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: 13
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
So the answer is YES and NO!

YES - in that the elements inside the ROCK-FOSSIL are as old as the the earth's age, which is - based on radiometric dating - around 4 billion years old.

NO - in that the ORGANIC MATERIAL - the actual CARBON life-form - the BONE no longer exist.

Even if it's still there they can only date it as far as 50K years - to an evolutionist trying to prove evolution - this is NOT acceptable because of pre-conceived notion that dino-bones should be in the millions of years old. So the latter dating method is accepted as the official age.

What is measured is when the "rock-fossil" formed. They didn't form when the Earth formed so they're not as old as the Earth's age. Their age can can be directly measured (when the rock formed). Thus we can also indirectly measure the age of the no longer existing bone which served as a template to the "rock-fossil".
edit on 10-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


Exactly my point!

The rock - or to be precise the radioactive contents of the rock is what determines the age of the rock-fossil. And what is the contents of the rock-fossil?

Sediments!

And sediments are - rocks broken into small pieces by environmental forces.

They are deposited and hardened through the process of lithification to become "rock-fossils".

learn from kids: library.thinkquest.org...

Again depending on the type of isotopes found and how much is left - the age of the rock is determined.

But my question to you was - how did the bone got there in the first place?

Was it already there millions of years ago or just a few thousand years ago?

Any idea? Does is take millions of years to form sedimentary rocks?

Meh - It all depends on how fast the lithification / fossilization occurred.

Also, how long does ancient civilization gets buried deep underground? Does it take just a few thousand years?

What about bones? Do they take millions of years to get buried?

What say you?




posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
But if you insist on a 100 million year old dino, that's your choice. At least i know my facts.

You really don't. I think you're completely misunderstanding radiometric dating, and anyway it's not even just that, but also e.g. distribution of fossils. When you find similar fossils in the west coast of Africa and east coast of South America, you can be rather certain that they once lived right next to each other, you know back when the two continents were still part of the same larger continent. The same thing when you find sea life fossils on top of mountains, or tropical species fossils in Antarctica. I assume you don't disagree with plate tectonics. Don't these facts also imply that these fossils are very old, or are you perhaps arguing that continents used to move much faster and e.g. sea floor could became mountain top in some 10s of thousands of years instead of millions of years?
edit on 10-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


Au contraire - I know what I'm talking about. It's you who doesn't understand radiometric dating.


It's not as you say "distribution of fossils" or that "they once lived right next to each other" or that "you find sea life fossils on top of mountains, or tropical species fossils in Antarctica" that determine the age of the "fossil" or that they "imply that these fossils are very old". But rather, the counting of


naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates


Continuing


It is the principal source of information about the absolute age of rocks and other geological features, including the age of the Earth itself, and can be used to date a wide range of natural and man-made materials. Together with stratigraphic principles, radiometric dating methods are used in geochronology to establish the geological time scale.[2]


Futhermore


The mathematical expression that relates radioactive decay to geologic time, is[10][13]

D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1)

where

t is age of the sample,
D is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample,
D0 is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition,
N is number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample at time t (the present), given by N(t) = Noe-λt, and
λ is the decay constant of the parent isotope, equal to the inverse of the radioactive half-life of the parent isotope[14] times the natural logarithm of 2.

The equation is most conveniently expressed in terms of the measured quantity N(t) rather than the constant initial value No.


Read the rest here: en.wikipedia.org...

As for "plate tectonics" - based on scientific studies of course it's one of the reason why the earth IS DYNAMIC.

As for "pangea" - according to geologists studying the continental plate movement, they say that at one point in time the continents were together then split into separate continents.

But again - these are NOT the detimining factors as how old a "fossil" is but by


naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates
.

Now please answer my Q - how long does it take for a tree to petrify?

How long does it take for a buried tree trunk to fossilized?

Million years or thousands? How about in hundred, two hundred, three, 600 years?

What say you?



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
So the answer is YES and NO!

YES - in that the elements inside the ROCK-FOSSIL are as old as the the earth's age, which is - based on radiometric dating - around 4 billion years old.

NO - in that the ORGANIC MATERIAL - the actual CARBON life-form - the BONE no longer exist.

Even if it's still there they can only date it as far as 50K years - to an evolutionist trying to prove evolution - this is NOT acceptable because of pre-conceived notion that dino-bones should be in the millions of years old. So the latter dating method is accepted as the official age.

