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.

 

The Questions That Abiogenesis Needs To Answer, Before Evolution.

page: 10
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP




You laugh at a guy in the sky they laugh at your muck in the pond, no difference.


And that about sums up this entire thread




posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I'm not an atheist. Yet I believe in evolution.
I'm not an atheist, yet I believe life did not need a creator.
I do not laugh at the gods.

Your logic is flawed.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

There is also the fact that creationists don't understand science. Its clear from this thread. Or that they assume all people of spiritual belief follow the same ideas



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Except Evolution and the origin of life are not separate. Its like saying we know how a car runs but we know nothing about internal combustion engines...



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
In fact evolution itself is seen as nothing more than the study of what happened after a creation process brought about life. Atheists admit they don't know exactly how and cannot reproduce life, but have faith that it just happened without a creator.


*sigh*

Let's try this one last time. If you still can't get it, I'm just going to leave you to wallow in your arrogant ignorance.

You're stuck on this concept of "atheists say there's no god but they can't prove how life began so they're having faith that it was something other than god."

I've said it already in this thread, you pretend to be an authority on atheists but you don't have a clue.

1) Atheists say that there is no proof of god. There is also no proof of bigfoot, aliens, unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, or the loch ness monster but some people believe in those things. The biggest difference is that there isn't a "First Church of Sasquatch" that's threatening people with eternal damnation if they don't believe. Ironically, there's more evidence for bigfoot than there is for god.

2) It isn't a matter of faith. There is life on this planet. Life clearly had an origin. Currently, the evidence isn't clear exactly how it happened but it happened. Just because we don't know how it happened, doesn't mean that the gap gets filled in with a god. Intelligent people don't go around answering every difficult question with "god did it." Everything we know about math and science was discovered because "god did it" was not a suitable answer. Some people try to answer unexplained questions with "aliens did it" which is equally lazy. You seem to think that human beings have been studying this topic long enough to come up with an answer and that's laughable. We've made huge leaps in scientific understanding but we're still multiple generations away from a decent understanding of our own planet, much less the entire universe.

3) You're using the classic "god of the gaps" argument which is very dangerous from a Christian standpoint. Eventually, you'll run out of gaps and what will you have left on which to base your faith? Believe whatever you want to believe but don't try to argue against science and don't try to tell others what they believe. It just makes people dislike you and your whole religious ilk because it shows a level of irrationality and straw-grasping that reeks of ignorance and desperation.


edit on 4/5/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Noinden

Except Evolution and the origin of life are not separate. Its like saying we know how a car runs but we know nothing about internal combustion engines...


How is it that a few of you can keep repeating the same incorrect statement when several posters who are actually knowledgeable about the subject have told you that you're wrong?

Why is this the only counterpoint you seem able to muster:



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I see the usual crowd of God hating heathens have gathered for their ritual feast of derision and egocentric psudo-science. An orgy of self gratification whilst pleasuring themselves on grubby pictures of Charles Darwin. Simple minds that have invested way too much time greedily gobbling every scientific paper they have the capacity to understand and spout, as if they held any credence at all.

Like moths around a dim light, they don’t even know that it is dark all around them. A glimmer of half baked hypothesis and theories, contrived to support wasted lives of useless research. Sadly, It is all they will ever be able to see.

Don’t ever question the church of science-tology, or somebody will quote you the words of another misguided fool, as if it, in some way settles the question. Humankind’s entire scientific knowledge compares to a fleck of dust in an entire universe of matter and yet the ego’s of those that only understand a fraction of that fleck, feel empowered and mighty because their pea brains figured out something that made sense to them.

The question of life and its origin is not a small thing. Not small and comparatively insignificant as say evolution theory.

Evolution,( intelligent adaptation), must have been an after thought for the creator, a finishing touch, a little bit of garnish, a final brush stroke.

