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.

 

abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

page: 10
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lord Jules
reply to [url= by Prezbo369[/url]
 


From the perspective of God, creation is perfect, because God does not have a corruptible body to get pimples and in grown hairs. Now if pimples cause death then it would be an imperfect world.


You're not making any sense whatsoever..

Your gods creation (i.e us humans) is imperfect, as shown by our pimples and ingrowing hairs (these are two superficial imperfections, truth is they go a lot deeper and go wrong a with disastrous ).

3000 people and 66 children die in the US alone every year due to us having one tube with which to eat, drink, talk and breath

Only in the most deluded of minds could this be considered a 'perfect' creation...




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lord Jules
reply to post by Noncompatible
 


I never said I could comprehend all of the unverse but I do know the light in the mind is the best proof of God. All I really know is that my soul is the same substance as the origin and creator, and consequently also the same nature as the end/death/transcendence. I am eternal, that is my true nature, not this body which changes everyday.

The universe can be comprehended one thought at a time, moment to moment, through human reasoning. Experiencing the universe all at once is the same as experiencing God since He is the All.
edit on 6-6-2012 by Lord Jules because: (no reason given)


You call me arrogant because you have never experienced the light of meditation. Have you ever meditated? Have you ever had a transcendenal experience? I don't assume to know everything about plumbing but if I have experience and knowledge than that is my power, arogance is irrelevant.
edit on 6-6-2012 by Lord Jules because: (no reason given)


Actually I meditate often. I am a casual walker of the way and find much within it. The one thing it does not require is a lord and master or a personified creator.

Oh yes! to know the truth with such certainty and to dispense insights on the workings of the mind of your god is arrogant and frankly borderline delusional. Especially when there are so many loose in the world.
Maybe you should study some others



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Noncompatible
 





Indeed Evolutionary theory has changed over time. It has evolved. Along with all scientific study.



So do you still subscribe to the Darwinian Evolution Theory?

curious to know.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Everything in that image you posted is factually incorrect


I'm glad you got the point - evolution is unreality if I may add.

Fossil Records does not support it unless you bend it to conform to the theory.

All changes we see in nature are just part of natural cycle of life unless of course you interpret them as Darwinian evolution. Of course you wouldn't do that because the current theory - says a change in the alleles over time.

So you're correct in that everything I posted in the image shows whats wrong with the evolution theory.

Cause there's no such thing as transitional forms!!

Unless of course you want to bend the truth to conform it to the theory - and that's the truth.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Fossil Records does not support it unless you bend it to conform to the theory.

What does the fact that there are no 100 million year old fossils of contemporary animals (with a few exceptions) imply?
What does the fact that there is a clear progressions towards contemporary animals in the fossil record imply?


Don't bother mentioning made up problems in dating of fossils.

So, what gives? What is bend and how? If there was no evolution, then how come there are no 100 million year old fossils of humans, bears, lions, and such? If there was no evolution, then how come the fossil record shows a clear progression towards contemporary species? If there was no evolution, the how come it's observed in the laboratory (E. coli long-term evolution experiment)?

Please address every point made in this post.
edit on 7-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





What does the fact that there are no 100 million year old fossils of contemporary animals (with a few exceptions) imply? What does the fact that there is a clear progressions towards contemporary animals in the fossil record imply?

Don't bother mentioning made up problems in dating of fossils. So, what gives?

What is bend and how? If there was no evolution, then how come there are no 100 million year old fossils of humans, bears, lions, and such? If there was no evolution, then how come the fossil record shows a clear progression towards contemporary species?


OK - let me show you - let's take the fossil records, but first address this statement of yours:




Don't bother mentioning made up problems in dating of fossils.


What do you mean by made up problem?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
What do you mean by made up problem?

A problem that only exists in the minds of creationists, and has been addressed numerous times in the past. If you're even thinking about posting some thing from a creationist website, first use google to find out if the point has been addressed. Now back to your answers..
edit on 7-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Everything in that image you posted is factually incorrect


I'm glad you got the point - evolution is unreality if I may add.

Fossil Records does not support it unless you bend it to conform to the theory.






