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.
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
Therefore, any credible scientist evaluating the experiment would ask:
No. 1: Is it repeatable?
No. 2: If it is repeatable, design experiments to analyze what it is.
No. 3: Publish papers which support Crosse's discovery and move forward to explain how it happened.
No. 4 (And this is what it is): If it's not repeatable, then the observation was misinterpreted and has no inherent credibility regardless who saw it.
I think I'll have a martini.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Grimpachi
As well as here, thanks to Krazyshot.
10 popular misconceptions regarding the theory of evolution
I think some of the ideas here are on that list. I won't spoil the fun of figuring out which ones. Ah, education!
originally posted by: cooperton
Gravitational force can be calculated mathematically, and can be repeated experimentally. We have never had an instance where we observed an organism change its kind. monkeys are monkeys, humans are humans, etc. I understand speciation, and that it accumulates, over time, and gradually an organism will "evolve"; I understand it is proposed that a monkey did not simply give birth to a human, but rather, encephalization of the humanoid was a slow process. All I am saying, is that there has never been an observable example of, for example, a population of fish evolving into a population of amphibians. We can assume all we want, but the fact is we have not observed such evolution, we have only observed adaptations or minute speciation. Evolution appears to be the logical choice as to how things came into being, but maybe evolution seems so logical because it is the way biogenesis occurs, that is, the way biological life gives birth to other biological life (embryology):www.youtube.com...
originally posted by: cooperton
But, maybe, JUST MAYBE, (come on now, this is ATS, we should be questioning EVERYTHING), abiogenesis, which is biological life forming from non-biological means, is how life forms first came into being. Especially since there are experiments that demonstrate this is possible. So, I strongly urge you all to look into it on your own with an open mind.
Gravitational force can be calculated mathematically, and can be repeated experimentally. We have never had an instance where we observed an organism change its kind. monkeys are monkeys, humans are humans, etc. I understand speciation, and that it accumulates, over time, and gradually an organism will "evolve"; I understand it is proposed that a monkey did not simply give birth to a human, but rather, encephalization of the humanoid was a slow process. All I am saying, is that there has never been an observable example of, for example, a population of fish evolving into a population of amphibians. We can assume all we want, but the fact is we have not observed such evolution, we have only observed adaptations or minute speciation. Evolution appears to be the logical choice as to how things came into being, but maybe evolution seems so logical because it is the way biogenesis occurs, that is, the way biological life gives birth to other biological life (embryology):www.youtube.com...
originally posted by: TheCretinHop
a reply to: SuperFrog
You mentioned stupid design. yhis doesn't seem stupid to me...
www.nature.com...
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Barcs
again: we have seen this thread before. dozens of times. and always with the same result.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Barcs
again: we have seen this thread before. dozens of times. and always with the same result.