I have arrived at the firm belief that atheists, simply do not have the capacity to visualise anything more complex than a colouring in book. The concept of a creator is far too big for their atrophied minds to comprehend. Brains too compartmentalized, just too small in capacity to imagine for themselves. A creator is a concept that would leave them feeling too small and vulnerable.

It it good that you posted this thread Blue_Jay33, but you must have known that it was an exercise in futility and that you would attract the same slavish adherence to the holy books of scientific follies in a field that compares to investigating a crime that didn't happen.

They piece together fragments of bones and bodies and declare "we see no creator in this", but of course that is perfectly evident, because it is one of Gods creations long dead.

What a complete waste of human resources to scratch about in the dust trying to prove that they owe nothing to God and that science is in some way compensation for their emptiness.

It is life itself that is the proof of creation, not its remnants. That is why we must never mention the origin of life in our discourse, because it is not related to evolution theory, at least, not to a simple mind.









posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer




How is it that a few of you can keep repeating the same incorrect statement when several posters who are actually knowledgeable about the subject have told you that you're wrong?


You must be confusing me with someone else. I have made two post on this thread. Both of which were in response to Noinden. Considering you know nothing about me you have no idea what I do or do not have knowledge of. But since you seem in the mood to converse with me I'll bite.




Atheists say that there is no proof of god. There is also no proof of bigfoot, aliens, unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, or the loch ness monster but some people believe in those things.


This is called a faulty comparison. You see atheist understand the Burden of Proof, but the fail to understand the Burden of Proof fallacy. The Burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim, we will call claim X. So if a person say X is true. That person is presented with the Burden of Proof. Atheist have that down, but they misunderstand this to mean that the Burden of Proof fallacy is committed when anyone ask them for their reasons for believing God doesn't exist. This is not the Burden of Proof fallacy. The Burden of proof fallacy can be shown as follows:

Person A: Unicorns exist.
Person B: How do you know unicorns exist?
Person A: Because no one has proven unicorns don't exist.

Person A presents the idea that because no one has dis proven unicorns, therefore unicorns exist. Person A presented this as a form of evidence and there for it is logically fallacious.

Now let me shown an example in which the burden of proof does fall on a person making the negative claim:

Person A: I lack belief in pineapples
Person B:*Presents a pineapple* Pineapples exist.
Person A: I lack belief in pineapples burden of proof is on you....

You see if one tries and pretend that the Burden of proof always rest with the positive side they make a logical error. The Burden of Proof rest on the positive claim until evidence for that claim has been produced. Once it has the positive side then has the right to ask if not claim X, why ?




Currently, the evidence isn't clear exactly how it happened but it happened. Just because we don't know how it happened, doesn't mean that the gap gets filled in with a god


The point here is not that "God did it," the point here is depending on what the origin of life is evolutionary theory could be total bull#. If nothing about evolutionary theory works with the way life originated then it falls apart. Saying evolution is fact means one simply believes whatever cause life to originate will be on par with evolutionary theory. Second if you want to know the BS behind evolution try taking a look at some of the archaeology work done by Michael Cremo. Good archaeology gets thrown under the rug simply because it disagrees with the most popular scientific paradigm. My issue with evolution is not that it would dis prove God. The two could easily co-exist. I disagree with the idea of speciation over billions of years due to random mutations and natural selection simply because I think its bogus. The only thing thats ever been observed is variance among species. Then all we have are fossils and human interpretations of those fossils. Macro-evolution has many problems. The Cambrian explosion which Richard Dawkins describes in his book The Blind Watchmaker "..the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." I am not saying this points to creationism. I am simply saying it is a reason to reject macro-evolution.





3) You're using the classic "god of the gaps" argument which is very dangerous from a Christian standpoint



Whoever your responding to may be using the "god of the gaps," but I feel like atheist assume because we understand how something works that means God couldn't have designed the world that way. Just because a person can understand how a clock works doesn't mean a clock isn't designed. Just because we know how a car runs doesn't mean a car wasn't designed. This is sound logic...its just always seemed like a poor rebuttal to me.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

That argument has been used. The analogy is more you can understand internal combustion with out needing to know how fossel fuels are made
Sorry, can we have a non conveyance analogy?



