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: randyvs
a reply to: noonebutme
No you got it. And you just answered your own
question. Our petty knowledge isn't comparable
to all the knowledge of the universe. And it's
delusional to believe in wild accusations that
represent conclusions to ultimate questions
based solely on absence and very weak and
very limited knowledge. It's just an easy out
to say heh no evidence, doesn't exist! And
try to pass that off as the truth? That isn't
even science. It's Politics.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: RenderMan
No one who has done any studying of evolution believes humans are mutant chimpanzees.
We theoretically evolved from some Mutant-vague-monkey-resembling-creature*
Research will find that these theoretical missing links are missing.
originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Raggedyman
you keep running in circles trying to demonstrate how flawed other peoples approach to science is while ignoring critical aspects. How many different ways does it have to be laid out for you that Scientific Theories are based on a large body of provable FACTS and that they serve one purpose, to show HOW these verifiable, factual, observable and repeatable phenomena occur. Is it really that difficult to wrap your head around? The FACTS of evolution inform the Theory as to how evolution occurs. It's so simple that even an Aussie should be able to grasp it.
originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Woodcarver
What good would it do to talk to someone
who trys to explain animation with a molecule?
It is lunacy.
Unless you want to try'n explain your belief
that life doesn't have to come from life? Of
course extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence.
But if you can't do that it's okay.
You can still go on believe'n what you want.
But you can't say no one can explain their belief
to you. Because it didn't matter when they tried.
originally posted by: Iwasneverhere
What you are referring to is called abiogenesis. The hypothesis that life can arise from non living materials in certain conditions. Talkorigins has (AFAIK) all current evidence on angiogenesis and evolution. Unless you're referring to the existence of
the universe itself which is a different matter altogether.
www.talkorigins.org...
originally posted by: EasternShadow
originally posted by: Iwasneverhere
What you are referring to is called abiogenesis. The hypothesis that life can arise from non living materials in certain conditions. Talkorigins has (AFAIK) all current evidence on angiogenesis and evolution. Unless you're referring to the existence of
the universe itself which is a different matter altogether.
www.talkorigins.org...
The classic Miller–Urey experiment did not produce life molecules. They created another dead matters, amino acids. Even Panspermia hypothesis has to rely on magical microscopic life from from outer space. Again, another scientific hypothesis trying to dodge answering the origin of life.
Magnet and iron interact with each other, does not meant they're alive.
Scientist successfully created artificial autonomous beating heart, yet this heart is useless to dead person.
There is no repeatable scientific evidences that we can revive clinical dead brain patient complete with all his biological system, let alone trying to create life out of inorganic matter. We have better chance of creating robots than artificial biological life.
All this Abiogenesis hypothesises only making guesses with "could be", "possible" etc.. Yet zero on how to actually make it real.
I'd rather scientist research and get closer on how to make it real than throw up their arms and say God did it. If we relied upon faith and prayer instead of science many health conditions would not be treatable or preventable.
originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: peter vlar
Also Einstien said the single most important
decision we can make is weather we live in
a friendly or hostile universe.
originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: RenderMan
I'd rather scientist research and get closer on how to make it real than throw up their arms and say God did it. If we relied upon faith and prayer instead of science many health conditions would not be treatable or preventable.
Maybe if we did have faith and prayed more?
Maybe if we were closer to our Creator? We
wouldn't have health issues. May be we would
live to be 1000 yrs old.
Actually, despite it being all over the internet, there isn't a single primary source that supports this as a quote from Einstein. That doesn't make it any less salient of a question.
originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: noonebutme
No. I believe that life can come from the random arrangement of molecules over billions of years. There is zero evidence to suggest that all life originated from any sentient or otherwise organic being.
So you do believe something.
And it can be said according to what you
described. You believe life can come from
nothing. At some point by some miracle
inanimate molecules are just suddenly alive.
WOW
Looks like you believe in nothing.
Not even the scientific observable evidence.
Because you have none for your belief.
How can you even post something so
obsurd? And have the gual to criticize me?
I put my belief on the table and you
mock it like some little girl. And at
the same time you offer something
only more ridiculous.
Life just happens despite the lack of
evidence.
Quack esse!
Most materialists, even though they may have wanted to do away with all spiritual entities, ended up positing an order of things whose hierarchical relations mark it as specifically idealist. They situated dead matter at the summit of a conventional hierarchy of diverse facts, without perceiving that in this way they gave in to an obsession with the ideal form of matter, with a form that was closer than any other to what matter should be. Dead matter, the pure idea, and God in fact answer a question in the same way (in other words perfectly , and as flatly as the docile student in a classroom)-a question that can only be posed by philosophers, the question of the essence of things, precisely of the idea by which things become intelligible. Classical materialists did not really even substitute causation for the must be (the quare for the quamobrem, or, in other words, determinism for destiny, the past for the future). Their need for external authority in fact placed the must be of all appearance in the functional role they unconsciously assigned the idea of science. If the principle of things they defined is precisely the stable element that permitted science to constitute an apparently unshakeable position, a veritable divine eternity, this choice cannot be attributed to chance. The conformity of dead matter to the idea of science is, among most materialists, substituted for the religious relations earlier established between the divinity and his creatures, the one being the idea of the others.
Materialism will be seen as a senile idealism to the extent that it is not immediately based on psychological or social facts, instead of on artificially isolated physical phenomena. Thus it is from Freud, among others-rather than from long-dead physicists, whose ideas today have no meaning-that a representation of matter must be taken. It is of little importance that the fear of psychological complications (a fear that only bears witness to intellectual weakness) causes timid souls to see in this attitude an aversion or a return to spiritual values. When the word materialism is used , it is time to designate the direct interpretation, excluding all idealism, of raw phenomena, and not a system founded on the fragmentary elements of an ideological analysis, elaborated under the sign of religious relations.