What is measured is when the "rock-fossil" formed. They didn't form when the Earth formed so they're not as old as the Earth's age. Their age can can be directly measured (when the rock formed). Thus we can also indirectly measure the age of the no longer existing bone which served as a template to the "rock-fossil".
edit on 10-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


Exactly my point!

The rock - or to be precise the radioactive contents of the rock is what determines the age of the rock-fossil. And what is the contents of the rock-fossil?

Sediments!

And sediments are - rocks broken into small pieces by environmental forces.

They are deposited and hardened through the process of lithification to become "rock-fossils".

learn from kids: library.thinkquest.org...

Again depending on the type of isotopes found and how much is left - the age of the rock is determined.

But my question to you was - how did the bone got there in the first place?

Was it already there millions of years ago or just a few thousand years ago?

Any idea? Does is take millions of years to form sedimentary rocks?

Meh - It all depends on how fast the lithification / fossilization occurred.

Also, how long does ancient civilization gets buried deep underground? Does it take just a few thousand years?

What about bones? Do they take millions of years to get buried?

What say you?

You already answered yourself how the "rock-fossil" got there (lithification). I don't understand why you think they could have gotten there just a few thousand years ago, since you acknowledge that the age of the "rock-fossil" can be determined to be millions of years. How is it then possible, that it could be only thousands of years old?



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
It's not as you say "distribution of fossils" or that "they once lived right next to each other" or that "you find sea life fossils on top of mountains, or tropical species fossils in Antarctica" that determine the age of the "fossil" or that they "imply that these fossils are very old". But rather, the counting of


naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates


Continuing


It is the principal source of information about the absolute age of rocks and other geological features, including the age of the Earth itself, and can be used to date a wide range of natural and man-made materials. Together with stratigraphic principles, radiometric dating methods are used in geochronology to establish the geological time scale.[2]


Futhermore


The mathematical expression that relates radioactive decay to geologic time, is[10][13]

D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1)

where

t is age of the sample,
D is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample,
D0 is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition,
N is number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample at time t (the present), given by N(t) = Noe-λt, and
λ is the decay constant of the parent isotope, equal to the inverse of the radioactive half-life of the parent isotope[14] times the natural logarithm of 2.

The equation is most conveniently expressed in terms of the measured quantity N(t) rather than the constant initial value No.


Read the rest here: en.wikipedia.org...

Wait, you're saying that finding e.g. sea floor on top of a mountain doesn't imply very old age? Irregardless of the dating method, the fact that such things are observed don't in your opinion imply very long time-spans?


Originally posted by edmc^2
As for "plate tectonics" - based on scientific studies of course it's one of the reason why the earth IS DYNAMIC.

As for "pangea" - according to geologists studying the continental plate movement, they say that at one point in time the continents were together then split into separate continents.

But again - these are NOT the detimining factors as how old a "fossil" is but by


naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates
.

Now please answer my Q - how long does it take for a tree to petrify?

How long does it take for a buried tree trunk to fossilized?

Million years or thousands? How about in hundred, two hundred, three, 600 years?

What say you?

But again, these independent observations support the fact that these fossils are very old irregardless of what radiometric dating says.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


They aren't dating the sediments! They are dating the formation of the rocks themselves. Sediments aren't just smashed up rocks, they consist of everything the ends up settling there and breaking down. Whatever website you are getting that info from is posting nothing but non sequiturs, and basic understanding of fossilization and dating answers everything.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by edmc^2
 


They aren't dating the sediments! They are dating the formation of the rocks themselves. Sediments aren't just smashed up rocks, they consist of everything the ends up settling there and breaking down. Whatever website you are getting that info from is posting nothing but non sequiturs, and basic understanding of fossilization and dating answers everything.


If you get your "information" form crappy websites like the creation institute and other speudo-scientific sources (like edmc demonstrably does) you can only expect weird uneducated beliefs



edit on 11-6-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Sediments aren't just smashed up rocks, they consist of everything the ends up settling there and breaking down. Whatever website you are getting that info from is posting nothing but non sequiturs, and basic understanding of fossilization and dating answers everything.


Barcs here's a kids website that I linked to (just a few post before this) so that folks like you can understand it more.

library.thinkquest.org...

