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.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
How do you build a structure, a house, a building, a system, a theory with a very shaky or even a missing foundation?
That's a complete nonsense argument.
The theory of evolution makes no statement regarding how life started, so it doesn't matter how it did. If it was the mighty spaghetti monster, evolution would still be how biodiversity came to be. Same goes for abiogenesis, or "insert random god(s) you like".
We can also examine your grand grand grandfathers remains and accurately determine if he's related to you or not...and no, we don't need to know how life first started for that either. We have to understand how gravity works to build plains...yet we don't know how gravity came to be in the first place.
Do you see where I'm going with this and why the "house on shaky foundations" argument is silly?
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by edmc^2
How do you build a structure, a house, a building, a system, a theory with a very shaky or even a missing foundation?
Do you realize that according to this logic, all of science is meaningless because we do not yet have the underlying theory of everything. But that is absurd. It is not the correct analogy to compare science to a building.
If first cells were created by God, biological evolution would still not be any less true.
then in time it intelligently evolved
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
I'm saying it doesn't matter whether it's correct or not...because all it proves is that once life started (!!) the theory of evolution explains today's biodiversity.
Btw, good job at giving examples of other bad "shaky foundation" examples like yours
Originally posted by bjarneorn
Basically it goes like this, either you have God creating mankind ...
Or then you have the alternative, which says ... everything in the Universe is a thing that is evolving. Planets, suns, matter, life ....
And between thinking that there is an old man with White beard, hanging on clouds up there, and the Universe being an evolution ... I think I'll stick to the evolutionary idea, and not even waste my time at saying how utterly absurd the first one is. The fact that we stil have people claiming the first, is actually a sort of proof of the second ... we still have people, stuck at the lower evolutionary chain.
edit on 3/6/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
In other news, in your little fantasy world we couldn't dig up your grand grand grandfather's remains and determine if he's related to you or not...because clearly, we don't know how life started. What a silly argument
We can also transplant hearts, even though we don't know how the first living cells formed. I guess they're just guessing correctly every single time
Since there's no scientific proof of the former then the ONLY logical answer to the origin of Life is the latter - Special Creation. An intelligently directed purposeful Creation.
So is abioGenesis hypothesis related to evolution theory?
Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by edmc^2
It was obviously abiogenesis.... we have several theories that explain in good detail how this is possible....
Have you educated yourself on these theories? if not, why?
So just to make this clear as possible for Mr XYZ - abioGenesis occurred first then evolution followed correct?
So yeah, evolution requires life...and the hypothesis of abiogenesis tries to figure out how that life started. So they're connected that way. But it's totally irrelevant how first life started. A magic giant yellow unicorn could have farted it into existence, it wouldn't make any difference for the theory of evolution.
It's a hypothesis, which means it hasn't been proven yet and not fully backed up by objective evidence. There's still much that hasn't been explained yet...which is why it isn't a theory like evolution.
In response to binary, or hegelian questions...I will repeat the following.
Originally posted by randyvs
Do you believe you have a soul ? Yes or ^%^&^$$#%^&** no only please. It's a yes oir no question ?
If you don't answer with either a yes or a no. I'll assume you don't.
The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories which states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region.
In a larger and more speculative sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon.
The physical universe is widely seen to be composed of "matter" and "energy". In his 2003 article published in Scientific American magazine, Jacob Bekenstein summarized a current trend started by John Archibald Wheeler, which suggests scientists may "regard the physical world as made of information, with energy and matter as incidentals."
Originally posted by edmc^2
Science is not being questioned here but the silly notion that you can create life from non-life,
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by edmc^2
Science is not being questioned here but the silly notion that you can create life from non-life,
How is this notion silly? It has already been done in the laboratory. Google 'autocatalytic RNA' or search my old posts.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
Again: Abiogenesis (or creationism, or anything else) aren't "foundations" of the theory of evolution as for the theory, it doesn't matter how life started. It only details processes of LIFE that lead to changes in the allele frequency in genes, that's all. And it does so because it's fully backed up by objective evidence and we are actively using the theory to predict future outcomes. It's a scientific THEORY, and doesn't require abiogenesis as a "foundation" in the first place.
I really don't get your point. Abiogenesis is clearly not a prerequisite (aka "foundation") of evolution. The only prerequisite is "life exists"...what lead up to that is totally irrelevant.