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.
I agree with much of what you state, but it is not important to know what a brick is in all cases. Just as I do not have to know about atoms to understand the properties of wood. Models of brain activity may involve consideration of neurons. Can ideal gas laws be derived without knowing about atoms or molecules?
TextIn other words, you're out of arguments and run away with your tail between your legs
Atoms aren't made of energy
The OP has made no such demonstration and neither has the scientific community.
Yes we belief that molecules are created inside stars but that does not mean we understand what these building blocks actually are and what they are made of.
So for the OP to state that evolution is fact is plain wrong.
There are many scientists who disagree with the principles of evolution on a fundamental level.
Yet the OP with his utube video thinks he has he can claim something a fact without addressing the fundamentals is flawed.
Gravity and therm dyanimcs are theories. The possess usefulness because they facilitate us in our everyday lifes. That does not make them facts nor does it mean we should not use them...
A theory can be measured in its usefulness.
Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by MrXYZ
TextIn other words, you're out of arguments and run away with your tail between your legs
No he left because you demonstrated you do not know what you are talking about and showed a disability to want to learn. Atoms are made of fluctuation of energy - read up on some quantum physics or watch the utube vidoe I posted you to give you a general introduction to the subject.
More than 600 scientists holding doctoral degrees have gone on the record expressing skepticism about Darwin’s theory of evolution and calling for critical examination of the evidence cited in its support.
All are signatories to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, which reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Atoms aren't made of energy
When they react with eachother they create energy. Atoms are a base unit of MATTER! You might wanna read up on atoms
I thought energy cannot be created or destroyed? Don't the subatomic particles which make up the atom contain potential energy? I'm confused
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by MrXYZ
When they react with eachother they create energy. Atoms are a base unit of MATTER! You might wanna read up on atoms
To be precise: They don't CREATE energy as that is impossible in a closed system like an universe. They just set energy free, combined with the creation of some minor particles.
Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by MrXYZ
You can link what you wish it does not make it fact as you claim it does. Science does not work on fact as I stated earlier it works on falsification. Your topic reallly should be in the grey area.. and for information I am not a creationist but your thread is garbage you are treating science like a religion.
I will bow out and leave you too it..
A fact is not a statement of certainty, but through repeated confirmation the things or processes they refer to are generally accepted as true according to the reliability of inference (inductive, deductive, and abductive). Facts refer to "events that occur" or "the state of being of things" that can be publicly verified, proven through experiment, or witnessed by direct observation.
Originally posted by followtheevidence
reply to post by purplemer
Right. Which is why it would make more sense to state that when certain atoms interact with other atoms they release energy ... they don't create create energy as the OP suggested.
Its premature of the OP to state we know how life is formed...
Last I checked a carbon molecule or oxygen molecule isn't considered "life
Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by MrXYZ
Last I checked a carbon molecule or oxygen molecule isn't considered "life
You checked wrong. Carbon and oxygen are integral to life on earth. Would you care to show me a life form that is not composed of these two elements..
They are building blocks of life, but on their own, they are NOT "life". If they were, you'd read "scientists found life in outer space" in every single newspaper on the planet