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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

No time for Evolution?

page: 16
1
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: WASTYT

I don't think our wives would be very happy.





posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: WASTYT

Sorry is this out of your comfort zone? Do intellectual things make you feel all icky?



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

People also blame science for any "bad drugs", when it is usually business making "cuts" that cause them. All substances cause issues when taken. Yes even water. So you introduce a complex organic molecule to the body, its going to have a side effect. People wibble on about "natural" and "from plants". Well some of the most toxic things are from nature (botox anyone?).

Now misuse of pharmaceuticals? Yeah that is bad. I know from family history if I take certain NSAIDS and COX2 inhibitors, I'm asking for high blood pressure. So I never used Viox for my gout. The court case for people who died on that, included people who KNEW it was unsafe, assuming they read the pamphlet which comes with the drugs.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: norhoc

They make a statement in the article to explain their position -


According to conventional geology, these microbe colonies existed on the heels of a period when Earth was undergoing heavy asteroid bombardment, making it virtually uninhabitable. This early date, adds The Times, “leaves comparatively little time for evolution to have occurred … .”


Agree or not, that's the reasoning.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The problem with the article (ok one of the problems) is that come from a distinctly biased point of view, and use a pejorative term ("Darwinist").

Rather than say "Evolutionary Scientists" or just "Scientists" are "faced with a fossil record that theoretically pushes the origin of life back further into the past...". They go right to a term they use for derision. A term that is nonsensical, as evolution left the realm of hypothesis and went to theory some time ago. Thus they need to talk about "gravitationalists", "kineticists", "thermodynamicists", etc as well. Scientists are scientists. They may investigate theories, but they can't decide which ones are real or not, and ignore the data.

Thus their reasoning is flawed on a number of levels. In their conclusion the phrase "a fossil recor that theoretically pushes the origin of life ...." is not proof, its one piece of evidence. Lets not even fo into the lack of science in the article.

I have no problem with people choosing not to agree with something in science, but to do so from such a poorly informed place, its intellectually dishonest. Sadly we return to people confusing biogenesis (the beginnings of life) with evolution (the change of life". They don't have to be in the same theory, indeed one is understood and a theory, the other is one of many hypotheses.

Again I have no problem with peoples spiritual beliefs, but they are unprovable gnoses, and need to stay out of the science. I certainly don't bring my polytheism into the lab every day, even if I do keep an altar in my office



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Further the article quotes ONE scientist (Dr Abigail Allwood) and a bunch of proponents for Intelligent design/Creationism, non of whom are actually specialists in the area of evolution or molecular biology.

Yeah nah.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I don't really care that much about their theories, for either side, in that regard, to be honest. I can see both points of view, and how both sides make errors, and that's an issue. Neither side wants to admit to errors, which is worse. My biggest beef is when people take a theory, and assume it's proven fact, just because they want to believe so. I'd rather look at the data, and see what best fits. Depending on the data, either side can make a case, typically. Neither has proven their point. I say, discuss it all, consider all points of view, and let the facts fall where they may.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 02:58 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Are you willing to admit that article is flawed?



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

While that is fine. We could also discuss what "theory" means in science vs every day lexicon. I am sure you'd not be interested in that either?

I've yet to see any data from creationists. Just dogma. As a spiritual person, I could put dogma in too, but someones Karma would hit it.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: WASTYT

Sorry is this out of your comfort zone? Do intellectual things make you feel all icky?


Nope, just public pillowy talking things.
All good, Im over it. Carry on gents.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: WASTYT

You really have strange ideas over what pillow talk is neighbour.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

You're totally right, but despite the heavy bias of THAT article, do you think it still negates the implications the discovery may have on the speed of evolution if these fossils in fact prove to show ancient biological activity some 200 million years earlier than we all thought? We're talking pushing back into the Hadean when the earth was supposedly being bombarded by meteors and such.

I started a thread on this when the discovery was announced, here just in case you're interested.

I think the point is that life may have started much earlier than previously believed, which opens up the discussion about the pace by which it originated and evolved into viable microorganisms.

Experts are likely to debate whether the structures described in the new report were formed biologically or through natural processes. If biological, the great age of the fossils complicates the task of reconstructing the evolution of life from the chemicals naturally present on the early Earth. It leaves comparatively little time for evolution to have occurred and puts the process close to a time when Earth was being bombarded by destructive asteroids.


www.nytimes.com...
phys.org...
www.nature.com...

All very speculative I concede



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

There is not enough data from that discovery (which the article does a poor job of conveying in a biased manner) to actually change anything. As a discovery it certainly has nothing to do with evolution needing a revamp, it might have something to do with biogenesis. Its a single point of data. What it does convey is "we know less than we thought".