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72




It it good that you posted this thread Blue_Jay33, but you must have known that it was an exercise in futility


Yeah I know, but I always do it for those that have the highest critical thinking skills, for those that are not slaves to evolutionary science fiction. I do it for those that have agnostic thinking.
It's interesting in the threads I have made over the years you get three types posting, those that are 100% for, those are 100% against and then there is the 50/50 people they haven't made up their minds yet, they are still searching and learning. I always find it fascinating how they get attacked just as viscously, as me.
It's like these guys can't stand to see somebody that doesn't know, or hasn't decided yet, and they say so and why.
When they do that it exemplifies intellectual arrogance at the highest level of academia.
And they aren't winning any points with anybody except each other.

But then again they are the vocal 2%, I forget sometimes that to most, from there point of view these guys are irrelevant.
Most of the the other 98% just don't care.
But I do, that's why post on ATS.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33



there is the 50/50 people they haven't made up their minds yet, they are still searching and learning. I always find it fascinating how they get attacked just as viscously, as me.


I agree, for the sake of those who are undecided, it is good to present a picture that wasn't peer reviewed.

Peer reviewed science has become thought control that will not allow anything that is unprovable to enter into peoples consciousness. They can't have people thinking for themselves - far too dangerous.

Good thread! thank you.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

A good round a back patting, and self congratulation gents.

Now less with the made up meaningless statistics. Evidence why we need to understand Abiogenisis/proteogenisis before evolution please.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Well! if it isn't my old friend (get down off that horse, pilgrim) Noinden



Now less with the made up meaningless statistics. Evidence why we need to understand Abiogenisis/proteogenisis before evolution please.


After you explain to me why any of it matters, if we don't even understand what life is. Asking for evidence is like a reflex reaction for you but I am sure you meant 'explanation"



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:10 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Sigh, what is the premise of this thread? From the OP? Hint the title. As usual, no actual evidence from creationists. Also as usual, attacks on science


I mean evidence. English is my native language neighbor, though mild dyslexia happens.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
In fact evolution itself is seen as nothing more than the study of what happened after a creation process brought about life. Atheists admit they don't know exactly how and cannot reproduce life, but have faith that it just happened without a creator.


*sigh*

Let's try this one last time. If you still can't get it, I'm just going to leave you to wallow in your arrogant ignorance.

You're stuck on this concept of "atheists say there's no god but they can't prove how life began so they're having faith that it was something other than god."

I've said it already in this thread, you pretend to be an authority on atheists but you don't have a clue.

1) Atheists say that there is no proof of god. There is also no proof of bigfoot, aliens, unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, or the loch ness monster but some people believe in those things. The biggest difference is that there isn't a "First Church of Sasquatch" that's threatening people with eternal damnation if they don't believe. Ironically, there's more evidence for bigfoot than there is for god.

2) It isn't a matter of faith. There is life on this planet. Life clearly had an origin. Currently, the evidence isn't clear exactly how it happened but it happened. Just because we don't know how it happened, doesn't mean that the gap gets filled in with a god. Intelligent people don't go around answering every difficult question with "god did it." Everything we know about math and science was discovered because "god did it" was not a suitable answer. Some people try to answer unexplained questions with "aliens did it" which is equally lazy. You seem to think that human beings have been studying this topic long enough to come up with an answer and that's laughable. We've made huge leaps in scientific understanding but we're still multiple generations away from a decent understanding of our own planet, much less the entire universe.

3) You're using the classic "god of the gaps" argument which is very dangerous from a Christian standpoint. Eventually, you'll run out of gaps and what will you have left on which to base your faith? Believe whatever you want to believe but don't try to argue against science and don't try to tell others what they believe. It just makes people dislike you and your whole religious ilk because it shows a level of irrationality and straw-grasping that reeks of ignorance and desperation.



