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: 63
14
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

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?




Again:

WE DON'T KNOW!!!

And here again for good measure:

WE DON'T KNOW!!!!

You are trying to fill a GAP IN KNOWLEDGE with MAGIC (aka god) without having any proof. You can't just fill a gap in knowledge with magic like goat herders from 2k years ago


Once again, you present us with a great example of an argumentative fallacy...the GOD OF THE GAPS.



I'm assuming you're speaking for Barcs too, correct?

So, both of you DON'T KNOW which came first: the code or the cell.

Both of you DON'T KNOW where the code came from.

Both of you DON'T KNOW where Nature got the code from.

Both of you DON'T KNOW where Nature came from.

Both of you DON'T KNOW how nature wrote the code.

Thus like I said, since both of you DON'T KNOW the answer to the very basic and the most fundamental and important question to Life's Origins.

The "goat herders" of 2000 years ago must have known YOU as:




Rom 1:22 NKJV - "Professing to be wise, they became fools,"

Rom 1:23 NKJV - "and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."

Rom 1:20 NKJV - "For since the creation of the world His invisible [attributes] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,"




edit on 28-8-2012 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


They also believed in talking snakes and other demonstrable nonsense like people surviving inside whales or global floods (that of course never happened).

The FACT remains, your presenting us with yet another great example of GOD OF THE GAPS



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 





This doesn't answer my question. What drives the change?


repeating what I said - in case you missed it:

"But to me this is how things are created - Living Things have the ability to adapt."

Meaning the genetic code is what drives the change to adapt to their circumstances and environment - BUT will never go beyond what their genomes allows them to be.

A fish will remain a fish, a pocket mice with a different hair color will remain a pocket.

Also, the survival of a species is not only dictated by how they adapt to their circumstances and surroundings but by SHEER number.

The more numerous the species the better their survival.

Simple as that.

Note:

Circumstances has to do with their location on the food chain - if they are top of the food chain or below the food chain and the availability of food.

Environment has to do with climate change (cold/hot) and exposure to diseases and other factors.

As for your fossil records - of course they support evolution IF your willing to speculate and assume they do.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


They also believed in talking snakes and other demonstrable nonsense like people surviving inside whales or global floods (that of course never happened).

The FACT remains, your presenting us with yet another great example of GOD OF THE GAPS


"talking snakes" - man... where's Jeff Dunham??

As for people surviving inside whales - there are fish is the world that are known to swallow things whole, as to surviving inside for three days, I wouldn't discount it as there are many things that science is still finding to be true about the scriptures.

As for the Great Flood - this will be great topic for a new thread.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


They also believed in talking snakes and other demonstrable nonsense like people surviving inside whales or global floods (that of course never happened).

The FACT remains, your presenting us with yet another great example of GOD OF THE GAPS


"talking snakes" - man... where's Jeff Dunham??

As for people surviving inside whales - there are fish is the world that are known to swallow things whole, as to surviving inside for three days, I wouldn't discount it as there are many things that science is still finding to be true about the scriptures.

As for the Great Flood - this will be great topic for a new thread.





It's PHYSICALLY impossible for humans to fit inside a whale...it wouldn't get past it's throat. And even if it somehow did (again, not possible for any known whale species), the pressure and lack of air would kill humans quickly.

In short, the living inside whales thing is IMPOSSIBLE


As for the flood...fine...save it for a new thread. Doesn't change the FACT that it's also DEMONSTRABLY nonsense because there is ZERO objective evidence for one



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


repeating what I said - in case you missed it:

"But to me this is how things are created - Living Things have the ability to adapt."

Meaning the genetic code is what drives the change to adapt to their circumstances and environment - BUT will never go beyond what their genomes allows them to be.


The genetic code drives the change? How would that work? Fur colour in the mouse is controlled by a specific gene. What would make it change from one colour to another?



Also, the survival of a species is not only dictated by how they adapt to their circumstances and surroundings but by SHEER number.

The more numerous the species the better their survival.


And how did they become numerous? Could it have something to do with being adapted to their circumstances? Just taking a wild guess here.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


you guys are prob, not gonna like these analogies ( maybe because they are just flat out wrong and incorrect and irrelevant) but the thoughts came across to me and I thought i might as well see what you think..,,..


Can I say that the original model T automobile was constructed naturally,, and then from the original creation of the car, to the existence of the lamborgini, the "car" evolved via mutation of the many aspects of its design?

can we relate natural selection to free market capitalism,, in that objective earthly nature is the market and consumer,,biological life is the product,, and the best design objectively and obviously rises to the top within its competitive playing field?


* Please refrain from responding with " yes we can say that, but someone with down syndrome can also say that"
edit on 28-8-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


you guys are prob, not gonna like these analogies ( maybe because they are just flat out wrong and incorrect and irrelevant) but the thoughts came across to me and I thought i might as well see what you think..,,..


Can I say that the original model T automobile was constructed naturally,, and then from the original creation of the car, to the existence of the lamborgini, the "car" evolved via mutation of the many aspects of its design?

can we relate natural selection to free market capitalism,, in that objective earthly nature is the market and consumer,,biological life is the product,, and the best design objectively and obviously rises to the top within its competitive playing field?


