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.

 

Have Atheists Hijacked Darwin's Evolution??

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


You're really pulling out the crystallization/biogenesis fallacy?

Crystals are nothing even close to the complexity of life. In fact crystal formation is quite understandable by the laws of physics and chemistry and entropy actually increases. Not so when life is created.

XYXYXYXY, is an example of order. But not much information it ‘XY’, and ‘print 4 times’. A crystal is like that sequence; it is just a repeating pattern of atoms. It also has little information. If a crystal is broken, smaller identical crystals result. Because crystals form from this arrangement, determined by directional forces in the atoms and the maximum amount of heat is released - entropy is increased.

You naturalists really need some new material the crystallization/biogenesis comparison is easily dismissed.



[edit on 10/6/2008 by Bigwhammy]




posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 


I'm a little confused by your post to me on amino acids.

No kidding amino acids are essential to life. Did you seriously think I didn't know that? They are essential to life because the are what proteins are made of. A protein is a highly organized structure made of amino acids.

The point is amino acids do not self assemble into proteins by accidentally colliding into one another in some primordial soup. And even if you had proteins you are still light years away from a cell. So to make the assertion that amino acids occurring in nature infers that life came from non life is absolutely ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
You naturalists really need some new material the crystallization/biogenesis comparison is easily dismissed.



It's only easily dismissed by you and otehrs who fail to see the point. Chemistry can predict how a cryustal will form and reduces the mathmatical probably by the laws at which chemicals operate. Abiogenesis is exactly the same, we can predict the complexity of molecules by chemistry and thus form life, reducing the mathmatical probability to something explainable.

What is rediculous is creationists who tend to oppose this arguement are the same ones who when talking about the origin or life imagine a fully formed cell with all the thousands of parts that put it together. You don't even consider that early cells were far simpler, you only see the end result and wish to see that recreated in a lab.

The classic example of this stupidity and misunderstanding of abiogenesis and basic molecular machines is the cell in a test tube experiment. Putting a single cell in a completely sanitised tube and then puncturing the cell. The creationists argue that it should form a new cell if abiogenesis is correct and yet proponents of abiogenesis try to make clear how rediculous this is. Comparing a modern cell, after billions of years of evolution to one of the originating cells, is like comparing a wooden cart to a ferrari.

Anyway bigwhammy, well done on derailing this thread to meet your agenda. Wish we could all stick to the topic but you won't let it go.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 





No kidding amino acids are essential to life. Did you seriously think I didn't know that? They are essential to life because the are what proteins are made of. A protein is a highly organized structure made of amino acids.


Not at all.I just had this feeling that you didn't think it was that important that they could be produced in a lab.Apologies if thats not the case.





The point is amino acids do not self assemble into proteins by accidentally colliding into one another in some primordial soup. And even if you had proteins you are still light years away from a cell. So to make the assertion that amino acids occurring in nature infers that life came from non life is absolutely ridiculous.



It appears that self assembly is possible.


Ghadiri achieved supramolecular self-assembly of nanotubes directed by backbone-backbone hydrogen bonding,dictated by the chirality of the amino acid.Side chains of he amino acid are displayed on the nanotube surface defining the chemical functionality of the outside of the tube.



Michael Hecht designed alpha helices with amino acid sequences that follow a pattern in the primary structre: polar, nonpolar, p, p, n, n, p, p, n, p, p, n, n, p. This virtually guarantees self-assembly into a coiled-coil structure.

ocw.mit.edu...








[edit on 6-10-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


religious persecution and genocide

When have Christians had to face genocide because of the evolution theory? You want to talk about persecution? That's something your religion is better at than any Atheist. Just read about the past five hundred years or further back some time.


[edit on 6-10-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
ImaginaryReality1984



Anyway bigwhammy, well done on derailing this thread to meet your agenda. Wish we could all stick to the topic but you won't let it go.


Hopefully it'll get back on track.




Bigwhammy



Actually in a discussion of evolutions connection to atheism, the subject of naturalism is what is really being discussed.


Not this time mate.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 


Thanks I wasn't aware of this new Intelligent Design evidence.



Michael Hecht designed alpha helices with amino acid sequences that follow a pattern in the primary structre: polar, nonpolar, p, p, n, n, p, p, n, p, p, n, n, p. This virtually guarantees self-assembly into a coiled-coil structure.