Below is a text format of the link above:


Sedimentary Rocks Fascinating Fact Seventy percent of all the rocks on earth are sedimentary rocks. The earth's surface is constantly being eroded. This means that rocks are broken up into smaller pieces by weathering agents such as wind, water, and ice. These small pieces of rock turn into pebbles, gravel, sand, and clay. They tumble down rivers and streams. These pieces settle in a new place and begin to pile up and the sediments form flat layers. Over a long period of time, the pieces become pressed together and form solid rock called sedimentary rock. Most sedimentary rocks form under water. Most of the earth has been covered by water some time in the past. 70% of the earth is covered by water now. So sedimentary rocks are common all over the world. Sedimentary rocks are often rich in fossils. Sediments can harden into sedimentary rock in two ways. pressure-As layer after layer of sediments are deposited, the lower layers are pressed together tightly under the weight of the layers above. cementing-Some sediments are glued together by minerals dissolved in water. Some examples of sedimentary rocks are sandstone, limestone, conglomerate, and shale. Sandstone is formed from grains of sand pressed tightly together. Sandstones are very common rocks. They are formed from the sand on beaches, in riverbeds, and sand dunes. Sandstones are usually made of the mineral quartz. Limestone is formed from tiny pieces of shells of dead sea animals that have been cemented together. Conglomerate contains sand and rounded pebbles that have also been cemented together. Shale is formed from mud or clay that has been pressed together. Shale forms in quiet waters such as swamps and bogs. Sedimentary rocks are easy to identify because you can actually see the layers. Below is a summary of the major characteristics of sedimentary rocks. Classified by texture and composition Often contains fossils May react with acid Often has layers, flat or curved Usually composed of pieces cemented or pressed together Has great color variety Particle size may be the same or vary Usually has pores between pieces May have cross-bedding, mud cracks, worm burrows, raindrop impressions Here's a checklist of some common sedimentary rocks and their characteristics. Look for these same characteristics in the rocks you find, and you'll be well on your way to becoming a rockhound. Some Common Sedimentary Rocks Name Image Color Composition Sandstone Red or Gray Sand grains cemented together Limestone White to Gray Calcite and sometimes fossils Shale Dark Gray Compacted mud Conglomerate Different Colors Rounded cobbles and pebbles cemented together To learn more about rocks and minerals, click next below: Back Next Back to the Top


OK?

As for this:




They aren't dating the sediments! They are dating the formation of the rocks themselves.




To be precise note (to repeat) what I said to rhino..

But rather, the counting of


naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates


Continuing


It is the principal source of information about the absolute age of rocks and other geological features, including the age of the Earth itself, and can be used to date a wide range of natural and man-made materials. Together with stratigraphic principles, radiometric dating methods are used in geochronology to establish the geological time scale.[2]


Futhermore


The mathematical expression that relates radioactive decay to geologic time, is[10][13]

D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1)

where

t is age of the sample,
D is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample,
D0 is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition,
N is number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample at time t (the present), given by N(t) = Noe-λt, and
λ is the decay constant of the parent isotope, equal to the inverse of the radioactive half-life of the parent isotope[14] times the natural logarithm of 2.

The equation is most conveniently expressed in terms of the measured quantity N(t) rather than the constant initial value No.


Read the rest here:en.wikipedia.org...

Clear enuff?



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by edmc^2
 


They aren't dating the sediments! They are dating the formation of the rocks themselves. Sediments aren't just smashed up rocks, they consist of everything the ends up settling there and breaking down. Whatever website you are getting that info from is posting nothing but non sequiturs, and basic understanding of fossilization and dating answers everything.


If you get your "information" form crappy websites like the creation institute and other speudo-scientific sources (like edmc demonstrably does) you can only expect weird uneducated beliefs



edit on 11-6-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


Hmm " crappy websites"? zeys who?

You? If so you shouldn't have any difficulty explaining reasons why you think the statements below are:


factually inaccurate


That is:

1. 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.

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

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

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

5. 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.

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

7. 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.

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

9. 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.

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

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

Add to this.

12. Recycling of earth's crust affects the amount and purity of radioactive materials,

If you believe that none of these affect the c14/radiometric readings then explain how and why not?

If these are as you said "non sequiturs" - please explain why?

What say you?



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





You already answered yourself how the "rock-fossil" got there (lithification). I don't understand why you think they could have gotten there just a few thousand years ago, since you acknowledge that the age of the "rock-fossil" can be determined to be millions of years. How is it then possible, that it could be only thousands of years old?


"How is it then possible, that it could be only thousands of years old? " - still can't see it??

Anyway let's compound the conundrum created by evolutionists:

1) If a fossil is found next to an ancient civilization dig - how old do you think is the fossil?

Where do you base the age of the fossil from? Ancient artifacts or the radioactive isotopes from rocks around the area?