I was talking about your creationist pic...the one that got every single statement factually wrong


The fossil record FULLY BACKS UP the theory, in fact, every single fossil we've found fits it perfectly





All changes we see in nature are just part of natural cycle of life unless of course you interpret them as Darwinian evolution. Of course you wouldn't do that because the current theory - says a change in the alleles over time.


Of course it's a "natural cycle"...that's what evolution is





Cause there's no such thing as transitional forms!!


Except...there's thousands of them





Unless of course you want to bend the truth to conform it to the theory - and that's the truth.


You might wanna look up the definition of "truth", because right now, you're confusing it with "my personal (incredibly wrong) belief".



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
To throw a slow ball for the deniers.

Please explain, if biological evolutionary theory is incorrect, how would you explain something like nylonase ?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daemonicon
To throw a slow ball for the deniers.

Please explain, if biological evolutionary theory is incorrect, how would you explain something like nylonase ?





posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The end bit with Carl Sagan almost made me piss my pants. Pretty sure my coworkers think I'm insane now.

Thanks for that. hahaha



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daemonicon
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The end bit with Carl Sagan almost made me piss my pants. Pretty sure my coworkers think I'm insane now.

Thanks for that. hahaha


In case you're wondering why they believe that, here's the answer to that:




posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
What do you mean by made up problem?

A problem that only exists in the minds of creationists, and has been addressed numerous times in the past. Now back to your answers..


I know you don't want to specifically address this issue because it posed a great threat to the validity of the fossil record.

In any case: the c14 dating method is still an inaccurate dating method unless of course the specimen is around the half-life of the carbon isotopes - which is about 5700 years.

As for the radiometric dating method - it was designed to date igneous rocks and the earth's strata due to it's long live radioactive isotopes.

Both dating methods have their proper place and use - but when one method is used to extend the life of the other - like extending the life of c14 by using radiometric dating then problems occurs.

Honest scientists are well aware of this problem except of course evolutionists. Evolutionists rather prefer to ignore this problem as though it's not there - so they don't want to address it and say that the problem:




...only exists in the minds of creationists


But for your sake let me just cite a few of the many problems facing radiometric / c14 dating, they are:


-- It is never certain that the sample selected to date an event truly corresponds with it. It is only more or less probable, in the light of the archaeological evidence at the site.

-- The half-life of radiocarbon is not as certainly known as the scientists would like.

-- The cosmic rays, never steady, may have been much stronger or weaker in the past 10,000 years than is generally believed.

--  Solar flares change the level of radiocarbon—how much in the past nobody knows.

-- The earth’s magnetic field changes fitfully on a short time scale, and so radically over thousands of years that even the north and south poles are reversed. Scientists do not know why.

-- Mixing of radiocarbon between the atmosphere and ocean can be affected by changes in climate or weather, but no one knows how much.

-- Radiocarbon scientists admit that an “Ice Age” could have affected the radiocarbon content of the air, by changing the volume and temperature of the ocean water, but they are not sure how great these changes were.

-- Mixing of radiocarbon between the surface layers and the deep ocean has an effect, very imperfectly understood.

-- The count of tree rings, used to calibrate the radiocarbon clock, is cast into doubt by the possibility of greatly different climatic conditions in past ages.

-- The radiocarbon content of old trees may be changed by diffusion of sap and resin into the heartwood.

-- Buried samples can either gain or lose radiocarbon through leaching by groundwater or by contamination.

Of course like you, proponents of evolution theory don't want to bring such problems up for obvious reasons or for that matter what other reputable scientists have said like for example:

Nobel prize winning nuclear physicist W. F. Libby, one of the pioneers in radiocarbon dating, stated


“The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historical and the prehistorical epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000 years. . . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately.” - Science, “Radiocarbon Dating,” by W. F. Libby, March 3, 1961, p. 624.


Of course you will just popoo these statements - and accused me of quote mining or misquoting them. No surprise there since that's the usual mo for proponents of evo-theory. In any case there they are.

So c14 dating is accurate around it's half-life - great for carbon life-forms.

As to your question:




What does the fact that there are no 100 million year old fossils of contemporary animals (with a few exceptions) imply?


Because:


“were so virtually indistinguishable from those of today that even the most skeptical had to concede that they were humans,” -- book Lucy, p. 29.