The tell tale subject verb combination being "Michael Hecht designed " which hardly infers self assembly in some primordial soup by an evolutionary type process. In fact since I would assume that Michael Hecht is an intelligent being- you just gave evidence that intelligent design is necessary to form coiled structures.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


No he gave evidence that with enough attempts this would occur naturally. That's why it took billions of years no doubt. He simply demonstrated how molecules can self replicate when they develop the right form. Any molecule that eventually started doing this would become the dominant molecule and lend itself to further complexity.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Clearskies is right on the money.

Hitler believed he was aiding the evolutionary process by weeding out the inferiors. You know just giving natural selection a bit of a boost with poison gas and industrial ovens. Survival of the fittest after all...

Joesph Stalin also used Darwin as his rationalization to murder millions of Christians. As did Chairman Mao in communist China. Those 3 killed more people than all the wars in history combined based on their belief in Darwinian evolution from a common ancestor.

Sure it's just a scientific theory, and its true that it explains variations and adaptations among similar organisms. What is not true is that those micro evolutionary processes can be extrapolated to a wider scope and are evidence that all life evolved from a common ancestor. That is pure speculatory dogma by naturalistic atheists not science.

When you apply that atheistic dogma as world view it cheapens human life. The results in the 20th century - after it became the "in vogue" belief among the elites - is the greatest mass murders in the history of humanity. Indoctrinate people with evolutionary psuedoscience that convinces them they are animals and it's hardly surprising when they behave like them.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


You mean to tell me that all that death and destruction rest on the shoulders of "belief in Darwinian evolution "? Those men did many horrible, psychotic things. Similar to the terrible destruction and persecution brought on by religious wars. My point was that if you are not going to blame religion as a whole for the terrible things people have done in its name why blame evolution for the terrible things people have done in its name?



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 





Hitler believed he was aiding the evolutionary process by weeding out the inferiors. You know just giving natural selection a bit of a boost with poison gas and industrial ovens. Survival of the fittest after all...


It doesn't matter what he believed he was doing,it still had nothing to do with what evolution actually is!

I started a thread about the survival of the fittest theory,you may want to look at it,though i'm sure you'll be upset when you realize the truth of it and that you'll no longer be able to use it as an argument.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



Anyway bigwhammy, well done on derailing this thread to meet your agenda. Wish we could all stick to the topic but you won't let it go.


I will let it go... since you refuse too.

I wonder why is it that you believe you get the last word and I am in the wrong for replying?

You consistently reply to me and then whine that I am off topic if I address your points. :shk: Consider that perhaps you should stop using that weak psuedoscientific sophistry of comparing ice crystals to the formation of life though.

Good day.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Clearskies is right on the money.

Hitler believed he was aiding the evolutionary process by weeding out the inferiors. You know just giving natural selection a bit of a boost with poison gas and industrial ovens. Survival of the fittest after all...


Erm that's where you are compeltely and deliberately abusing evolutionary theory and so was Hitler. Hitler was practicing eugenics, evoltuion is not eugenics and if you can't see that fact i can only imagine your bias is blinding you. They areabsolutely seperate theories as eugenics is not natural selection or survival of the fittest.


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Joesph Stalin also used Darwin as his rationalization to murder millions of Christians. As did Chairman Mao in communist China. Those 3 killed more people than all the wars in history combined based on their belief in Darwinian evolution from a common ancestor.


Yes and he also didn't understand evolution, in fact you're far mre dangerous than anyone because you also don't understand the theory. Please stop using these people as examples when they are abusing the theory to excuse their actions. You do understand that's what they're doing right? I mean it's very easy to put the arguement to religion now isn't it.


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Sure it's just a scientific theory, and its true that it explains variations and adaptations among similar organisms. What is not true is that those micro evolutionary processes can be extrapolated to a wider scope and are evidence that all life evolved from a common ancestor. That is pure speculatory dogma by naturalistic atheists not science.


Really, it isn't science? So all those tranitional fossils, all those scientists who claim it's true, all that mountain of evidence isn't science? Damn wel i suppose we should scrap atomic theory as well.


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
When you apply that atheistic dogma as world view it cheapens human life. The results in the 20th century - after it became the "in vogue" belief among the elites - is the greatest mass murders in the history of humanity. Indoctrinate people with evolutionary psuedoscience that convinces them they are animals and it's hardly surprising when they behave like them.


Cheapens life? You are beginning to worry me greatly. Is the only reason you value life because of a religion? I value life above all otehr things and i'm an atheist. I've arrived at the conclusion that life is important by my own means and social respect and yet you only respect life because a book tells you to, so who do you think has higher morals there?

Oh dear the calssic creation arguement that we behave like animals *sighs*. Well in the past before evoltuion people still killed each other, in fact we look back on those times and call them barbarians. Are you going to blaim that on evolution when it didn't even exist? Or should we just base it on human nature and the lack of laws?

