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.

 

More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by Science

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


I don't like how you're trying to gauge "completeness" with percents. It's silly and unscientific. Sorry to nitpick, the rest of your post was good.




posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
It seems pretty obvious to me that you need too many complex organic compounds working together to produce life. For example, as posted, if you have some way to spontaneously make a ribonucleic acid, you still need something for it to do. It needs to be in a complex cell to function. I could be wrong, but even with the most elemental functioning by chance, you will then need reproduction, positive mutation, and elements to support life like food. It must assimilate energy, reproduce, and continue reproduction.

That's a lot to ask of rocks and water, even in any universe of mathematically infinite possibilities.

Creation is based on faith, and likely won't be proven by science. There are things that indicate there was an instant creation like www.halos.com..., but there are also the aged elements we find in our universe.

I find it interesting that Apollo missions found that the moon is older than the Sun and the Earth by billions of years, and it is in an orbit that is mathematically almost impossible to be captured while passing by the Earth.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by Jim Scott]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


I've already posted a link on the very first page, which you seem to have ignored, showing scientists have successfully "created" RNA which then replicates on it's own and gets increasingly more complex. This experiment was done in the same manner life is believed to have evolved, ie; in shallow pools evaporating and refilling, with electrical discharges available. That is all they did with some basic proteins that are found all over nature and they formed, by themselves, into RNA.

Take time to read it.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jim Scott
I find it interesting that Apollo missions found that the moon is older than the Sun and the Earth by billions of years, and it is in an orbit that is mathematically almost impossible to be captured while passing by the Earth.



Really? Did they really do this? Of did it just happen in your imagination?

Because EVERY other scientific resource on the moon seems to agree that it was formed from the earth. Even the orbit confirms that. If you don't know what I mean about this, then you obviously don't know as much about the moon as you first thought.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Jim Scott
I find it interesting that Apollo missions found that the moon is older than the Sun and the Earth by billions of years, and it is in an orbit that is mathematically almost impossible to be captured while passing by the Earth.



Really? Did they really do this? Of did it just happen in your imagination?

Because EVERY other scientific resource on the moon seems to agree that it was formed from the earth. Even the orbit confirms that. If you don't know what I mean about this, then you obviously don't know as much about the moon as you first thought.


lunar.arc.nasa.gov...

www.newscientist.com...

home1.gte.net...

www.sindhtoday.net...

en.wikipedia.org...


I don't think there's nowhere near 100% consensus of the origin of our moon. The 'big splash' theory is widely supported, but is has several major problems those still haven't been solved - and all the other theories as well.

Scientific analysis from recent moon probes (Chandrayaan/Kaguya/Chang'e 1) is still on the process.. I don't wish to start some pointless argument about the origins of the moon, but just wanted to point out your attitude and sureness of things (those definitely are not so sure) is a bit arrogant. If you have some solid facts and studies, it always helps to bring them on.. not just scream 'BS!!' and run away.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by PilgriMage

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Jim Scott
I find it interesting that Apollo missions found that the moon is older than the Sun and the Earth by billions of years, and it is in an orbit that is mathematically almost impossible to be captured while passing by the Earth.



Really? Did they really do this? Of did it just happen in your imagination?

Because EVERY other scientific resource on the moon seems to agree that it was formed from the earth. Even the orbit confirms that. If you don't know what I mean about this, then you obviously don't know as much about the moon as you first thought.


lunar.arc.nasa.gov...

www.newscientist.com...

home1.gte.net...

www.sindhtoday.net...

en.wikipedia.org...


I don't think there's nowhere near 100% consensus of the origin of our moon. The 'big splash' theory is widely supported, but is has several major problems those still haven't been solved - and all the other theories as well.

Scientific analysis from recent moon probes (Chandrayaan/Kaguya/Chang'e 1) is still on the process.. I don't wish to start some pointless argument about the origins of the moon, but just wanted to point out your attitude and sureness of things (those definitely are not so sure) is a bit arrogant. If you have some solid facts and studies, it always helps to bring them on.. not just scream 'BS!!' and run away.



read the first link you posted, its not saying the moon is older than the earth, its saying the zircon is older than any found on the earth.
if you know anything about how the earth is dated, you'd know that its dated from the point of the rock solidifying, well the moon was solidified somewhere around 4.3 bya ago.

which is the point of the page, its saying that they found a zircon that is older than the other zircons they have found on the moon, not that the earth is younger than the moon.
all this goes to show is that the earth and the moon maybe older than 4.65 billion years, which is true if we find evidence it is.
since science has placed it at least that old.

the fact is the earth unlike the moon, still has a molten core, its expected that the moon being a lump of cold rock wouldn't have much change over time except maybe meteor impacts, which the NS article points out

[edit on 10-9-2009 by demongoat]



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join