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.
And the facts support it - no need to bend it or mold it. It's simple as Intelligence begets Intelligence. Life begets life.
An Intelligent Design requires an Intelligent Designer.
A Fine Tuned System requires a Fine Tuner.
Simple and very basic that even a child can understand it.
Smith, who is from England, decides to attend graduate school at Ohio State University. He has never been to the US before. The day after he arrives, he is walking back from an orientation session and sees two white (albino) squirrels chasing each other around a tree. In his next letter home, he tells his family that American squirrels are white.
You believe that there's no God and you believe that we evolved. What's so difficult about that and why the fear of admitting it?
Originally posted by radix
reply to post by edmc^2
You believe that there's no God and you believe that we evolved. What's so difficult about that and why the fear of admitting it?
Like MrXYZ said, atheism is not the subject here - which is probably a good thing in your case as you obviously know very little about it. Rejecting a god claim on the grounds of insufficient evidence is clearly not the same thing as believing there's no god - but I'm sure that goes right over your head.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
And the facts support it - no need to bend it or mold it. It's simple as Intelligence begets Intelligence. Life begets life.
An Intelligent Design requires an Intelligent Designer.
A Fine Tuned System requires a Fine Tuner.
Simple and very basic that even a child can understand it.
Read it: LINK
Your arguments are the equivalent of this:
Smith, who is from England, decides to attend graduate school at Ohio State University. He has never been to the US before. The day after he arrives, he is walking back from an orientation session and sees two white (albino) squirrels chasing each other around a tree. In his next letter home, he tells his family that American squirrels are white.
edit on 27-8-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)
Smith, who is from England, decides to attend graduate school at Ohio State University. He has never been to the US before. The day after he arrives, he is walking back from an orientation session and sees two white (albino) squirrels chasing each other around a tree. In his next letter home, he tells his family that American squirrels are white.
The "based on ancient philosophy" nonsense has been debunked so many times you're only embarrassing yourself by regurgitating it. The claim that abiogenesis is not based on sound science is simply ridiculous - it's an active field of research which is producing a steady stream of peer-reviewed papers. Peer review is the accepted system for maintaining scientific standards and has been for centuries. The fact that you haven't been able to present any evidence that abiogenesis is unscientific in 61 pages speaks volumes.
Abiogenesis is the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth.
Early views on spontaneous generation
The first western thinker to suggest that life arose spontaneously was probably Anaximander, a Milesian philosopher (in what is now Turkey) who wrote in the 6th and 5th centuries before Christ (611-547 BCE). He believed that everything arose out of the elemental nature of the universe, which he called the "apeiron" or "unbounded". As part of his overall attempt to give natural explanations of things that had previously been ascribed to the agency of the gods, such as thunder, the heavens, and the earth, he gave the following account of life.
According to a late source, Hippolytus in the third century CE, for Anaximander's own works do not survive, Anaximander claimed that living creatures were first formed in the "wet" when acted on by the Sun, and that they were different then than they are now. In particular he claimed humans were originally a kind of fish, and that based on the observation humans took a long time to mature to independence, humans must have earlier been born mature like other animals, or they would not have survived. It was not a complete theory of evolution by any means, although Haeckel and Osborn claimed he was a "prophet" of Kant, Laplace, Lamarck and Darwin. Anaximander also claimed that spontaneous generation continued to this day, with eels and other acquatic forms being produced directly from lifeless matter. [Lloyd 17-18, Osborn 33-35] Anaximenes, his pupil (588-524) thought that air was the element that imparted life, motion and thought, and supposed there was a primordial terestrial slime, a mixture of earth and water, from which the sun's heat formed plants, animals and human beings directly. [Osborn 35] Xenophanes (576-480), the founder of the Eliatic School, traced the origin of man back to the transitional period between the fluid stage of the earth and the formation of land. He too held to a spontaneous generation of fully formed plants and animals under the influence of the sun. So too did Parmenides (b544). Empedocles (495-435) accepted the spontaneous generation of life, but held that there had to be trials of combinations of parts of animals that spontaneously arose. Successful combinations formed the species we now see, unsuccessful forms failed to reproduce. Osborn [37-40] thought this was a kind of natural selection, but as only one form is successful for each lineage, and species remain unchanged thereafter, it is a tenuous analogy to make. Democritus (b450) and Anaxagoras (500-428) also adopted a terrestrial slime account, although Anaxagoras thought that the germs (seeds) of plants existed in the air from the beginning, and of animals in the ether. [Osborn 42-43]
Aristotle All these accounts rely on the innate (or natural; the Greek word is phusis, from which we get "physics") properties of the elements of the universe. Life is a result of the propensities of the world...
Definition for abiogenesis: Web definitions: a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter. More info »Source - Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster
Abiogenesis (Science: study) The study of how life originally arose on the planet, encompasses the ancient belief in the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter.
The claim that abiogenesis is not based on sound science is simply ridiculous - it's an active field of research which is producing a steady stream of peer-reviewed papers.
Abiogenesis - Spontaneous Generation - same thing!!
See you can't ignore and hide from the truth.
So far - it's still a silly hypothesis as they are not able to prove life arising from non-life by unguided means.
Like you, They can speculate - sure, why not. Like you, the can assume, sure why not - but so far all you've got is speculation and assumption of woulda-coulda been.
May I suggest come up with a much modern idea - like Life comes from Life?
