It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TerryDon79
Oy no evolutionist here Scientist! SCIENTIST. Also Religious, just not Abrahamic or creationist.
Stop using evolutionist guys, it makes us seem like idiots. Its not a real word to describe what people are using it for. Its for Creationists to seem special .... they are not.
originally posted by: cyberjedi
For those interested, i'd like to get you acquinted with irreducible complexity, and the way in which it seems to contradict the, i'll say, mainstream theory of evolution, and i'll get into selection a little bit.
Lets say we have a Woodpecker. This Woodpecker can only operate and survive with its unique features that it has, it cannot survive without them. When the woodpecker cuts wood, its brains are protected so as not to get concussed. Its claws are shaped in a particular way that it acts as a counter-balance to deal with the impact of woodpecking. Now these are only two features of the woodpecker that enables its survival, it has alot more that i fail to remember. The point is that if one of these features were missing, it would not be able to survive. So these features, the attributes would have to have been there from the beginning, it could not have come through evolution.
Here is a video of irreducible complexity, its 15 minutes and well worth the time.
'You have multi-component parts, all of which are neccesary for function, if you remove one part, you lose function of that system'.
'Irreducible complexity means that the system is so complex, that removing one part, would make the system non-functional. A system moving from zero parts up would be non-functional until all parts are formed and are present, and there is no other reasonable use for the essential parts individually'.
So the theory of evolution puts forth that with every generation, new parts get introduced, and so, species evolve. This seems not to be the case. A case can be made for selection. Within the pool of genes, a selection is made, the genes that are most suitable for the cause get picked to serve, and so the physical appearance of the animal reflects the selection that is made. There are an x amount of combinations possible within a genepool. These can grow exponantially once there are new genes introduced to the genepool.
So on one side there is irreducible complexity on a cellular level, and arguably on a macro level (the woodpecker), and regarding evolution, species seem to only evolve when there are new genes artificially introduced into the genepool of that species.
originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: cyberjedi
Having browsed through this thread again, I arrived at the conclusion that barely anyone actually watched the video you linked.
Maybe they don't have the courage to do so and cognitive dissonance, disallows them to apply common sense and logic when presented with such evidence. Here is another opportunity.
If the argument is to hold true, that something (God, God like aliens etc) created life. Then something must have designed the designer. That is the logical and honest answer. If you answer no to that, then life must have been able to begin, with out a creator.