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 edsinger
Fair enough but I do not believe that the Universe is infinite.
Personally I think its finite....
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
mutations never put new information into the gene code. mutations only scramble, lose, or copy existing information.
so what happens if those "mutated, good genes" get mixed back in with the population? do they get lost?
edsinger
One classic experiment that is used to support the belief that life “built itself”, is an experiment by Stanley Miller in 1953.
The odds of these first amino acids forming in the exact combination are 10^100th power or so,
Personally I think its finite....
Regardless, the results of the experiment show that precursors to life, which everyone previously thought were 'immpossible' to form spontaneously, infact can form spontaneously.
Mutations themselves are new information and they result in new changes to the proteins who's assembly code they alter.
What? The experiment clearly shows that they can form naturally.
There are going to have to be lots of 'stages' before that.
‘There are no beneficial mutations.’ This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations. Rather, we should say, ‘We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.’ For examples of information loss being advantageous, see Beetle Bloopers: defects can be an advantage sometimes, New eyes for blind cave fish? and Is antibiotic resistance really due to increase in information?
The view that Miller-Urey experiments produce toxic compounds that are destructive to the biological precursors also produced in the experiments is a gross oversimplification of the constitution of the experiment.
See this Talk Origins page for an extremely simple response to your assertion.
Additionally, in my estimation, to say that the "filtered" product in the two-week long MU experiment is not in synchronization with the natural world is unfair at best. The natural world manipulates itself incessantly, without God's hand, through natural processes.
Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong
Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.
edsinger
We are alone.
The fact that "We are alone", simply can not be true.
Why?
Then who was telling our ancestors "Do not be afraid"?
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
the only site I can direct you to is www.halos.com the scientists name is Robert Gentry. (I think thats how you spell his name.) but he explains this type of thing.
I know that this proves that the evolution theory of the earth is wrong. the earth was never a hot molten mass, and they cant even recreate this in the lab. they cant even recreate dirt. these polonium halos prove that the earth was never a hot molten mass. and I have nothing against these facts, he helps to disprove the evolution theory.
That's the thing - science is still looking. Biblical literalists are not.
I would keep in mind that about 45 of todays scientists are christians.
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
now if you made a mixture that was 98% toxic to the 2% you were trying to create, would you call that a success? its not.
the amino acids would bond to the water and to the tar and the acid much faster than they would with eachother (which is another reason they filtered the product.)
id like to see an example of this.
so what you are saying is that if I was a person who was a mutant, I could have a tail. thats just silly.
there are no examples of beneficial muations
and even the public school textbooks never show benefical mutations.
like I said before, filtering out the product is not natural.
if you have parts of a cell, its not going to grow and replicate. if you are missing enough parts to that cell, but not enough to destroy it, that cell is more likey to become
plus they excluded oxygen, why? the earth has always had oxygen
the mixture was 98% toxic to the 2% they were trying to work with.
the experiment didnt work. they did get what they wanted, but they also got a lot of what they didnt want
and you can only filter out what you dont want, only if there is intelligence to do it.
there are plenty of scientists that support creation.
45 of todays scientists are christians. so to say that biblicists are not looking for scientific evidence would not be a very accurate statement.
edsinger
The Evolutionsist havent even responded to this one. They have on the 10 above that one but not this one...
Robert Gentry. (I think thats how you spell his name.) but he explains this type of thing.
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
but we are alone in the sense that there are not other life forms roaming other planets.
EC
Originally posted by ghost
I played nice for as long as I could! The Evolutionist get to ignore the obvious flaws in their point of view. However they insist that the Creationist (like me) prove Every detail of our position...
How many scientists are there? Thousands? 45 isnt really alot...
Or do you mean percent?
That makes more sense. However even though 45% of scientists are Christian you tend to find that around 98% of them support evolution.
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
How many scientists are there? Thousands? 45 isnt really alot...
Or do you mean percent?
That makes more sense. However even though 45% of scientists are Christian you tend to find that around 98% of them support evolution.
yeah I forgot the % sign.
and they probably claim to support evolution only to keep their job. there have been many cases where people got fired for believing in ID or creation and not evolution. many teachers have been fired and many scientists have been dismissed just because of what they believe in.
EC
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
and they probably claim to support evolution only to keep their job.
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
there have been many cases where people got fired for believing in ID or creation and not evolution. many teachers have been fired and many scientists have been dismissed just because of what they believe in.