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.
Erosion is the wearing away of the land by forces such as water, wind, and ice. Erosion has helped to form many interesting features of the Earth's surface including mountain peaks, valleys, and coastlines.
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Teikiatsu
Well wind can erode too (its fluid, and can solvate, not as well, but yeah) .... and to answer the rest? I think its another hand wave thing.
originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
Are you willing to admit that article is flawed?
originally posted by: Noinden
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.
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Teikiatsu
Now now, according to creationists, I'm a satanist, so you would be stealing my job, I'll have the union after you
All your questions are valid. However it looks like life could exist then hence the answer is "it happened, and we have fossils". Its still insufficient data to say much more.
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Teikiatsu
Those questions have nothing to do with evolution however. People need to stop using the wrong theory on questions of science.
Oh and I'm a neopagan and a pharmaceutical chemist (work in industry)
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Teikiatsu
What is the title of the entire thread? Is Abiogenesis in it? Nope. QED there is a disconnect from the creationist crowd.
As for the next part?
The theory of evolution does not in any way shape or form, talk about how life began, just how it changes. Thus it does not need to address it, we understand how things evolve pretty damned well, mutations, in DNA.
To suddenly say "it makes no sense to include how life started in this" is moving the goal post. There is also no evidence that it needs to be included. When that evidence does or does not appear, then it can be reassessed, but you don't change science because its unpopular with non scientists.
originally posted by: Barcs
That's not evolution, though. You are making the same mistake as Neo. That's not 200 million less years for evolution. That's 200m less years for abiogenesis, and it's also very presumptive because we don't know when the "soup" began "brewing".
originally posted by: Barcs
Natural selection could be a factor, yes, but it really depends on how you use the term. At first there weren't any alleles to select for, since reproduction did not occur until after abiogenesis.
originally posted by: Barcs
Sure there were environmental pressures, but not technically natural selection.
originally posted by: Barcs
Yes, it's one continuum, so to speak, but it's not one process.