This topic is in the Breaking Alternative News discussion forum.  (rss)


Scientists: We've found creator's tracks


<<  1    2    3    4  >>

Topic started on 27-4-2008 @ 09:44 AM by alienib


Scientists: We've found creator's tracks


www.avpress.com

The professor described himself as a "flag-waving and card-carrying evolutionist and, about half the time, an atheist," but said evolutionary theory has not explained how the first living cells came into being.

"I now believe with about 60% certainty that the first living things were intelligently designed by a creator," Rainbow said.

"For 50 years, the best scientific minds on the planet have tried to show where the first cells came from and we failed miserably to demonstrate that. … If you try hard for 50 years and fail to show something, that's pretty strong evidence - the old theory of a prebiotic soup now appears to be kaput."
(visit the link for the full news article)



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 27-4-2008 @ 09:44 AM by alienib


I'm not the only one that thinks we did not come from apes or fish nor are we here by accident.

www.avpress.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 27-4-2008 @ 09:48 AM by Raistlyyn


What if aliens landed on earth tommorow, what would you belive then?



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 27-4-2008 @ 09:57 AM by Master_Wii


We already have a ongoing discussion about this topicHERE

Please add replys to the above link. Thank you

[edit on 27-4-2008 by Master_Wii]


Mod Edit - One Breakng News Story and One "regular" Forum discussion is allowed on a subject.

[edit on 27-4-2008 by elevatedone]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 27-4-2008 @ 09:59 AM by alienib


I didn't see your story but I don't need to go there.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 27-4-2008 @ 10:08 AM by Sublime620


Now this is what I like to hear:

Some real evidence! I never thought it would happen.

The creation model stands apart from the "intelligent design" movement, which rightly has been assessed to be nonscientific, he said.

"Intelligent design is not testable because the intelligent design movement does not offer, as yet, any model to explain the origin of history and the details of its life," Ross said. "We have a model. We had a model even before the intelligent design movement existed."

Ross stressed that his work never would prove God's existence with 100% certainty.

"Science is incapable of offering absolute proof of anything. Science cannot offer absolute proof of the existence of any entity," he said, but it can offer "measurable probability."


[edit on 27-4-2008 by Sublime620]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 27-4-2008 @ 10:17 AM by alienib


There is already a post with this info...please go to that site to reply this post is dead



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 27-4-2008 @ 10:20 AM by Sublime620


reply to post by alienib



This thread is still open because it's in the breaking news section. Don't listen to the other guy, he just wanted this thread closed so he could get more hits (notice the mods already edited his post).



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 27-4-2008 @ 10:20 AM by elevatedone


Please stay on topic, this thread is open and within the T&C's.

Thanks



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 27-4-2008 @ 10:38 AM by alienib


I'll stay then...I never found the other post and I looked first

[edit on 27-4-2008 by alienib]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 27-4-2008 @ 10:49 AM by alienib


So now all thats left to clarify is if God is a supernatural being or an alien which for us is still a supernatural being



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 27-4-2008 @ 10:54 AM by Rockpuck


reply to post by alienib



Forget about it, some times members like to pretend they are mods and dictate threads for them selves.

Anyways, if Scientist think there was some kind of chemical soup that formed the first life..

Just re-create the "soup" and create life again. If it happened once, why not again. I suppose if you had the right mixture, maybe throw in some electricity you could create some very basic bacteria. If not, that theory is truly dead.

But also note for you creationist..

He is not saying God made Humans, but rather, God made very very basic bacteria that over millions upon millions of years, became Humans.

He's doing good at trying to win over both crowds. I will remain an evolutionist until I see some real evidence to prove other wise, not just a lack of "enough" evidence for one side automatically means God made everything individually. Which is absurd.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 27-4-2008 @ 10:58 AM by alienib




What if aliens landed on earth tommorow, what would you belive then?



So who said I didn't believe in aliens? I've never seen one in person (mirrors excluded) then again, I've never seen God either



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 27-4-2008 @ 11:00 AM by alienib




I will remain an evolutionist until I see some real evidence to prove other wise, not just a lack of "enough" evidence for one side automatically means God made everything individually. Which is absurd.



And your evidence of evolution is?.......



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 27-4-2008 @ 11:03 AM by Rockpuck


....Dinosaurs, fossils, various extinct ape species...

Your evidence for Creationism is???

A 2000 year old book?



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 27-4-2008 @ 11:06 AM by alienib


I fail to see how old fossils prove evolution. When did that process stop?



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 27-4-2008 @ 11:07 AM by St Udio



Originally posted by alienib


The professor described himself as a "flag-waving and card-carrying evolutionist and, about half the time, an atheist," but said evolutionary theory has not explained how the first living cells came into being.





he's about 50% correct, the complete theory does not fully articulate how the first cells came into being..but,

there are theories that something like proto-bacteria, deveoped itself enough to organize itself enough to create a membrane around it's independent 'self'...and thus was a 'cell' which became alive in the sense that it responded to external stimuli and the cell developed the ability to replicate.

that AV (antelope valley) artic;le was for preaching-to-the-chior,
it isn't a peer review scientific paper... its an entertainment piece

interesting, but still only a propietary piece



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 27-4-2008 @ 11:11 AM by alienib


It worked...I'm entertained


Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 28/4/2008 by watch_the_rocks]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 27-4-2008 @ 11:30 AM by InterestedObserver



Originally posted by Rockpuck
Just re-create the "soup" and create life again. If it happened once, why not again. I suppose if you had the right mixture, maybe throw in some electricity you could create some very basic bacteria. If not, that theory is truly dead.


They have tried through the Miller-Urey experiments but it did not prove that life could spontaneously be created, only that a minute amount of amino acids could be (through small electrical charges striking a 'soup' of ammonia and methane and then isolating the resulting amino acids).

There are many holes in the experiments that invalidate the idea that life could have originated this way. Many scientists agree that Carbon and Nitrogen should have been used, not ammonia and methane. Instead of leaving the amino acids in the soup, as soon as they were created they were artificially trapped so that they would not be destroyed. In reality this would have never happened and they would indeed have been destroyed. His experiment also created many substances that would cross-react with the amino acids or destroy the peptide change.

[edit on 4/27/2008 by InterestedObserver]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 27-4-2008 @ 11:33 AM by atlasastro


So what if life came out of a soup.....who was the cook, where did the ingredients come from.....who was watching the clock to make sure it did'nt burn up. Evolution, and ID, creationists, religions, scientists.... are just making arguments over which recipe God(or whatever you want to call it) used to create things.
Bill and Ted science.... Oh, hang on, it just like appeared, like that, all of it, and then it all just kind of fell into a soup and then all of a sudden it was alive, and then it all of a sudden mutated, then again, and again and then we could like explain it, because it just happened.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


<<  1    2    3    4  >>







Top Topics Right Now:



Active Topics Right Now:



ATS MIX Podcasts:











Newest Topics:















































ATS Server: www4.theabovenetwork.com
Powered by AboveTop:Board v2.3
Header data processed in 0.002 seconds
Page processed in 0.122 seconds
6 total database queries (1)









The Above Top Secret Conspiracy Community Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.





thread