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: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Can you explain how not knowing the origins of life renders our understanding of genetics change sorted by natural selection as the explanation for biodiversity invalid?




posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Yes, evolution must have life. Do I really need to keep saying it? Does this somehow prove your point that the explanation of the origins of life explain evolution or vice versa? No, it does not.

We don't need to know the origins of life to understand evolution. Just like we don't need to know the origins of radiation to understand X-ray machines. All we need to know is radiation exists.
edit on 1792016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Lol last four pages have been Terry saying the same thing over and over and still the OP doesn't get it lol.
These evolution threads are fun....until he who should not be named come in



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Orionx2




Everyday people kill people for whatever agenda.

Yes. That was my point.
But there are far, far more people who do not.

Not disagreeing but daily I see people doing what they think is best for them. Maybe not killing, but the end result isn't much different.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: neoholographic

Yes, evolution must have life. Do I really need to keep saying it? Does this somehow prove your point that the explanation of the origins of life explain evolution or vice versa? No, it does not.

We don't need to know the origins of life to understand evolution. Just like we don't need to know the origins of radiation to understand X-ray machines. All we need to know is radiation exists.


You can understand evolution all day long but that understanding is incomplete without the origin of life.

You can know about X-Ray machines and understand how they work but you will never know the origin of X Ray machines without knowing the origin of radiation.

Your analogy is jusr ridiculous and proves my point. Here's Wiki on X-Ray Machines:

An x-ray machine is composed of a control console which enables the x-ray technician to select various x-ray techniques suitable for that specific exam, an x-ray generator that creates and produces the desired KV (kilovoltage), MA (milliamperage sometimes referred to as MAS which is actually MA multiplied by the desired exposure length) and x-ray tube. The X-ray tube, like any vacuum tube, contains a cathode, which directs a stream of electrons into a vacuum, and an anode, which collects the electrons and is made of tungsten to evacuate the heat generated by the collision. When the electrons collide with the target, about 1% of the resulting energy is emitted as X-rays, with the remaining 99% released as heat. Due to the high energy of the electrons that reach relativistic speeds the target is usually made of tungsten even if other material can be used particularly in XRF applications.

Here's more:

X-ray photons are produced by an electron beam that is accelerated to a very high speed and strikes a target. The electrons that make up the beam are emitted from a heated cathode filament. The electrons are then focused and accelerated by an electrical field towards an angled anode target. The point where the electron beam strikes the target is called the focal spot. Most of the kinetic energy contained in the electron beam is converted to heat, but around 1% of the energy is converted into X-ray photons, the excess heat is dissipated via a heat sink.[2] At the focal spot, X-ray photons are emitted in all directions from the target surface, the highest intensity being around 60° to 90° from the beam due to the angle of the anode target to the approaching electron beam. There is a small round window in the X-ray tube directly above the angled target. This window allows the X-rays to exit the tube with little attenuation while maintaining a vacuum seal required for the X-ray tube operation. Other than the x-ray tube window or port the remaining portion of the x-ray tube housing is lined with lead to absorb all remaining x-rays not usable for image creation.

en.wikipedia.org...

Just like EVOLUTION MUST HAVE LIFE, the X-Ray Machine MUST HAVE radiation and it's critical to know the Origins.

So of course, Evolution occurs but like you said it must have life and the Origin of Life that's Changing overtime is more important than Evolution.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You're wrong. Knowing the origin of life makes no difference to understanding evolution.

The origins of life could be a meteor, aliens, God or gods, billion year old unicorn farts or whatever you want it to be. Doesn't make a damn difference to explaining evolution.
edit on 1792016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

It's like trying to teach a baby to say "mama". The only difference is is I don't think he is EVER going to understand, but the baby eventually does.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Can you explain how not knowing the origins of life renders our understanding of genetics change sorted by natural selection as the explanation for biodiversity invalid?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

The baby is a learning machine.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TerryDon79

The baby is a learning machine.


That's a very good point. The baby has a capacity to learn, the other person doesn't.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

A baby is a blank page. Some people are closed books.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79
A great capacity for learning, yes. But probably more important, an intense desire to do so.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Isn't the brain best at learning when we are babies? I'm sure I read that at one point.
Also I would love to know what the future holds for the life on this planet evolution wise, I think we will be gone before anything happens to us but the other animals that survive will they evolve to cope with the crap we leave behind or will we do to much damage?. Hope we don't and the next intelligent animal will be descendants of Raccoons.

Raccoons



I hope somehow the future Raccoon people find that video and go "WTF?"
edit on 17-9-2016 by TheKnightofDoom because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: neoholographic

You're wrong. Knowing the origin of life makes no difference to understanding evolution.

The origins of life could be a meteor, aliens, God or gods, billion year old unicorn farts or whatever you want it to be. Doesn't make a damn difference to explaining evolution.


Of course it does. You said:

EVOLUTION MUST HAVE LIFE!

The most you can say is Evolution is a Process that Science supports. That's it as you say. It doesn't tell you that it refutes God or supports Atheism. It's just a process that occurs.

This process will always be incomplete if you don't know the Origins of Life that's evolving overtime. As you say, Evolution must have life.

I can say, here's the process I would use to bake a cake. I can know all about that process but that process is meaningless without the Origins or Ingredients that will be evolving or changing overtime.

You're making a senseless argument and your statement EVOLUTION MUST HAVE LIFE destroys anything that you're saying.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TheKnightofDoom
From my observation it's really the toddler stage where it takes off.
But I'm sure there are tons of studies on it.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic



I can know all about that process but that process is meaningless without the Origins or Ingredients that will be evolving or changing overtime.

You have to know where the flour comes from in order to bake a cake?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Yes. Evolution must have life. Well done. Want a cookie?

Evolution only needs life to exist, it doesn't need origins of life to be explained for us to understand evolution.

I'm not sure why you don't get that. Maybe it's your weird religion? Maybe it's because you have learning difficulties? Maybe it's because you just don't have an argument and latch onto something insignificant to try and prove a point that doesn't exist?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I know that physically our cells are best at toddler age If you could somehow have the same rate of repair and such as a toddler you would live many many hundreds of years.
Be a bit rubbish being a 300 year old person but as a four year old all that time though...

edit on 17-9-2016 by TheKnightofDoom because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neoholographic



I can know all about that process but that process is meaningless without the Origins or Ingredients that will be evolving or changing overtime.

You have to know where the flour comes from in order to bake a cake?



Of course you do. If you have been reading the post, he said EVOLUTION MUST HAVE LIFE.

So you can bake a cake all day but Science would want to know the origin of the ingredients that's evolving over time. What do you think Science is?

Science is constantly looking for Origins to explain observed features.

So if Evolution must have life, then the Origin of that Life that's changing overtime is more important than Evolution.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Sorry dude. Evolution requires life. It doesn't require life that originated naturally. To claim otherwise is a blatant lie used to AVOID discussing evolution itself and instead defer to the unknown. Evolution is backed by tons of evidence, which folks like yourself always refuse to address. If you have issues with aiogenesis then just say abiogenesis.

A creator could have made life that evolves, or simply made life and then the natural forces of earth changed it over time. Evolution is not dependent at all on how life first originated. You are confusing evolution (a field of science) with materialism (philosophy that everything happened naturally without guidance).


edit on 9 17 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join