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.

 

Believing what you know ain't so

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


Evolution is genetics

Genetics is DNA. DNA is encoded, right? After all its called the Genetic Code. So who wrote this code?

What cracks me up is how some surmise that something as complex as DNA can just "develop" itself.

Big lulz. Its right in front of your face. Software "developers" write assembly language and machine code, programs don't 'write themselves'.




posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I'm replying twice,,,


Yes, life could have been created and THEN evolved.

Okay then.


Those 2 concepts are not mutually exclusive, so suggesting that evolution requires abiogenesis is dead wrong.
That is not a flaw of evolution, it is a flaw in your understanding.

All I'm saying is that if that is true they have moved the goal posts.

Evolution in my day was always about origins. To my mind it still is. You have end runned the "theory"-- wait… its still called a theory, right? Or did you change that, too?

See, I still call what I believe a theory because a, I wasn't there and b, the video is missing.
edit on 4-4-2015 by intrptr because: BB code



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Barcs

Evolution in my day was always about origins. To my mind it still is. You have end runned the "theory"-- wait… its still called a theory, right? Or did you change that, too?


No it has not changed, you were misinformed.


See, I still call what I believe a theory because a, I wasn't there and b, the video is missing.


Seems you were misinformed quite a bit in regards to science.

Does a prosecutor need to have personally witnessed the crime or have a video of it being committed in order to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person was guilty?



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy

for he life of me...I can't figure out why people get off in shooting down creationists...that includes ATS threads...

It's like shooting fish in a barrel...I think that's the term used...

as long as you make these threads...it only shows we give them way too much credit. Creationists are a wast minority among religious people...and it makes no sense to putting in an effort to shoot them down.



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: OneManArmy

for he life of me...I can't figure out why people get off in shooting down creationists...that includes ATS threads...

It's like shooting fish in a barrel...I think that's the term used...

as long as you make these threads...it only shows we give them way too much credit. Creationists are a wast minority among religious people...and it makes no sense to putting in an effort to shoot them down.


Do you know just how many people in the US reject evolution?



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369


Does a prosecutor need to have personally witnessed the crime or have a video of it being committed in order to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person was guilty?

The colder the case, the harder it is to "prosecute". How life got here is a very cold case.

ETA:


Seems you were misinformed quite a bit in regards to science.

So now its called Evolution "Science", not a theory anymore? Is that science or Science with a capital "S"? I want to be dramatically correct.

edit on 4-4-2015 by intrptr because: ETA:



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: OneManArmy

for he life of me...I can't figure out why people get off in shooting down creationists...that includes ATS threads...

It's like shooting fish in a barrel...I think that's the term used...

as long as you make these threads...it only shows we give them way too much credit. Creationists are a wast minority among religious people...and it makes no sense to putting in an effort to shoot them down.


Do you know just how many people in the US reject evolution?



Bible belt ?



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly


Bible belt ?


Haha… that was 'below the belt'.

Thats like me saying "Academia" believes in Evolution, which isn't true either. Do you also generalize like "Muslim" Extremists and Radical Islam?



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Prezbo369


Does a prosecutor need to have personally witnessed the crime or have a video of it being committed in order to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person was guilty?

The colder the case, the harder it is to "prosecute". How life got here is a very cold case.



Abiogenesis is not a theory but evolution is, and the jury found it guilty despite no-one being there to personally witness the crime or have it on video.

Evidence is being gathered for the abiogenesis, and as such it's currently the leading hypothesis.

The 'A supernatural alien creature did it' hypothesis is lacking in the evidence department.



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Prezbo369

So now its called Evolution "Science", not a theory anymore? Is that science or Science with a capital "S"? I want to be dramatically correct.


I have no idea what you just said.....could you make sense?



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr




Do you also generalize like "Muslim" Extremists and Radical Islam?



hmmm...I may have misunderstood you here...isn't radical and extreme...almost the same ?


I mean...the only thing separating those two is the follow through...
edit on 4-4-2015 by MarioOnTheFly because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Nice deflection guys…

I'm out.



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: OneManArmy

for he life of me...I can't figure out why people get off in shooting down creationists...that includes ATS threads...

It's like shooting fish in a barrel...I think that's the term used...

as long as you make these threads...it only shows we give them way too much credit. Creationists are a wast minority among religious people...and it makes no sense to putting in an effort to shoot them down.


Do you know just how many people in the US reject evolution?


In 2012 about 46% of US population did and in 2014 it was about 42% so I think it would be safe to say 4 out of 10 people in the US believe in creationism. As in man was poofed into existence as he is now.



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
Bible belt ?


47% of the US population believe in creationism.



Scary and sad all at the same time...



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Barcs


Evolution is genetics

Genetics is DNA. DNA is encoded, right? After all its called the Genetic Code. So who wrote this code?

Big lulz. Its right in front of your face. Software "developers" write assembly language and machine code, programs don't 'write themselves'.What cracks me up is how some surmise that something as complex as DNA can just "develop" itself.








"What cracks me up is how some surmise that something as complex as DNA can just "develop" itself."

You're obviously behind the science curve. Self assembly of nanomolecules has been known for a long time. RNA and its derivative, DNA, can self assemble.

"Chemists at the Georgia Institute of Technology have shown how molecules that may have been present on early Earth can self-assemble into structures that could represent a starting point of RNA. The spontaneous formation of RNA building blocks is seen as a crucial step in the origin of life, but one that scientists have struggled with for decades. "

www.news.gatech.edu...


DNA Self Assembly: From Chirality to Evolution

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Read the research articles and learn something.




edit on 4-4-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-4-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-4-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


"Chemists at the Georgia Institute of Technology have shown how molecules that may have been present on early Earth can self-assemble into structures that could represent a starting point of RNA.

Randomly, I can jumble a bunch of ones and zeros (binary code) together, too. I guarantee you it won't result in a higher order of development. Even if it did, it couldn't also "divide" to make copies of itself….

You are talking molecules, I am talking "life".



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Life is made up of molecules. DNA is a molecule. DNA is also an algorithm that can compute its own replication without outside intervention. The definition of life is the ability to reproduce.

Definition

noun, plural: lives

(1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

www.biology-online.org...



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 04:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Phantom423


"Chemists at the Georgia Institute of Technology have shown how molecules that may have been present on early Earth can self-assemble into structures that could represent a starting point of RNA.

Randomly, I can jumble a bunch of ones and zeros (binary code) together, too. I guarantee you it won't result in a higher order of development. Even if it did, it couldn't also "divide" to make copies of itself….

You are talking molecules, I am talking "life".


On the subject of life from no life, I have to say, Im with you.
I have seen before about the suggestive research of RNA. But its only suggestive, not definitive.
I too see DNA as a computer program which requires intelligent design.
Until shown otherwise, I will maintain that idea.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 04:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
Bible belt ?


47% of the US population believe in creationism.



Interesting stat. I never knew things were that sad over the pond. I wonder if there is similar stat per country for comparison.
edit on 5-4-2015 by MarioOnTheFly because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join