...“dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.”
...
Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.” - Popular Science, “How Old Is It?” by Robert Gannon, November 1979, p. 81



“Only six or seven thousand years ago . . . civilization emerged, enabling us to build up a human world.” -- The Fate of the Earth, by Jonathan Schell, 1982, p. 181.




What does the fact that there is a clear progressions towards contemporary animals in the fossil record imply?


If so then there must be evidence - not!

tc.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





So c14 dating is accurate around it's half-life - great for carbon life-forms.


That old argument again, really?


We don't have to date the actual fossil if all the earth/rock around it can be dated much more accurately. Because if all the rock/earth around the fossil is of the same age, it makes perfect sense that the fossil is of the same age. That is, unless you're completely bat# crazy and believe in nonsense like god(s) beaming the fossils there to "test people's faith".



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 

So much stuff about C14 dating, although it's not really relevant in any way when it comes to dating of fossils, which are millions of years old. Try again. Also, you failed to answer all the questions I posed. Try that again too. Or you can't?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daemonicon
To throw a slow ball for the deniers.

Please explain, if biological evolutionary theory is incorrect, how would you explain something like nylonase ?


So what about nylonase?

Do you know that some bacterias are used to liberate microscopic bits of gold locked up in ores with stubborn impurities?

Or what about this one:

Do you know that companies have devised methods for using microbes to clean up toxic chemical and industrial wastes? One such system was tested on the oil spill off the coast of Alaska. Amazing!

In fact some Japanese companies have even used microbes to manufacture a component for a pair of luxury headphones. I want one of that!!

So not all bacterias are harmful - then again may be they are not.

The wonder of Creation!!



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Daemonicon
To throw a slow ball for the deniers.

Please explain, if biological evolutionary theory is incorrect, how would you explain something like nylonase ?


So what about nylonase?

Do you know that some bacterias are used to liberate microscopic bits of gold locked up in ores with stubborn impurities?

Or what about this one:

Do you know that companies have devised methods for using microbes to clean up toxic chemical and industrial wastes? One such system was tested on the oil spill off the coast of Alaska. Amazing!

In fact some Japanese companies have even used microbes to manufacture a component for a pair of luxury headphones. I want one of that!!

So not all bacterias are harmful - then again may be they are not.

The wonder of Creation!!



You've completely missed the point.

Nylonase is capable of breaking down nylon, something that has only existed for the last ~60 years. If this didn't evolve, how did it 'gather' the means to break down something that didn't even exist until semi-recently?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Daemonicon
To throw a slow ball for the deniers.

Please explain, if biological evolutionary theory is incorrect, how would you explain something like nylonase ?


So what about nylonase?

Do you know that some bacterias are used to liberate microscopic bits of gold locked up in ores with stubborn impurities?

Or what about this one:

Do you know that companies have devised methods for using microbes to clean up toxic chemical and industrial wastes? One such system was tested on the oil spill off the coast of Alaska. Amazing!

In fact some Japanese companies have even used microbes to manufacture a component for a pair of luxury headphones. I want one of that!!

So not all bacterias are harmful - then again may be they are not.

The wonder of Creation!!



You do realize that wasn't the point he was trying to make by asking his question, right?

Here's why nylonase is further proof of evolution: LINK



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by edmc^2
 

So much stuff about C14 dating, although it's not really relevant in any way when it comes to dating of fossils, which are millions of years old. Try again. Also, you failed to answer all the questions I posed. Try that again too. Or you can't?


hahahaha...so you can't refute the problems inherent to carbon dating.

The fact that the tool is so inaccurate for dating "fossils" it leads one to wonder if evolutionists are that so gullible.

Looki here - a 150 million fossil!! proof of evolution. Not!!



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by edmc^2
 

So much stuff about C14 dating, although it's not really relevant in any way when it comes to dating of fossils, which are millions of years old. Try again. Also, you failed to answer all the questions I posed. Try that again too. Or you can't?


hahahaha...so you can't refute the problems inherent to carbon dating.

The fact that the tool is so inaccurate for dating "fossils" it leads one to wonder if evolutionists are that so gullible.

Looki here - a 150 million fossil!! proof of evolution. Not!!



Except...we just refuted those "problems". Again, you don't need C14 to date fossils



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join