life, then a more knowledgeable being could likely create humans out of silicates, electricity and water; which were all present by Genesis 1:3. light is electromagnetic radiation (electricity), the earth is 70%+ silicate, and water was present early.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light."

These conditions, with subsequent additions, allowed life to literally spawn from dirt, similar to Crosse's experiment, but on a much more intelligent magnitude.
edit on 19-3-2015 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

False:


Crosse did not claim that he had created the insects. He assumed that there were insect eggs embedded in his samples. Later commentators agreed that the insects were probably cheese mites or dust mites that had contaminated Crosse's instruments.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Guidance.Is.Internal

For instance, one can define creationism as the theory


By people who believe what is written in a book of stories.

That is the whole problem with creationism a theory based on myths!



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

False:


Crosse did not claim that he had created the insects. He assumed that there were insect eggs embedded in his samples. Later commentators agreed that the insects were probably cheese mites or dust mites that had contaminated Crosse's instruments.


en.wikipedia.org...


sigh... that sentence does not even have a source in the wikipedia article. He was hesitant to say he created the insects because creation was only thought to be capable by God. To avoid being "blasphemous", and being accused by the church-members who were blind to the great implications of his findings, he did not make claims to creating life. If you read the two articles I gave it goes into detail about how he made sure there was no contamination occuring, despite that being his initial inclination as to how the bugs were generated. He repeated the experiment many many times.

But hey, great debunk attempt by quoting a misguided wikipedia sentence that doesn't even have a source.

1) Life from dirt

edit on 20-3-2015 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

False:


Crosse did not claim that he had created the insects. He assumed that there were insect eggs embedded in his samples. Later commentators agreed that the insects were probably cheese mites or dust mites that had contaminated Crosse's instruments.


en.wikipedia.org...


sigh... that sentence does not even have a source in the wikipedia article. He was hesitant to say he created the insects because creation was only thought to be capable by God. To avoid being "blasphemous", and being accused by the church-members who were blind to the great implications of his findings, he did not make claims to creating life.


Then cite your primary source, then.

No one has been able to reproduce his experiments in over 200 years. I wonder why?
edit on 20-3-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

False:


Crosse did not claim that he had created the insects. He assumed that there were insect eggs embedded in his samples. Later commentators agreed that the insects were probably cheese mites or dust mites that had contaminated Crosse's instruments.


en.wikipedia.org...


sigh... that sentence does not even have a source in the wikipedia article. He was hesitant to say he created the insects because creation was only thought to be capable by God. To avoid being "blasphemous", and being accused by the church-members who were blind to the great implications of his findings, he did not make claims to creating life.


Then cite your primary source, then.

No one has been able to reproduce his experiments in over 200 years. I wonder why?


William Henry Weekes of the Electrical Society, which Crosse wrote to, was able to successfully recreate the experiment:

Weekes, William H. “Details of an Experiment in Which Certain Insects, Known as the Acarus crossi, Appeared.” Proceedings of the London Electrical Society 1 (1842): 240–256.

to read the full article go to this link below and skip to page 240 (The link should take you to the correct page, should say March 15, 1842 as the date for the article):

play.google.com...

Life from Dirt

edit on 20-3-2015 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Yet Henry Noad and Alfred Smee were unable to replicate the results utilizing the scientific method. I find it odd too that Michael Faraday somehow became attached to this as another person who replicated the same results as Crosse despite the fact that Faraday never even attempted the experiment. It comes off as someone using his name and reputation to bolster lackluster claims.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

Yet Henry Noad and Alfred Smee were unable to replicate the results utilizing the scientific method. I find it odd too that Michael Faraday somehow became attached to this as another person who replicated the same results as Crosse despite the fact that Faraday never even attempted the experiment. It comes off as someone using his name and reputation to bolster lackluster claims.


you are citing the wikipedia article, which, yet again, has no source. I supplied a source from the London Electrical Society which has 17 pages of the full detailed experiment of William Henry Weekes who successfully replicated the experiment. Here is the link again with the full article in case you missed it:

play.google.com...

more recent replications:

"Creation of life through electricity" (2009) Dini J.
"Andrew Crosse: early nineteenth-century amaterur of electrical science" (1993) Popock RF
"Andrew Crosse: Electrical Pioneer" (1934) Alexander J.

I don't think the community at the time even understood the implications. Religious folk called him a demon and wanted to exorcise him, without realizing that silicates (earth is 70% silicates), water, and electricity were the first set of conditions in the Genesis story.
edit on 20-3-2015 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Your source doesn't work and is nearly 200 years old. Your claim is wrong, this is evident not from not just everything we've learnt in those some 200 years since but also because no one has been able to replicate the experiment, and the man himself even states that it was contamination, not "life from dirt".
edit on 22-3-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

Your source doesn't work and is nearly 200 years old. Your claim is wrong, this is evident not from not just everything we've learnt in those some 200 years since but also because no one has been able to replicate the experiment, and the man himself even states that it was contamination, not "life from dirt".


