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 Aim64C
reply to post by bias12
It's a vanishing group of biologists that cling to the "anti-intelligent" thesis. Physicists and mathematicians that regularly handle statistics and readily defined systems take one look at cellular mechanics and say: "Yeah, that didn't come about by chance."
Originally posted by bias12
reply to post by ImaFungi
And if life is so improbable to occur randomly then surely that makes the idea of a designer, who would have had to come into existence at some point, twice as unlikely to have made life on earth.
thats primarily the problem with atheists,,,, denying the existence of god in relation to the definition of god from mans religion or their own supposed definition,.,.,..,
id say people who believe in god see proof of an intelligence permeating the existence of the universe,,, as you or scientists see the existence of the universe,,, its a qualitative interpretation of the data,,,,
Originally posted by TheBeastly0ne
reply to post by bias12
Human life had to be engineered because dinosaurs were Earth's natural evolutionary creatures.
Then the Earth mysteriously dropped in oxygen levels and bipedal creatures came about.
Not to mention the humans with brains larger than ever before in Earth's past somehow
came about in an extremely short amount of time.
Unlikely its evolution or a magical deity.
It was our gods, whomever they are or were, from which ever system they may.have.came from.
Originally posted by TheBeastly0ne
reply to post by bias12
Human life had to be engineered because dinosaurs were Earth's natural evolutionary creatures.
Then the Earth mysteriously dropped in oxygen levels and bipedal creatures came about.
Not to mention the humans with brains larger than ever before in Earth's past somehow
came about in an extremely short amount of time. Unlikely its evolution or a magical deity.
It was our gods, whomever they are or were, from which ever system they may.have.came from.
Originally posted by Ookie
reply to post by SplitInfinity
Again, TRILLIONS of "attempts" per day over the course of millions of years. Never going to happen in a lab. The human mind cannot comprehend the numbers. If every human on Earth had a lab and did the experiment every second the human race would be busy for near eternity just replicating ONE DAY of foam washing up on beaches. And this went on for at least 300 million years. If trying to create life was ALL everyone ever did it would take hundreds of millions of years before it happened. Why is this so hard to understand?
Originally posted by john_bmth
AIM64C, stop posting up BS from creationist websites and post up the evidence that suggests mainstream science is a) receptive to the idea of a designer, b) considers such a notion scientific, c) considers it more plausible and scientific than abiogenisis and d) has discovered evidence for this designer. Surely it cannot be that hard, can it? After all, the non-ID crowd of biologists and physicists is "vanishingly small"
Show us the quality, peer reviewed research papers backing up your claims. I notice that you provided none of the evidence I asked for in support of the existence of your "designer"
I would hazard that if the process has indeed completely stopped it may be due to the differing conditions on our planet now, compared to what the environment was like in the distant past. Although I have seen no quality, peer reviewed research that has proven that there is no new development of life anywhere on our planet.
Even if irreducible complexity was an accepted scientific principle in biology
Abiogenesis is about the origin of life. Evolution, technically, is about what happened after life arose on Earth. Life origins studies proceed under a number of hypotheses and remain very tentative during this early period of investigation. A recent summary of research is in The Spark of Life : Darwin and the Primeval Soup by Christopher Wills and Jeffrey Bada.
The definition of evolution is being stretched to include the origin of life only by the creationists. Change in gene frequency through time is the genetic basis for any definition.
The question of the origin of life has a long and controversial history. Many readers will come with a point of view - perhaps looking for material to bolster their convictions. Others will come with questions as they seek to come to an understanding that fits their theological position.
"An important rule in reconstructing the earliest events in life's history is to assume that they proceeded without the benefit of foresight. Every step must be accounted for in terms of antecedent and concomitant events. Each must stand on it's own and cannot be viewed as a preparation for things to come. Any hint of teleology must be avoided." American Scientist September-October, 1995
Selecting life: Scientists find new way to search for origin of life (Nov 9, 2006) Over the last half century, researchers have found that mineral surfaces may have played critical roles activating molecules that would become essential ingredients to life. Identifying which biomolecule/ mineral surface pairs, however, has stumped scientists for years because of countless possible combinations. Now a team of researchers, led by Robert Hazen of the Carnegie Institution's
Geophysical Laboratory, has developed new protocols and procedures for adapting DNA microarray technology to rapidly identify promising molecule/mineral pairs.
I hear you saying a lot of things to challenge our current theories, "irreducible complexity" and improbable statistics included, but where is the evidence in support of a designer?
Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Aim64C
His request was direct and to the point. My request was direct and to the point. Post up the abstracts of the papers from credible journals that support the notion of ID or the existence of a designer. You know this sort of thing would be explicitly mentioned in the abstract so there's really no need to keep posting up excerpts from websites and sources of a dubious origin. Let's just cut to the chase and see these papers, eh? If the non-ID position is "vanishingly small" then such a monumental discovery would leave a paper trail a mile long from a whole slew of credible journals. I do not see the difficulty in complying with this reasonable request.
I completely agree, and would love to hear from those who defend the corner of some kind of intelligent design on this particular point.
AIM64C,