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 Arbitrageur
reply to post by spy66
The argument you are using is basically saying, something that complex couldn't have happened by chance.
You don't see the problem with that logic?
Originally posted by reject
reply to post by Infi8nity
you actually argued against creationism because according to it the world isn't even 10,000 years old. Religionists are proponents of "young earth theory."
when something evolves, they branch into another species. Whatever is more adapted to the environment thrives.
Science call this event the Big Bang Theory. It is tottally the same thing. But with different authors.
You can't even prove that "the infinite" exists. We don't know the universe is infinite, that's just one of many hypotheses.
Originally posted by SubAce
reply to post by solomons path
Ah yes, genetics. I am glad you brought that point up. You say that sincere-hearted ones must tear down to teach truth. But does that statement really stand up to the facts? Let's talk about genetics really quick. You did mention them. Let's go further. How important are they, in say human life? Let us take a look at the human cell and how probable it could come about by chance. And if really the chance evolutionists believe in is not really a quasi-religious god of theirs, better written as Chance. For all of the powers that they attribute to their quasi-god are ones that can only be provided by a real God...
Random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which some variants survive and others do not, is not random.
Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).
Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.
(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)
(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)
It is intellectually dishonest as well.
So I am addressing those that think there was zero chance intelligence was behind abiogenesis. I think those people have cognitive dissonance happening, for whatever reason.