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: JourneymanWelder
Some people think the black death was an alien bug. So i dont see why not.
‘UNBELIEVERS are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact. However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective.
The position of the evolutionists is more characteristic of religious dogmatism. ...
Robert Jastrow refers to “the religious faith of the scientist” and his irritation when the evidence doesn’t match his beliefs. J. N. W. Sullivan calls belief in spontaneous generation “an article of faith,” and T. H. Huxley said it was “an act of philosophical faith.” Sullivan said that to believe that evolution made all life on earth was “an extraordinary act of faith.” Dr. J. R. Durant points out that “many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, seizing upon new ideas with almost missionary zeal . . . In the case of the theory of evolution, the missionary spirit seems to have prevailed.” Physicist H. S. Lipson says that after Darwin “evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”
Is Evolution a Scientific Theory?
What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must
- Be observable
- Be reproducible by controlled experiments
- Make accurate predictions
In that light, where does evolution stand? * Its operation cannot be observed. It cannot be reproduced. And it cannot make accurate predictions. Can evolution even be considered a scientific hypothesis? The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.”
*: By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example. “Microevolution” refers to small changes within a species, perhaps through selective breeding.
Nor is it simply a matter of proper temperature. There are many other necessities for life, including water and the proper atmosphere. A group of 30 scientists attending a University of Maryland meeting on advanced civilizations focused in on what is needed to support life. After admitting that ‘no planet outside of the solar system has yet been discovered,’ they noted: “Even if another planetary system is formed, there is no certainty it will produce a solid planet like Earth, which contains nearly 100 elements, including those essential to life.”
Also, even if the right conditions prevail, which is so on the earth and no other place that is known, life does not exist automatically. In fact, scientists cannot really explain how life on earth appeared, that is, other than draw the conclusion that it was produced by an intelligent Creator.
The August/September 1979 issue of Technology Review called attention to this fact. It admitted that there is “a major gap” between chemicals needed to support life and even the simplest “living systems that could be called protocells.” Some scientists, employing their intelligence, skills and advanced laboratories, have been able to suggest how “prebiotic organic chemicals” (the chemical compounds needed for life) could be present on a primitive earth. “But,” the article said, “how to get from there to a living system which can translate, transmit, and act upon information . . . is what M.I.T.’s Alexander Rich called ‘the big intellectual stumbling block in the synthesis of life.”’
As additional research is done on life, the question looms ever larger, ‘How did life originate on earth in the first place?’
Some scientists faced with this problem are reviving a theory presented in 1908 by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius. It is called the “panspermia theory.” Basically, it holds that the earth may have been accidentally seeded by living cells that are wandering through the universe. Modernizing the idea a bit, Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute and Nobel Prize-winner Francis H. C. Crick have suggested “directed panspermia.” Their idea is that an advanced civilization elsewhere in the universe deliberately may have “infected” the earth with life as an experiment. What do you think of that possibility?
It becomes clear, to some, that such theories really do not solve the question of life’s origin. They just sort of avoid the question by transporting the problem off into the distant universe.
Why do some speculate that the first cells or at least their major components arrived on earth from outer space? Because, despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules. In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”—How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.
originally posted by: frugal
a reply to: whereislogic
Only two things are certain in life: Death and taxes.
Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".
English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,...
Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated—chemist, mathematician, naturalist—the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.
From a gardener's perspective life finds a way.
So all the those rocks coming in here daily, probably have bacteria and viruses.
Life is most likely abundant in the vast universe. We are not, and have probably never been alone. The fact that people think we are the only living thing in the universe is such a dumb concept.
If that's true the Earth should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.