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.
Just to close out my overly lengthy post, let me point out that a scientist by the name of J. Craig Venter has, in fact, created life in a test tube, only a very simple virus to be sure, but life none-the-less.
One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don’t you just go on and mind your own business?”
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the scientist was done talking, God said, “Very well, how about this? Let’s say we have a man-making contest.”
To which the scientist replied, “Okay, we can handle that!”
“But,” God added, “we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.”
The scientist said, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.
God looked at him and said, “No, no, no. You go get your own dirt.”
Originally posted by dbates
Just to close out my overly lengthy post, let me point out that a scientist by the name of J. Craig Venter has, in fact, created life in a test tube, only a very simple virus to be sure, but life none-the-less.
He "Created" life? Ha! This boast reminds me of a joke I've read before. I could go into depth disputing the irrelevance of what Venter has done but why, when a simple joke will work just fine?
One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don’t you just go on and mind your own business?”
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the scientist was done talking, God said, “Very well, how about this? Let’s say we have a man-making contest.”
To which the scientist replied, “Okay, we can handle that!”
“But,” God added, “we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.”
The scientist said, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.
God looked at him and said, “No, no, no. You go get your own dirt.”
If I take the pieces from several GM cars and re-arrange them and sell them as my car, what happens? I get sued for copy-right infringement. This is pretty much what Venter is doing in your example. Venter's study is the equivalent of putting a seed in the dirt and watering it. He's just setting up a good condition for pre-existing matter. People can't create anything. They just work with what's already here.
[edit on 26-6-2005 by dbates]
Originally posted by expert999
the speed of light is a theory, no one knows that it travels at the same rate through all space and time. in fact they proved that it slows down when it enters the atmosphere.
Originally posted by expert999
he used a non-living thing (virus) and inserted in into a living thing (cell)
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Originally posted by expert999
the speed of light is a theory, no one knows that it travels at the same rate through all space and time. in fact they proved that it slows down when it enters the atmosphere.
From the Terms and Conditions of this site:
1.) You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.
Stop doing this expert999.
Yes. Light is slowed down in transparent media such as air, water and glass. The ratio by which it is slowed is called the refractive index of the medium and is always greater than one.* This was discovered by Jean Foucault in 1850.
Originally posted by Expert999.
there is not enough salt in the ocean to cover millions or billions of years, nor is there enough sediments at the bottom of the ocean to cover for billions or millions of years.
the moon is leaving us. of you go back 150 million years approx. the moon would be almost touching the earth.
it would take a galaxy about 10,000 years to totally lose its spiral shape.
I dont know if I told you this before, but human footprints has been found with dinosaur tracks.
the geologic collumn does not exist.
well look that up. last time I checked the earth was spinning at about 6,000 miles per hour at the equator. everyone knows that the earth is slowing down. thats why we have leap year and leap second. I learned this when i was like 12.
Measurements show that the Moon is receding from Earth at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year.
Mark Isaak
Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)
The essential elements of the scientific method are iterations and recursions of the following four steps:
Characterization
Hypothesis (a theoretical, hypothetical explanation)
Prediction (logical deduction from the hypothesis)
Experiment (test of all of the above)
This can be called the hypothetico-deductive method. These activities do not describe all that scientists do (see below). The 4-step method described above is often used in education. Teachers using inquiry as a teaching method sometimes teach a slightly modified version of the scientific method in which "Question" is substituted for Observation.
Science is a social activity. The process is subject to evaluation by the scientists directly involved, or by the scientific community, at any or every stage. A scientist's theory or proposal is accepted only after it has become known to others (usually via publication, ideally peer reviewed publication) and criticised.
Also, the theories, hypotheses, and experiments are all open to repeatability and peer review. This allows the scientific community or anyone else to evaluate the information and validate it themselves if they are so inclined. Scientific journals assist in the peer review process as well as repeatability by following the APA publication format of stating the experiment, the methods, discussion of findings and the conclusion reached by the researchers along with a synopsis called an abstract.
3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.
It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.
Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.
Pojcta and Springer wrote:
In the mid-1600's, about 200 years before Darwin published his theory of evolution, the Danish scientist Nicholas Steno found that it was possible to establish the order in which layered rocks were deposited.
...in any sequence of undisturbed layered rocks, a given bed must be older than any bed on top of it. This Principle of Superposition is fundamental to understanding the age of rocks; at any one place it indicates the relative age of the rock layers and of the fossils they contain.
If we begin at the present and examine older and older layers of rock, we will arrive at a level where no human fossils are found. If we continue backward in time, we successively come to layers where no fossils of birds are present, no mammals, no reptiles, no four-footed animals, no fishes, no shells, and no members of the animal kingdom. These concepts are summarized in the general principle called the Law of Fossil Succession. (14-15).
Jurmain, Nelson, Kilgore and Trevathan wrote:
Another method of dating is fluorine analysis, which only applies to bones. Bones in the earth are exposed to the seepage of groundwater that usually contains fluorine. The longer a bone lies in the earth, the more fluorine it will incorporate during the fossilization process. Therefore, bones deposited at the same time in the same location should contain the same amount of fluorine. (234)
Did Darwin repent? Did he become a believer in God, or a Christian? The answer to both questions is a resounding no. Creationists and Christians do themselves no favor by circulating, even if inadvertently through good intentions, stories such as these that ultimately are without foundation.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Expert999 said that 150 million years ago the moon and the earth were almost touching.
I didn't even mention the moon. that would have been pretty close to earth about 150 million years ago. close to enough to cause the water on earth to drown everything on earth twice a day.
Originally posted by dbates
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Expert999 said that 150 million years ago the moon and the earth were almost touching.
No, no. The actual quote is
I didn't even mention the moon. that would have been pretty close to earth about 150 million years ago. close to enough to cause the water on earth to drown everything on earth twice a day.
No one ever said that they were almost touching. Just that they were closer.
Originally posted by Expert999the moon is leaving us. of you go back 150 million years approx. the moon would be almost touching the earth. and everything on earth would be covered with water, evolutionist say that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.