Acting like animals? Well animals in the same group treat each other quite well if you look at our primate cousins. They have social groups that work extremely and rarely have warfare. It took consciosness to really esculate our killing of each other. Maybe we should blaim your god for that?

What utter nonsense, i wish you'd read some history and stop twisting the facts.

[edit on 6-10-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


It was you that first asked the question...



When have Christians had to face genocide because of the evolution theory?


So I gave you examples...

Then this canard:


You want to talk about persecution? That's something your religion is better at than any Atheist.


Clearskies religion is the same as mine. So whne you said "Your religion" that is personal. I can not think of one incident of mass murder committed by Evangelical Christians. What you accuse us of was actually done to us... we are the victims. The Catholics killed more protestants than the Romans did. For a small sample, it is recorded that in the 30 years just between 1540 and 1570 no fewer than 900,000 Protestants were put to death by the Pope’s war to stamp out protestantism of one group known as the Waldenses. Not to mention the rest of the crusades and wars to stop Bible believing Christians. So "our religion" is not responsible for it, rather the victim of it.

It's a matter of record that one Atheist Joesph Stalin killed more people than the inquisition and witch trials combined.

So you really have no right to feign incredulity at this stage.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I did not say Hitler and company used the theory in its proper form - I was answering a question. So nice big strawman burning party your entire post was... it hardly worth my time.

Matthew 7:6



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

It's a matter of record that one Atheist Joesph Stalin killed more people than the inquisition and witch trials combined.

So you really have no right to feign incredulity at this stage.


Oh dear no you missed the point so much it's absolutely shocking.

Stalin didn't kill because of his atheism, he was an atheist who killed. Whereas religious people quite often kill in the name of god. If you can't see the difference there then i don't know what to say to you as your mind isn't functioning along logical lines.

I should also point out that at the time of Stalin, there were more people around to kill. The witch trials had a limited populous. A modern, conventional religious war would be horrific. It's all moot though because Stalin didn't kill anyone in the name of atheism. He killed people in the name of eugenics, which once again i have to remind you isn't the same as evolution.

Getting tired of having to clarify the difference between evolution and eugenics. The only way you aren't seeing the difference is if you are deliberately avoiding the fact or are so utterly biased because of your religion that you want it to be the same thing.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I did not say Hitler and company used the theory in its proper form - I was answering a question. So nice big strawman burning party your entire post was... it hardly worth my time.

Matthew 7:6


You said Hitler believed he was doing the work of evolution and therefore i defended that point. It wasn't a strawman, you provided an idea and i answered, obviously having your arguement torn apart isn't something you like. I see this post as an attempt at deflection, something common amongst the religious.

As for you saying you're just responding to me, well not quite. I'm responding to you and that's how it began, so having the last word as you put it would make sense.

However i won't even bother after this post, just because you completely keep twisting facts and abusing theories. I suppose i'll leave it alone so this thread can get back on track, instead of the derailment you achieved.

If you want to continue the abiogenesis discussion i started a thread for it

Have Eugenicists Hijacked Evolution?

[edit on 6-10-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


So I gave you examples...

Your examples were incorrect and simplified a broader issue that is why I asked: You mean to tell me that all that death and destruction rest on the shoulders of "belief in Darwinian evolution "?

I can not think of one incident of mass murder committed by Evangelical Christians.

If you’d like to know more about Christianity and violence go here:

atheism.about.com...

The articles listed should help educate you.


Clearskies mentioned persecution to which I said this: You want to talk about persecution? That's something your religion is better at than any Atheist. Just read about the past five hundred years or further back some time.

And I stand by that statement.

Again my point was: My point was that if you are not going to blame religion as a whole for the terrible things people have done in its name why blame evolution for the terrible things people have done in its name?


[edit on 6-10-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Wow, this thread needs to be renamed! It should now be "Have Creationists Hijacked this Thread??" The answer to that question is easy! YES!! Thanks, BigWhammy and friends! I can now take this off my 'subscribed threads' list as it is apparent that the OP is no longer the dominant topic here!

Good luck to those who are desperately trying to get it back! You'll need it!



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


It's such a shame that a few members insist on spinning this issue with nothing but smoke. There's absolutely no substance to the claims being made that atheism and evolution go hand in hand.

It's a crock of lies and they know it. But if they insist on carrying on this sham idea, why should anyone try to convince them otherwise.

Besides, we all know that good little Christians would never zealously embrace an idea they know to be patently false. That would be a sin.




new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join