Further more - where do you based the age of the ancient civilization from? History or radiocarbon?

(BTW - in case you don't know - it's NOT the fossil that's usually dated but the strata of the surrounding area - see bracketing).

Then there's also the question of how the bone got there in the first place.

Where did it came from? Did it died there at the same spot? Or was it transported there from somewhere else?

Was it transported by water, by animals, by erosion?

Know what I mean?

Then there's this:

2) Since (like you said) we're "finding ...sea floor on top of a mountain" - does this indicate that at one point in time the mountains were under water?

Since marine life are still being discovered on top of them, does this indicate then that even the highest mountains of today was under water at some point in time?

If so - how deep we're they under water?

Where did the water go?

What would happen to tectonic plates once the water accumulates in one area?

What would happen to the earth crust with all that volume of water accumulating?

Compound this additional water suddenly plunging downward - what would happen to the low planes?

Will it help push the planes further high up, valley planes further low? At what rate?

Millions of years?

What say you?



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 

Why not simply cut to the chase?

The whole basis of your argument throughout this thread has been :

"I can provide reasons why you cannot be positive. Therefore creationism."

No actual hypothesis, most certainly no workable theory, beyond :

"You may be wrong therefore I am right."

Why not present your workable theory with credible peer reviewed sources and actual evidence?
It would be much more convincing.

Can you do this? Are there any credible hypothesis? Or does it really all hinge on questioning the actual research and having faith?



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible
reply to post by edmc^2
 

Why not simply cut to the chase?

The whole basis of your argument throughout this thread has been :

"I can provide reasons why you cannot be positive. Therefore creationism."

No actual hypothesis, most certainly no workable theory, beyond :

"You may be wrong therefore I am right."

Why not present your workable theory with credible peer reviewed sources and actual evidence?
It would be much more convincing.

Can you do this? Are there any credible hypothesis? Or does it really all hinge on questioning the actual research and having faith?



So no forthcoming answers to the questions I posted in the OP and the succeeding posts?

I guess that shows you something about people believing on what they don't know.

In any case let then address your Q:

U said:




Why not present your workable theory with credible peer reviewed sources and actual evidence? It would be much more convincing.

Can you do this? Are there any credible hypothesis? Or does it really all hinge on questioning the actual research and having faith?


OK then peer review this:

I present to you a "workable theory" that is not only credible but backed up by actual evidence.

That is -

Since abioGenesis hypothesis has been debunked so many times now and forever will be a bunk (that there's no such thing as spontaneous generation of Life), thus the opposite is TRUE - that:

> L I F E comes ONLY from previous L I F E <

Which leads us to this ONLY ONE logical and satisfying conclusion > that L I F E was created by an ALREADY EXISTING and ALWAYS EXISTING BEING with the capacity and ability to IMPART Life - J e h o v a h God!

Besides that there's nothing else.

All evidence points to it, all facts (whether scientific or not) points to it and above all there's no other logical answer.

L I F E comes ONLY from previous L I F E is the answer to the Origin Of Life.

Thus it's called the miracle of L I F E.

Do you think miracles are not possible?



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
calling all evolutionist / atheist ...calling all evolutionist / atheist ... hello...anybody home...


well I guess not - where's that dang frying pan.





posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
*Sigh*

To give the concise version of your latest ramble.

"We don't know. Therefore by default I am right."

Here's a suggestion.

Why not try: " We don't know, let's find out!"

Incidentally you did not actually produce anything credible. (I know you'll ramble some more but it had to be said)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible
*Sigh*

To give the concise version of your latest ramble.

"We don't know. Therefore by default I am right."

Here's a suggestion.

Why not try: " We don't know, let's find out!"

Incidentally you did not actually produce anything credible. (I know you'll ramble some more but it had to be said)



ramble ramble believing on what you don't know can hurt you like a thorn on a bramble.

So which one is scientifically sound and logically correct?

> L I F E comes ONLY from previous L I F E?

or

> abioGenesis - spontaneous generation of life from non-life?

now ramble on and try to explain why abiogenesis is NOT a silly idea!!



edit on 15-6-2012 by edmc^2 because: abiogenesis is just a silly idea



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Your questions have already been thoroughly answered, you just refuse to accept or understand them. That's not our fault.


So which one is scientifically sound and logically correct?

> L I F E comes ONLY from previous L I F E?

or

> abioGenesis - spontaneous generation of life from non-life?


Neither are scientifically sound or logically correct. Neither statement can be proven.
edit on 15-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Your questions have already been thoroughly answered, you just refuse to accept or understand them. That's not our fault.