* Please refrain from responding with " yes we can say that, but someone with down syndrome can also say that"
edit on 28-8-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


Not sure what the purpose of your question is...but:

The car analogy would be a approximate description of microevolution. But of course instead of a designer (humans) in nature natural forces are responsible for it as the theory proves.

The 2nd analogy would be an example of natural selection. Having said that, free market capitalism is a theoretical model that doesn't exist in reality...whereas natural selection does



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


"But of course instead of a designer (humans) in nature natural forces are responsible for it as the theory proves. "

so as humans are natural forces,,,, and designers,,,,,

nature,, is natural forces,,, and designer...



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


"free market capitalism is a theoretical model that doesn't exist in reality...whereas natural selection does"

but it most certainly does,,, in the same sense that natural selection invisibly exists,.,.,.

in free market capitalistic societies,( or supposed,, which is why you may be saying it is only theoretical) the driving force of human existence, commerce, and prosperity, means of obtaining energy,, is the protocols of free market capitalism,,, "the hidden hand" of the market..
edit on 28-8-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


"free market capitalism is a theoretical model that doesn't exist in reality...whereas natural selection does"

but it most certainly does,,, in the same sense that natural selection invisibly exists,.,.,.

in free market capitalistic societies,( or supposed,, which is why you may be saying it is only theoretical) the driving force of human existence, commerce, and prosperity, means of obtaining energy,, is the protocols of free market capitalism,,, "the hidden hand" of the market..
edit on 28-8-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


Like I said, no society on earth uses free market capitalism...it's not something we have ever observed. Natural selection on the other hand has been observed thousands of times



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


"But of course instead of a designer (humans) in nature natural forces are responsible for it as the theory proves. "

so as humans are natural forces,,,, and designers,,,,,

nature,, is natural forces,,, and designer...



****

the reason you dont like the usage of the word designer in,,, nature is a designer,.,. is because designer implies an idea preexisting the implementation of that idea,, or in a way a blueprint,,,. but you view nature as an improv artist,..,.,,.

from the beginning of the universe ( big bang, or what have you) could the macro/micro design of the universe have been any other way/format then it is now and has been for the past hundreds of millions of years,,. even if we dont know if there was a blueprint or designer,,, was there not a specific design in which the universe took on,, and in a way,, could not have been vastly different in form, function, laws, and appearance?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


We simply don't know how it all started...so at best you (and I) can speculate. And that's exactly my point...claiming a "designer" (other than natural physical forces) is responsible is filling a gap in knowledge with magic (aka god). It's the same old god of the gaps argument...



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Where did the universe and its laws come from? Well it was always there, of course!
edit on 28-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


We simply don't know how it all started...so at best you (and I) can speculate. And that's exactly my point...claiming a "designer" (other than natural physical forces) is responsible is filling a gap in knowledge with magic (aka god). It's the same old god of the gaps argument...


my only argument to that is,,,

there can exist a god which created the universe,,,, and humanity can exist for trillions of years,, filling their gaps of knowledge and information, and progression and innovation,, and still never find conclusive proof or evidence that a creator created the universe..,.., perhaps when humans die they are given the scoop on the dealio from the creator,.,., and this universe and life is all for the expression and search for information and meaning without giving proof of a supreme father to all,..,

you would then say what would a god that doesnt do anything or isnt present matter,, why would that matter that god created the universe or if an accidental wave of nothingness did?

and i would only be able to ask you why you think it would?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


But again, you are merely speculating. And that's fine...as long as you don't claim your personal belief isn't a fact, because it isn't backed by evidence



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



I said...

from the beginning of the universe ( big bang, or what have you) could the macro/micro design of the universe have been any other way/format then it is now and has been for the past hundreds of millions of years,,. even if we dont know if there was a blueprint or designer,,, was there not a specific design in which the universe took on,, and in a way,, could not have been vastly different in form, function, laws, and appearance?

you said :
"We simply don't know how it all started...so at best you (and I) can speculate"

but your suppose to say.,,.,. no,, it could not have been different,, because the laws of physics are consistent,,and with a specific amount of energy, and specific physical laws that govern that amount of energy,,how could the universe have come out any different then it did? if the laws of physics are experimentally consistent,, wouldn't the universe it self, given its energy content and the laws of physics,, also be an experimental constant?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


The physical laws clearly aren't constant because the laws break down at the time of the big bang



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


The physical laws clearly aren't constant because the laws break down at the time of the big bang




i will take your word for it considering you were there,, and i trust your word and eyes that what you saw occurring is indeed accurate.


after the big bang... and subsequently the creation of the laws,, the creation and implementation of separated energy which can react with itself physically according to laws,.,,. then were those laws consistent?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



suppose god did create the universe,,, and lets suppose you are you in the world as it is now.....

if god ( somehow) proved himself to you,, whispered in your ear " hey im god, i created the universe" ,, yada yada, proved to you without a doubt,, showed you the workings and history, and how he came to be..,.,.,

with this information,, as you,,, in the world as it is,,, how would that change your outlook on life, on fellow humans.,,. would it change anything about you? do you think it would be important proving this information to others,,, and do you think this information would change others,,, do you think this information should change others? and if so,,, how do you think it would change others?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join