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: randyvs
I do agree.
I'll just bother you for one more piece of info
if I may? Just wondering about the focus we plunge thru
spacetime, with our most massive telescopes? Is that a game
changer as I might think? As per what our eye is capable
of viewing with such power. And a pre emptive thank you
originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: R_Clark
Nope, Armitage is being intellectually dishonest..
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: Dragoon01
a reply to: bbracken677
Look I do not completely discount strata dating. In fact I am comfortable with the principles of it and the idea behind it. What I have a problem with is the application of it. I just think the application of it assumes that geological processes are slow and consistant leading uniform local conditions. Dating the rocks really does not cause me any great frustration its dating the fossils within the layers and assumptions and conclusions that are drawn from that. I am more of the belief that catastrophic events and geological processes can happen very quickly that destroy local conditions and alter what is assumed to be evident from the layering and deposits. I just dont think the scientists give enough weight to the possibility that the Earth is way more dynamic than they assume. That even if you are looking at a layer that is composed of material that is millions of years old does not mean it has been in that location for millions of years. The entire local strata may have been picked up and laid down over and over again by catastrophic forces.
The thing about catastrophic forces is that we would see evidence of said catastrophic forces in the surrounding area. We can find evidence of campfires from thousands of years ago. There is a clear boundary designating the K/T extinction event (the one that killed the dinosaurs). So if what you said were to be true, we'd find evidence of it, and that usually isn't the case except for isolated places. But in those places we make note that an event caused things to lay down differently than usual.
As for cosmology....I dont want to derail this thread but the reply that detailed the Big bang theory rests on the assumptions that the visible matter in the universe is expanding...That assumption is based on observations that overlook other observations inconsistant with that theory. I am very much of the opinion that we have no way of knowing how old the universe is or accurately determining the distance to stars.
For the record I am not a young earth or young universe creationist.
We can see the universe expanding. Look up the cosmic microwave background as well as the cosmic neutrino background, they both help cosmologists trace the expansion of the universe back to right after the Big Bang happened. The CMB goes back to about 400,000 years after the Big Bang and the CvB goes back to about 2 seconds after the Big Bang happened.
Though I am curious, what observations are you referring to that are inconsistent with the Big Bang theory? Please cite some peer reviewed sources.
originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: pyramid head
And yet nothing those loons said is actually wrong......wow....go figure!!
its just a blog by some degenerate leftist loon labeling anything he/she disagrees with as looney. They also posted Dr. Savage on there who has a pretty prestigious education. The other was a blog by some Christian bashing atheists.
originally posted by: reletomp
they actually certify it that humans and chimps sprang from earlier monkey. it is certified by evolutionists (the people who claim evolution exist).
Evolution does not exist, never existed and never will. it is a fad
originally posted by: reletomp
it only exist in the brain of god deniers to explain nature.
god exist and can create things like he created them the first time around, for a very god reason, because he is very expert in these things.
he never used evolution. mutation only cause destruction. it degraded things to the point of death
that it why god recreate them again. he probably use dna as a paste/copy on creation board among other things needed for life other than dna that we dont know much of, nor we know or claim to know much of dna or paleontyology.
you don't read much about biology do you? mutation does not only cause destruction, the vast majority of mutations are completely neutral with neither positive nor negative affects on the organism.