Recent replications:
"Creation of life through electricity" (2009) Dini J.
"Andrew Crosse: early nineteenth-century amaterur of electrical science" (1993) Popock RF
"Andrew Crosse: Electrical Pioneer" (1934) Alexander J.
(I don't have access to the full text, so I can't quote it)

I guess the link didn't work for you because you don't have a google account or something.

try this one (page 240) books.google.com... TuCQPrsIWDuHEeHUKhzwdlAKU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8UAPVZHNINeUsQTE24LoDA&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

If that doesn't work You can find it yourself it is called "PRoceedings of the london electrical society, during the sessions 1841-2 and 1842-3" on page 240 the successful recreation on March 15th is called "Details of an experiment in which certain insects, known as the acarus crossi, appeared incident to the long-continued operation of a voltaic current upon silicate of potass"

It isn't even a theory, it is a fact that this happened and was recreated. Life from dirt.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Please post up the actual links. I can't find the first paper and the following 2 have exactly the same issues I've already stated multiple times now. Your final link does not work and has already been addressed in my post above.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

Please post up the actual links. I can't find the first paper and the following 2 have exactly the same issues I've already stated multiple times now. Your final link does not work and has already been addressed in my post above.


google this, and make sure to include the quotes around the phrase: "Proceedings of the london electrical society, during the sessions 1841-2 and 1842-3"

It will be the first option in the search results, click on it. Go to page 240, it should be on a page that is dated March 15th. This will be the full replicated experiment. He goes into great detail regarding his procedure and he generates the same bugs that Crosse claims to have generated.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Again, this does not address any of my previous criticisms. Now that I've read the original source, my criticisms are compounded:

1) This is essentially a "Letters to the Editor" in a non peer-reviewed proceedings for a discipline completely unrelated to biology

2) The source is nearly 200 years old

3) No one has been able to reproduce the experiment in nearly 200 years

4) The unsubstantiated claim is fantastic and thus requires fantastic evidence, especially in light of what we've learned about biology in the near 200 years that have followed



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
He goes into great detail regarding his procedure and he generates the same bugs that Crosse claims to have generated.


Except for the fact that Crosse never made that claim. He was pretty emphatic that he had no explanation for it and couldn't rule out contamination of instruments.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

Again, this does not address any of my previous criticisms. Now that I've read the original source, my criticisms are compounded:

1) This is essentially a "Letters to the Editor" in a non peer-reviewed proceedings for a discipline completely unrelated to biology


This was essentially the peer review of Crosse's experiment. Crosse wrote to them regarding the experiment and they were able to replicate it, as shown in the source I provided.


originally posted by: peter vlar
Except for the fact that Crosse never made that claim. He was pretty emphatic that he had no explanation for it and couldn't rule out contamination of instruments.


Yes he did make that claim, that is why he wrote to the electrical society regarding his findings, and they replicated it. He was hesitant with his words because he did not want to be called a heretic.



2) The source is nearly 200 years old
3) No one has been able to reproduce the experiment in nearly 200 years


Recent replications:
"Creation of life through electricity" (2009) Dini J.
"Andrew Crosse: early nineteenth-century amaterur of electrical science" (1993) Popock RF
"Andrew Crosse: Electrical Pioneer" (1934) Alexander J.
(I don't have access to the full text, so I can't quote it)



4) The unsubstantiated claim is fantastic and thus requires fantastic evidence, especially in light of what we've learned about biology in the near 200 years that have followed


It was replicated, multiple times. Obviously scientists at the time, and even today, have no idea how it could happen. Where do you even start? Maybe electromagnetism, with the right conditions, has some sort of ability to... create?

edit on 23-3-2015 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

Again, this does not address any of my previous criticisms. Now that I've read the original source, my criticisms are compounded:

1) This is essentially a "Letters to the Editor" in a non peer-reviewed proceedings for a discipline completely unrelated to biology


This was essentially the peer review of Crosse's experiment. Crosse wrote to them regarding the experiment and they were able to replicate it, as shown in the source I provided.


It wasn't. though. See my points above.


It was replicated, multiple times. Obviously scientists at the time, and even today, have no idea how it could happen. Where do you even start? Maybe electromagnetism, with the right conditions, has some sort of ability to... create?


Where? By whom? See above.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

are you reading my posts?

HERE AGAIN:
Recent replications:
"Creation of life through electricity" (2009) Dini J.
"Andrew Crosse: early nineteenth-century amaterur of electrical science" (1993) Popock RF
"Andrew Crosse: Electrical Pioneer" (1934) Alexander J.
(I don't have access to the full text, so I can't quote it)


It wasn't. though. See my points above.


Yes it was. The scientific community had a different way of doing things a while ago. William H Weekes Replicating the experiment was exactly that, a confirmation that Crosse's experiment was legitimate.

You also have yet to show me any primary sources that show that this was not replicated. I have provided you with replications of the experiment, Weekes generated the same bugs that Crosse did. Are you upset that I was able to give an example of life being created from dirt?



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Again, please post actual links so we can review the sources ourself.


You also have yet to show me any primary sources that show that this was not replicated.


This is not how the burden of proof works.
edit on 23-3-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

Again, please post actual links so we can review the sources ourself.


Are we going in circles? see my prior posts, I gave links, if they don't work, follow the directions I gave on how to google it. Here is my favorite quote on page 249 of The Proceedings of the Electrical Society in Weekes' replication:

"I observed one insect gradually disentangle itself and ascend out of the gelatinous accumulation around the negative wire beneath the surface of the fluid, and, continuing his progress, at leisure, until he got outside of the tumbler..."




top topics



 
19
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join