How dare some God believer come along and steal my science argument.

The arrogance of evolution knows no bounds.
The scientists take the photosynthesis process and say.....it is the most inefficient because of the evolutionary path it took. The proteins in plants make up the most abundant source of protein on earth. Lets change that and make it efficient to save the planet, ignoring that plant protein is also the most abundant for other reasons, food. They actually want to decrease the protein of plants to make them more efficient in the name of global warming. Genetically engineered plants grown just to remove carbon from the air would take the place of livestock feed and food crops.

Source

They point to this photosynthesis, trapping the Carbon molecules, as proof there is no design because in their arrogance they see only the inefficiency ignoring the benefits to the ecosystem it provides. If plants were more efficient in carbon removal at the expense of massive reduction in plant proteins, where would that have left their evolutionary theories on animal life? They'd all still be crawling around on worm bellies.

They are taking what they think they know and playing God with it.
They are saying look at this wonderful billions of years of evolution we now understand.....lets change it.

Before they start changing our planet, they should be able to answer the most basic question instead of putting the cart before the horse. Demonstrate you understand life by making life. Changing photosynthesis on Earth is kind of a bid deal, especially if it goes against their vaunted evolution which according to science led to the form we have now.
edit on 6-4-2015 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 04:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden



no actual evidence from creationists. Also as usual, attacks on science


I unapologetically attack science and will continue to do so until adherents of it's various disciplines remember that they have a responsibility towards humanity. Much credibility and respect has been lost over recent years I'm afraid.

I am juggling to see where scientists fit on a scale between politicians and lawyers in the "trust me" department.

You know - but you keep droning the same mantra that evidence for God is subjective and does not stand up to scientific scrutiny, but if you where in receipt of that evidence you would never question it's validity.

Did it never occur to atheists that they may not possess what most other people have. Did you really get through all of your life 'to date' without experiencing God? or did you just brush it all aside as coincidences?

I read all of your arguments in support of evolution theory and its implications. I just feel sad for you all in your attempts to convince others that life is meaningless and hollow and that only the fittest will survive.

If that really was true then I dread to think of where humanity is destined. You guys really need to sit down and think it all out before you start to indoctrinate others with your destructive, meaningless and soulless ideology. Before I am attacked by the usual morons spouting on about how destructive religion is, please think about how that relates to free will and the human ego.


edit on 6-4-2015 by kennyb72 because: must be filled out




posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 05:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
I just feel sad for you all in your attempts to convince others that life is meaningless and hollow and that only the fittest will survive.


What part of evolutionary theory says life is meaningless and hollow?



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 05:13 AM
link   


What part of evolutionary theory says life is meaningless and hollow?
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

The part that tries to Imply that we are not created by a higher intelligence and in consequence denies you from discovering who and what you really are. Without that understanding your life IS meaningless and hollow, you just don't realise it because it is all you know.

You really need to eat more WakeUpBeer, you are looking decidedly peaky!



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 05:27 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Is life not as meaningful and fulfilling as the person experiencing it makes it? Whatever they may believe about life or its origins? What part of the theory of evolution denies anyone from discovering who and what they really are, whatever that may mean to them? You'll have to forgive me. I know we have conversed a bit before, back in November. But I can't recall exactly what your personal beliefs were. Only that it was in the vein of intelligent design. If I recall correctly, there were some parts of evolution you accepted? Regardless.. Are you saying that anyone who supports the theory of evolution and also feels their life has meaning, is feeling a false sense of fulfillment? If you understand the meaning of life and are fulfilled, mind sharing it with the rest of us (or I guess giving me a refresher since you may have told me before).

Thanks.

And cheers, I just made a pizza.




edit on 4-6-2015 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

ROFL, just another religious bigot.

You may feel that YOUR life without a god or creator is meaningless and hollow, but that doesn't mean that others do.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join