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.

 

Why Abiogenesis separated from Evolution is a false Dichotomy.

page: 19
4
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


We've been asking this question for ages and the closest Blue_Jay33 came to answering it was 'it was designed to not evolve'...after 15+ pages.




posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 
No we haven't established anything except that banalities of continuation versus discontinuity. They are still two separate theories, but both resolved by one continuous process, unless you believe in divine intervention.

On TalkOrigins, yes I was premature in denouncing the site's intentions and information content. For that I apologize. It is a handy source for the intricacies and framework of evolutionary theory,. But it is still a site to address the "controversy" of Creation and Evolution. So fragments of verbiage that suggest God as a plausible purveyor of existence is expected. In that respect, why would you consider a mention of "God" on a site that addresses God's role in the variegated modes of existence to be substantial, or even worth mentioning.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 





What do you believe will happen to you if you deny god as creator?


I was created from atomic particles and I will return to atomic particles, my total existence ended in a soul death.
Just like God told the original human Adam from dust you are and to dust you shall return, hell is myth.

Actually my belief structure is closer to atheist than most Christians, on the death issue. You die, you simply no longer exist, period.
The one difference, and it is big one, is that in the future God may recreate your body and soul, until that point, from God's perspective, you are sleeping in death in a total state on non-existence.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


In order for you to be ressurected in the future, the information about your soul must be stored somewhere, be it in god or in some higher realm etc. So your soul would no be dead or nonexistent in the true sense, only paused.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





Yes, the 'bickering' is pointless when I'm demonstrably right and you're demonstrably wrong. We've shown that you're wrong and I'm right.


Hmmm, it looks like Madness won't be bickering with anyone on ATS anymore, with his attitude he went and got himself banned. His absolute arrogance in this topic, and all these types of topics was his downfall.

Abiogenesis is still an unknown and much debated theory, it is like the concrete slab for a foundation for a building. And evolution is like the structure that rests on top of that slab. The problem is the slab actually doesn't exist, so the entire building doesn't either, Or it's like people tried to put walls up on sand, they can't last. Anybody that knows about building practices knows you need a solid foundation. Evolution has no foundation to properly build on. Again this is why Evolutionists are so desperate to separate the two, putting them apart from each other.

edit on 2-7-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


This thread did not need to be revived. Don't be a necromancer.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 





Abiogenesis is still an unknown and much debated theory, it is like the concrete slab for a foundation for a building. And evolution is like the structure that rests on top of that slab. The problem is the slab actually doesn't exist, so the entire building doesn't either, Or it's like people tried to put walls up on sand, they can't last.


According to that theory, gravity isn't a valid theory either because we don't know how the universe started. It doesn't matter how life started, as we have undeniable proof of evolution. So even if a giant space daddy started the first life (we have of course no proof of that), evolution would still happen because we've actively observed it and use findings from that theory in modern science. If it wouldn't happen, you wouldn't have a lot of the meds you might use one day.

In short...stop preaching and start backing up your claims with facts



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





In short...stop preaching and start backing up your claims with facts


Oh really, like you preach about evolution ?

And your comparison of the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity is pathetic, anybody can prove this style of theory by jumping off a higher object and landing on a lower object. Nobody can prove evolution, it remains a much different style of theory than gravity., The sad part is evolutionists know all this, but still try to use it to make their case.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
And your comparison of the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity is pathetic, anybody can prove this style of theory by jumping off a higher object and landing on a lower object.


Just like you can prove evolution by observing it?


Nobody can prove evolution,


They can and have.


it remains a much different style of theory than gravity.,


No it's not, it's a scientific theory which is much different than "theory" in the broad sense of the term. Evolution is just as much a theory as germ theory, plate tectonic theory, and the theory of gravity.


edit on 2-7-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

So you necroed a thread just to gloat about madness getting banned and get a last shot in when he's not here to reply. Classy.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 





Oh really, like you preach about evolution ?


It's not actually preaching if you back it up with facts...which I am, and you're not.

We have just as much objective evidence for evolution as we have for gravity: LINK

We can use the theory of gravity to PREDICT something. Like when you jump off a 20 story house, you will fall and die.

We can also use the theory of evolution to PREDICT stuff...which is what we're doing in modern medicine and gene therapy. If the theory were wrong, we wouldn't be able to make those predictions and we wouldn't have a lot of the meds we have today.

In short...how about you present some facts for a change?



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





So you necroed a thread


It was my thread, sometimes I like to revisit old threads of mine, and if there is a reason to post, I do.

I maintain that Abiogenesis & Evolution can't be separated philosophically and conceptually, and even biologically. Supporters of evolution need to separate them, to have any chance to make a case for their belief structure.
edit on 2-7-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 





I maintain that Abiogenesis & Evolution can't be separated philosophically and conceptually, and even biologically. Supporters of evolution need to separate them, to have any chance to make a case for their belief structure.


You may maintain whatever you want, but you have yet to construct a convincing argument.

The bottom line is, first living cell may have been created by god or aliens or some other intelligence, and then let it evolve to give rise to all the diversity we see. In such case abiogenesis would be false, and evolution true. Thats because they are separate theories, one dealing with the origin of life, the other dealing with the diversity of life.

I think that you cannot attack evolution meaningfully, therefore you need to make up this strawman to include abiogenesis along with evolution, because unproven abiogenesis may be easier to challenge.
edit on 2/7/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/7/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


It was my thread, sometimes I like to revisit old threads of mine, and if there is a reason to post, I do.

And your reason, in this case, for going back to a thread that had been dead for four months, was to gloat over another member's ban and to take a last shot at someone who can't even respond.

Like I said, classy.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join