Maybe you should redefine the meaning of abiogenesis instead of relying on ancient philosophy.
eh...the post was about a belief system - whether you believe something exist or not was not the point of the post I'm merely pointed out that atheism or evolution is a belief system. That's all.
I don't know why it went over your head.
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Barcs
Changes like a type of fish, going amphibian would take millions and millions of years.
based on assumption - correct?
Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Barcs
Changes like a type of fish, going amphibian would take millions and millions of years.
based on assumption - correct?
based on the fossil record. I don't know why you can't make a simple statement. All you do is ask philosophical questions and play word games whenever people prove you wrong. Try making a statement and sourcing material instead. You are asking questions that kids ask when they are teenagers in high school.
BLIND CHANCE EVENTS!!!edit on 28-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by radix
reply to post by edmc^2
I forgot to answer this gem.
eh...the post was about a belief system - whether you believe something exist or not was not the point of the post I'm merely pointed out that atheism or evolution is a belief system. That's all.
I don't know why it went over your head.
Atheism is the default response to an unsubstantiated god claim, not a belief system. Evolution is a scientific theory which has remained our best available explanation for the diversity of life for over 150 years. It's supported by mountains of evidence from paleontology to DNA analysis. What it is not, however, is a belief system.
That's the thing about evidence - it doesn't require belief. It's there whether you believe or not.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
You do realise that if you call anbiogenesis a "silly hypothesis", you have to call creationism the same... It's a hypothesis too
As an intelligent evolutionist with your vast knowledge of evolution theory, I'm sure you can easily answer these simple questions .
Did Nature placed the planet earth purposely in the Habitable Zone so that life can/will exist?
Or did it just happen to be there by accident - i.e. Blind Chance Event?
Sorry, repeating debunked drivel doesn't make it true - it just makes you look stupid. The idea that insects, maggots and mice can simply poof into existance is not the same thing as simple organic molecules forming more complex organic molecules. The former was disproved by the same scientific methods that are now applied to the latter.
by the same scientific methods that are now applied to the latter.
What do you think was driving this evolutionary change in the rock pocket mice? It clearly wasn't intelligence, so what was it?
Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by edmc^2
You just completely proved me right. You are doing nothing but asking illogical philosophical questions that have nothing to do with facts or reality. Give us facts instead of trying to trap people with semantics.
Is nature blind or intelligent? What kind of question is that? Why is there only 2 choices. Nature is NEITHER. I'm not sure why you keep giving these silly either/or choices as if it has to be one or the other. You are giving nature human attributes. Stop it. You are either being intentionally deceptive or you really need to read a science book.
As an intelligent evolutionist with your vast knowledge of evolution theory, I'm sure you can easily answer these simple questions .
Perhaps if your questions had anything whatsoever to do with evolution I could answer them.
Did Nature placed the planet earth purposely in the Habitable Zone so that life can/will exist?
Or did it just happen to be there by accident - i.e. Blind Chance Event?
Considering there are a bunch of planets out of the habitable zone, I'd say it's neither accident nor was it placed there. It happened because of gravity. All you have to do is watch a science channel special on the solar system to see how the planets were formed and what caused each planet to assume its orbit. Instead of asking silly semantic questions, read about gravity. Learn the REAL cause and effect instead of generalizing everything.
Nature = the natural universe. The universe cannot be blind or intelligent. Certain creatures can, however. You keep treating nature as if it's a conscious person. That's where your error lies. Is an asteroid intelligent? That's part of nature.edit on 28-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)
Nature is NEITHER
“The important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature, but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and ‘tied together.’ Einstein spoke of them as ‘reason incarnate.’ The question we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked—and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God.” -- Prof Anthony Flew 2007
Perhaps if your questions had anything whatsoever to do with evolution I could answer them.
Call it what you want but - the fact is:
Atheism and Evolution(ism) are belief system.
That is, based on speculation and assumption you're convinced that there's absolutely 100% no evidence of a creator.
SO you believe absolutely without a doubt 100% that life was a product of evolution.
So you've just proven my point again:
Intelligence was / is always the driving force behind things. Before, people believed in the erroneous spontaneous generation of life from inanimate matter, but with proper understanding of genetics and biology we come to an understanding that such idea is not only impossible but silly.
Like you said:
"by the same scientific methods that are now applied to the latter."
we now understand that spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter by unguided means is impossible.
Question is - what makes you think that abiogenesis is different from Spontaneous Generation if their main foundation is the same:
Life arising from non-living matter by unguided means?
Like I said before - things change in Nature, they adapt to their circumstances and adapt to their environment. But they will NEVER cross the genetic boundary.
A fish will remain a fish, a moth will remain a moth, a finch bird is still a bird and pocket mice will remain a pocket mice although with a different hair color.
Originally posted by edmc^2
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
You do realise that if you call anbiogenesis a "silly hypothesis", you have to call creationism the same... It's a hypothesis too
Creation or as you call it "Creationism" is based Intelligent Design by an Intelligent Creator/Designer.
In fact the evidence are not hidden so it's not a guess or a speculation or an assumption or a hypothesis - like abiogenesis is a hypothesis.
So back to my question:
Is Nature intelligent or Blind?
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Barcs
Perhaps if your questions had anything whatsoever to do with evolution I could answer them.
OK here's one, on topic:
If Nature created the genetic code in the DNA molecule - which came first, the code or the material that formed the cell?
Remember - in order to create the membrane, the cell, the code - the blueprint must exist first. But without the cell, where will code reside?
Then there's this - where or how did nature come up with the genetic code so that mutation, natural selection, evolution will take place?