It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: cooperton
I never said any scientific facts were wrong.
I just don't reject science in place of religion
as a bunch of you tend to
That is an untrue generalization. I accept empirical science - I used it to make my point in the last 3 threads I made. The true tragedy is rejecting empirical science for theoretical science.
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: cooperton
Excellent OP, I have argued this same point many times here on ATS, but not as eloquently as you, but it falls on many deaf ears because of a certain type of cognitive dissonance.
Evolution in its totality as a scientific concept has no baseline foundation. The illustration of mechanical watch parts all being shook together for a trillion years would never produce a watch. Yet you need the parts to begin with, so you can even get to that stage.
They will argue scientific semantic jargon labeling terminology to make their defense of this theory easier for them....I urge them to re-evaluate just how much abiogenesis impacts evolution.
Some scientific intellectual honesty would be a very positive step in the right direction on this topic.
As would investigating the subject devoid of preconceived notions. Your approach to the topic begins from a point of doubting the science, not an open mind to the most current evidence available.
One is a chemical process and the other biological.
originally posted by: turbonium1
All the evidence over 10,000 years, with millions of different species, and not one species among the millions has ever indicated the slightest 'evolution'.
Perhaps flying pink elephants were around back then, too.
When I'm told that we were evolved from some kind of non-existent little puddle, which formed into more crap, that formed into ape-lings, and on and on, with more ape-lings, and then hairy-backed cavemen, and finally, they turned into modern humans.....
And not one species has shown the slightest change in 10,000 years.....
Go shove your bs theory up your arse, idiot!
originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: turbonium1
In Manchester Museum, England there's a barely noticeable framed collection of a species of local moths on the wall. People have been collecting moths and butterflies for centuries so there are tens of thousands of individuals and species covering several hundred years and from all over the world. This case has the 19th Century ones on the left and the more recent ones on the right. They clearly change from dark to light as time has moved on.
Most of the ones in the museum case were collected in Manchester during the 18th and 19th centuries when Manchester was a pit and mill town. It was one of the first places to become heavily industrialised so the air was filthy with soot and grime like Victorian London. The moths from then were dark and mottled so they'd blend in to walls and be camouflaged from predators.
The more recent moths are light and speckled and the earlier ones were very dark and speckled. What's happened there is natural selection and evolution occurring in under two centuries. In today's cleaner Manchester those dark moths would stand out on buildings and be eaten before they could reproduce. The lighter ones blend in and reproduce without being eaten first.
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton
You have zero problem with believing your little Deity is creator of all. But can't grok that life might have spontaneously begun? that is rather picky on your part. Because you have zero proof your Deity having created anything. Say as opposed to any other deity, group of deities, or nothing.
originally posted by: chr0naut
This pretty much leads back to the question of which deity created it?
originally posted by: chr0naut
Did those moths actually evolve into a new species and back?
All that they did was change the relative population abundances of various melanisms based on Mendelian heredity and natural selection (that, and the fact that the moths in the display were cherry picked and not representative of the subtlety of the differences).
The idea that "nothing", the absence of everything, created the observed universe, is rationally absurd and so can be discarded as a possibility.
originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: TzarChasm
We live in a world where flat earth believers call other people idiots... LOL
We live in a world where the majority of people believe they are mutants derived from primordial goo
originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Krazysh0t
You haven't really addressed the fact that entropy should have throughout the aeons reduced the Universe to a state of silence
originally posted by: Sparky63
I no longer denigrate or mock those who reject abiogenesis or want to restore the connection between the two. There is no need to call them names, heap scorn on them or use cutting sarcasm. There is room enough in this world for opposing views and we have the ability to have beliefs or opinions that differ from others and still treat them with respect and dignity.
I no longer believe in abiogenesis, but maybe one day my opinion will change.....always keep an open mind.