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: Noinden
a reply to: randyvs
The bible is not the only holy text out there. It is just one of hundreds of choices. Science recognizes that any of those COULD be an answer (no matter how unlikely). Does your faith admit that "it just happened" is an option?
The climax of God’s creative work was His extraordinary creation of man. “The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7)
originally posted by: EasternShadow
Based on what evidence? You don't have fossil records for consciousness.
I've already said, Evolutionist can't answer what was common ancestor to human-ape species leading back to most primitive cell. Evolution can't answers how many changes it needed for this original primitive cell to evolve into human being. Evolution stated slow gradual process. And you come up with believe that it takes only 3.x billion years for single cell primitives to transform in human being?
As far as I can tell, you have neither scientific data, nor fact to prove it. Point me complete evolution chain from single cell microorganism to modern human, then we talk whether your 3.x billion years is possible. Until then, all you have is just faith.
That is why I suggest you to stay out. But you refused. This is the subject of creation under Biochemistry, Biology and Anthropology, Cosmology and Theology study. It has no place for evolution.
Just skip the introduction. We know how atom create matter.
That is what we are talking about until you chime in.
Point to me complete evolution stages from single cell primitive to unknown common human ape ancestor to modern day human with their evolution timeline, then we can have discussion. The reason is I want to know whether abiogenesis have enough time for inorganic matter to evolve into basic primitive organic living cell.
Impossible standard of evidence
Finding transitional forms never impresses creationists, and for a very simple reason.
If transitional form B — fitting snugly between known species A & C — is found, creationists will suddenly demand that "actual" transitional forms — now between A & B and B & C — be located, lest (they declare) the existence of transitional forms to begin with is to be considered bunk.
Apparently, the only thing that would satisfy them is a complete, unbroken set of generation-by-generation fossils of every organism that ever lived in a direct line of descent from the first bacterium to Charles Darwin's grandfather.[4]
But no matter how many fossils are found, this demand is perpetually extended by the creationists all the way down to the individual level, looping us back around from the geological timespans that formation of species require to the shortsighted comparison of parent-child differences, where obviously no "transitional form" occurs (since we can safety assume that no further lines of descent exist between your own parents and yourself).
While this clearly absurd and impossible standard of positive evidence will never be met — nor could it be — creationists struggle to find even a single paleozoic panda as negative evidence against evilution. Oops.
Until then, I don't find your input useful. Sorry, if that offend you. I'm just trying to be honest. Evolution has no relevant in creation. So why don't you just leave this to Biochemist, Biologist, Anthropologist, Cosmologist and Theologist to deal with?
originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
back on topic, what's it like to have to claim to worship nothing? It's pretty clownish to claim the inexistence of God since science claims to haven't find any proof. Don't all people worship something in their lives?
But atheism, where did this little critter came from? Perhaps too many scientific proof turned some people ignorant.
What science assembles through studies of the environment the scientist finds himself to be in is called an invention.
Modifying and abusing the earth and its properties comes with a cost.
The morals of the scientist define the nature of his/her inventions.
I'm not saying morals come from God, but some do. Scientist, why do you serve man? Because of man or God?
originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
But atheism, where did this little critter came from? Perhaps too many scientific proof turned some people ignorant
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Lol. This is a funny question coming from someone who thinks a collection of anecdotes and stories from 2000 - 6000 years ago is hard evidence. Though the answers to your questions, as always, are merely a Google search away.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Why does a theory need to answer every question you can possiblly have about it? Do you not know how science works?
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Every time it answers a questions it spawns tons of new questions that need to be answered. If science had an answer to those questions it would be complete and we'd know everything, but we don't.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
HOWEVER that doesn't disprove evolutionary theory.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Your questions merely show that we have a ways to go before we have the complete picture, but you actually need to disprove the evidence already EXISTING in favor of evolution if you want to disprove the theory.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
As far as I can tell, you have closed your mind to this theory and are grasping at straws so you don't have to consider your opinion to be flawed.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
How about you learn about what you are talking about instead of telling people to stay out of a conversation? You were wrong and now you are trying to move the goalposts.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
To be honest, given your words on the matter I'm not sure you know anything about any scientific theory or law, so I'm going to assume ignorance on your part and address that.
Sigh... I know you won't read this or internalize this, but I'll try anyways.
originally posted by: EasternShadow
What's so funny? I've asked for evidence, and you give me unverified theory.
You ask why? I'm not asking for theory. I'm asking for evidence. If you don't have any, then why don't you just admit it?
Then perhaps you should not make any conclusion based on incomplete picture in the first place, like it takes 3.x billion years for inorganic matter to evolve into human being.
Who said anything about disproving evolution? My initial disagreement with noonebutme's opinion was that life can exist from inorganic matter.
But since you brought consciousness evolution, I did ask for evidence. Instead, you bring unverified theory.
I don't have to. You have yet bring complete evolution timeline from primitive single cell organism to complex multi-block cells human. Until you can make sense with 3.x billion years period of protocell evolution into human, then you have nothing.
I have already said you don't have the scientific data, but you refuse to listen. Now you want to argue with incomplete picture?
Perhaps you should refrain from replying.
Move the goalpost? Lol!
The goal post is to prove life exist from life. It's about disproving noonebutme's abiogenesis. It's about the origin of life. It's about spontaneous life existence vs gradual long period of evolution. It is Not about changes of life. I already stated the reason I'm asking for complete evolution timeline is to prove that abiogenesis don't have that much time.
The one who have no idea what the discussion is about, is you.
back on topic, what's it like to have to claim to worship nothing?
It's pretty clownish to claim the inexistence of God since science claims to haven't find any proof.
I'm not saying morals come from God, but some do. Scientist, why do you serve man? Because of man or God?
But atheism, where did this little critter came from? Perhaps too many scientific proof turned some people ignorant.
I didn't ask to be called an 'atheist'.