So which one is scientifically sound and logically correct?

> L I F E comes ONLY from previous L I F E?

or

> abioGenesis - spontaneous generation of life from non-life?


Neither are scientifically sound or logically correct. Neither statement can be proven.
edit on 15-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


This is the most - sorry to say this Barcs - ignorant reply I've ever read.

I 5th no a 3nd grader knows that life can only come from pre-existing life.

And experiment upon experiment and majority of scientist knows that Life cannot be created or produce from non-living things yet you say it's NOT "scientifically sound or logically correct"?

my-my- how can a 3rd grader learn from a teacher who says the answer is no answer.

That's basically what you said.

Deny Ignorance my friend.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
I 5th no a 3nd grader knows that life can only come from pre-existing life.


You're trying really hard to channel Kent Hovind.



Originally posted by edmc^2
And experiment upon experiment and majority of scientist knows that Life cannot be created or produce from non-living things yet you say it's NOT "scientifically sound or logically correct"?


You claim that this is 100% fact, when in reality, we simply don't know yet. We're quickly on the way to producing definitional life in the laboratory, and we have evidence that abiogenesis is possible. Rather than acknowledge the possibility, you deny it outright.

You seem to be the ignorant one here.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by edmc^2
I 5th no a 3nd grader knows that life can only come from pre-existing life.


You're trying really hard to channel Kent Hovind.



Originally posted by edmc^2
And experiment upon experiment and majority of scientist knows that Life cannot be created or produce from non-living things yet you say it's NOT "scientifically sound or logically correct"?


You claim that this is 100% fact, when in reality, we simply don't know yet. We're quickly on the way to producing definitional life in the laboratory, and we have evidence that abiogenesis is possible. Rather than acknowledge the possibility, you deny it outright.

You seem to be the ignorant one here.





You're trying really hard to channel Kent Hovind.


Sorry dude but 'don't know the guy nor read any of his writings.





You claim that this is 100% fact, when in reality, we simply don't know yet. We're quickly on the way to producing definitional life in the laboratory, and we have evidence that abiogenesis is possible. Rather than acknowledge the possibility, you deny it outright.


The reality is you can't accept the fact that noone can produce life form non-life - which makes abioGenesis a silly idea then when it was made up and NOW and still is a silly idea well into the future.

But if you're so SURE that




We're quickly on the way to producing definitional life in the laboratory, and we have evidence that abiogenesis is possible.


By all means produce evidence of this silly idea - spontaneous generation of life from non-life or the mixing of chemicals to produce life.

Because study upon study and experiment after experiment - from Dr. Louie Pasteur to the present - the FACT - scientific fact that is - is that

L I F E COMES ONLY FROM PRE-EXISTING L I F E - of which you can't accept as a fact of life.


But if your so confident of this abiogenesis hypothesis explain then the questions I posted in the OP:

Or this one for starters:

4) How did the correct mixture and correct sequence happened under such extreme circumstances?



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
This is the most - sorry to say this Barcs - ignorant reply I've ever read.

I 5th no a 3nd grader knows that life can only come from pre-existing life.

Sorry, that can not be proven. We've seen life come from life, but that doesn't mean it ONLY comes from life. Once again, you are taking what science does not know and filling god in the gaps. If you want to promote god or religion that's fine, but stop attacking science.



And experiment upon experiment and majority of scientist knows that Life cannot be created or produce from non-living things yet you say it's NOT "scientifically sound or logically correct"?

Prove it, then. If science has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that life can ONLY come from life, then you must have the evidence to prove this. Please show us exactly why life coming from non life is impossible as you claim. You call me ignorant, but then show you don't even know what logic means.


The reality is you can't accept the fact that noone can produce life form non-life - which makes abioGenesis a silly idea then when it was made up and NOW and still is a silly idea well into the future.
So because humans can't yet do it, it's impossible? Where do you get logic like this? I'm interested in what exactly makes you think it's alright to assume things. 100 years ago cell phones weren't a reality, but now we can't live without them. By your logic, cell phones were impossible, simply because they hadn't been developed yet. Poor poor logic. People like you were torturing and murdering others in the dark ages, simply for questioning religion. You'd rather not question, just dictate and assume you are right and that humans are at their technology pinnacle right now. Keep dreaming.
edit on 16-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Can you "prove" that life hasn't always existed, ergo no creator is necessary? Neither scenario is plausible but at least we have evidence for life existing whereas we don't have any evidence for god or gods existing.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join