Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Earth is a lot older than 6000-10,000 years, get over it!

page: 23
37
<< 20  21  22   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



"The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities of a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model of a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute"

Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."[

"However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation."


Two words,
Cambrian Explosion: The topic you guys like to not talk about
www.straight-talk.net...




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


Yay, more old creationist stock arguments and quotes! It's been a while since I've heard these. (clearly sarcasm here)


Originally posted by kellynap43
"The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities of a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model of a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute"


Really? We've seen all the building blocks of life arise on their own...so...I guess all that research into abiogenesis happened after this quote was made.



Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."[


Well, Conklin was wrong. Mainly because nobody is saying it was an accident and because it's a false analogy. It's more a necessary consequence of chemistry than an accident.



"However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation."


You're right. That's why 'dead' material isn't used, non-living is a completely different thing. And the experiments didn't end with Miller. It's progressed so much further since him. Please, keep up with the times.



Two words,
Cambrian Explosion: The topic you guys like to not talk about
www.straight-talk.net...


Actually, we don't mind talking about it. We just hate having to correct creationists who misrepresent it.

Hell, if you'd bothered to go to that old dusty "Index to Creationist Claims" thread that's sticky'd at the top of this forum you'd have found a massive response to that by following the talkorigins links.

I mean, this is an old one. It's been debunked way too many times to bother with again.
edit on 26/5/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by kellynap43
Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."[

"However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation."


Life may have originated anywhere in the Universe. You are aware of that aren't you?


Panspermia is the idea that life migrates naturally through space. Although an old idea, there has been much recent theoretical and experimental work developing the idea in recent years. In this review, this progress is considered and placed in context. Ideas concerning Panspermia now include mathematical treatments of the likelihood of transfer of life from Mars to Earth, the possibility of life transferring between the natural satellites of an outer planet such as Jupiter, and mathematical treatments and models of life migrating out of a Solar System. Not all predictions of the likelihood of successful Panspermia are positive, and some are contradictory. At present, Panspermia can neither be proved nor disproved. Nevertheless, Panspermia is an intellectual idea which holds strong attraction. However, at the heart of Panspermia is a still un-resolved mystery: in order to migrate, life has to start somewhere, and we still cannot tackle that moment of origin.
Burchell (2004). Panspermia Today. International Journal of Astrobiology


That narrows down the number of possible places for the origin of life to a practically limitless number of places in the Cosmos. We may not have observed life spontaneously occurring yet. However, we haven't observed much of the Universe so far.

In fact that comments you sited are not even relevant to whether life was created or not.

Does this make any sense or am I just the delusional party to this debate?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


I said young earth creationists


I know that not all Christians believe that the world is 6,000 years old



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by ThePublicEnemyNo1
I must first apologize for even posting in this thread, but this is seriously insane! Anyone that would pay attention to a so called "article or two", listed somewhere on the internet about the age of the Earth being 6,000 years old has a lot of time to waste.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...I know, I didn't have to add to this discussion, but this is crazy IMHO.


Well then, please don't. This thread is already hard enough to sift through without baseless posts that add nothing to the debate and do not offer even an opinion on the topic at hand. Not trying to be a jerk but everyone here is sifting through the thread and this takes everyone off topic.


Yet, IMHO stands and your statement made no difference in My Opinion, so now what?

And it's still BS...not trying to be a jerk either, just the way I personally feel Helious.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Let's take a timeout from the dogma provided to us by our resident 'Scientists' and ask you a question Madness.

It turns out fairly recently there were these guys at a paleontology dig that retrieved a large bone from a T-Rex and as luck would have it... it was too large to fit in the door of the chopper that was airlifting the team out...

So instead of attaching it to the choppers skid (mega huge duh! here
), these geniuses used their trusty portable saw and cut this 'million of years old!' artifact in two pieces!

I am NOT making this stuff up...


Anyhow, Madness, why was the marrow still gelatinous?

Hmmm?



edit on 2-6-2011 by golemina because: Can you say... typos!



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 



Originally posted by golemina
Let's take a timeout from the dogma provided to us by our resident 'Scientists' and ask you a question Madness.


Yeah, dogma...I was unaware that science, which is mainly about questioning everything is dogmatic.



It turns out fairly recently there were these guys at a paleontology dig that retrieved a large bone from a T-Rex and as luck would have it... it was too large to fit in the door of the chopper that was airlifting the team out...

So instead of attaching it to the choppers skid (mega huge duh! here
), these geniuses used their trusty portable saw and cut this 'million of years old!' artifact in two pieces!


Huh...sounds unusual and I can't find any evidence of this anywhere. Checked some news sources, science mags, etc...not a single reference to it. Where's your citation?




I am NOT making this stuff up...




Oh really? Actually, I'm not going to say you're making it up. Someone else did and you've just been deceived by a charlatan or a liar.



Anyhow, Madness, why was the marrow still gelatinous?


Because....someone made this up and there was no gelatinous material as there was no story in the first place as this is a work of fiction.






top topics



 
37
<< 20  21  22   >>

log in

join