So no, there are no implications on the speed of evolution.



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 04:45 AM
link   
I see the Darwinist are still living in fantasy land.

Again, Evolution is INCOMPLETE without the Origin of Life. To Darwanist it doesn't matter when life emerged. Nothing can touch their interpretation of evolution and this is because Evolution is used by some to support their Atheism.

So they have a belief and any question about evolution is met with blind outrage.

At the end of the day, Evolution is an incomplete theory. Without the Origin of Life it's like a candle in the wind.

Tell me, where did Evolution originate and how or did it just magically pop into existence? As you guys said earlier, EVOLUTION MUST HAVE LIFE.

Was evolution like this invisible, magical thing waiting around for life or does the Origin of Life determine how life will evolve?

The problem here is you guys throw logic an reason out of the window when it comes to evolution. Of course the Origin of Life is very important to Evolution because Origins tell you why life evolved the way it did.

It's just like gravity. Scientist don't understand gravity. They have a limited understanding but if they understood it there would be no need to look for a graviton or have theories like loop quantum gravity or the emergence of gravity through entanglement.

Here's what a Darwinist said in another debate:

Evolution assumes that living things exist, and as long as living things did come to be, evolution doesn't care how they came to be.

Is evolution some sort of invisible, magical thing? It's a physical process so of course how life which you guys say IT MUST HAVE is connected to how things came to be.



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You forgot to add "in my opinion" at the end of your misinformed rant.

Darwinists? LOL! Trying to use a term, that is no longer relevant, as an insult just shows how lacking on the subject you truly are.

BTW, there are members here who understand evolution for what it is AND they're religious. Kind of makes your atheism dig a bit moot, don't you think?



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Evolution is real, get over it.



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Again:

Tell me, where did Evolution originate and how or did it just magically pop into existence? As you guys said earlier, EVOLUTION MUST HAVE LIFE.

Is evolution some sort of invisible, magical thing? It's a physical process so of course how life, which you guys say IT MUST HAVE, is connected to how things came to be.

If there wasn't any life, would evolution exists?


Like I said, Darwinists live in a fantasy world where Evolution is akin to magic.

edit on 20-9-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish
Evolution is real, get over it.


Same questions. Where or how did Evolution originate? You guys said Evolution MUST HAVE LIFE, so if there wasn't any life, would evolution still exists?

Darwinist talk about Evolution with the blind faith of a religious zealot.

I have never debated a Darwinist and have heard them speak on the origins of evolution. Evolution is a physical process and like all physical processes we either know of their origin or there's theories about how these things originated but you never hear this about evolution.

It's just this magical thing that exists in a vacuum. Is it magic??

HOW DID EVOLUTION ORIGINATE?

For instance, if I wanted to know about the Origins of Electromagnetism, I can go to Wiki and read this:


Electromagnetism is a branch of physics which involves the study of the electromagnetic force, a type of physical interaction that occurs between electrically charged particles. The electromagnetic force usually exhibits electromagnetic fields, such as electric fields, magnetic fields, and light. The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental interactions (commonly called forces) in nature. The other three fundamental interactions are the strong interaction, the weak interaction, and gravitation.[1]

There are numerous mathematical descriptions of the electromagnetic field. In classical electrodynamics, electric fields are described as electric potential and electric current. In Faraday's law, magnetic fields are associated with electromagnetic induction and magnetism, and Maxwell's equations describe how electric and magnetic fields are generated and altered by each other and by charges and currents.


en.wikipedia.org...

Where can I read about the Origins of Evolution? Is it magic? Did it just appear out of nowhere?

All of these years that I have been debating blind Darwinist, I have never heard them speak about where or how Evolution came to be. It just magically exists. With every other physical manifestation in our universe, we look for Origins and come up with theories to explain how these things originated EXCEPT THE MAGICICAL EVOLUTION!!



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: PhotonEffect

There is not enough data from that discovery (which the article does a poor job of conveying in a biased manner) to actually change anything.

So you read the whole paper? ( I don't have access to it so I'm not able to comment on what the data shows, only that the authors of said paper seem to be very convinced)


originally posted by: Noinden
What it does convey is "we know less than we thought".
So no, there are no implications on the speed of evolution.

But, IF (big if) these are microbial in nature then this would constitute evidence of life existing much earlier than we thought (hence your comment). How does this not in some way have an impact on the timelines for the evolution of life from abiogenesis to microbe? Either the evolution happened faster than we think or the Earth is older than we think (hence your comment).



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

What are the answers that you seek?

Your questions and subsequent denial of evolution are a bit confusing.







 
1
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join