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: Dem0nc1eaner
I was called ignorant before we even got this far, so yes, that got my back up, maybe you should direct your comment to the person who tried to insult my belief system without knowing what that belief system was.
"absolute bull s# to be Blunt. Neanderthal is a 19th century find. Work done by the Leakey's in the 50's and 60's was groundbreaking to say the very least but he was doing important work at Olduvai as far back as the 1920's. Denigrating a scientific because it knows more today than it did 30,40,50 or 100 years ago is absolutely asinine. Name e a singe scientific discipline that does NOT know more currently than 50 years ago. "
This is still based on assumptions of the age of the Earth. The 30/40 year comment was stating that recently genetic information had provided some credible points to debate, that weren't based solely on fossils, who's cause of origin can't be verified.
One cause of origin I can't accept is that they dropped to the ground and were slowly fossilised at the speed it's accepted the strata would have formed around them.
"showing that something CAN occur under laboratory conditions isn't in he same ballpark as showing that it DID happen in the real world that way under natural conditions. if that were the case then abiogenesis wouldn't still be a hypothesis"
Isn't that the same basis that macro-evolution is based on? Because minor adaptations within a species CAN be observed, then it MAY be possible for this to happen to a greater extent, if we have enough time. How is this any different? Also, we have examples of fast strata formation in the natural world, on a smaller scale, so why is it impossible for you to imagine it happening on a larger scale? Especially when there are countless records from across the entire planet, from almost every civilisation, that state there was a gigantic flood that covered the majority of the Earth.
We have a situation where it has been proven that vast quantities of water moving at speed with varying current's will produce strata much like we see in the real world, we also have many accounts from history of this happening. So I think that's a pretty good hypothesis.
How can you reconcile your beliefs that the fossil record has been created slowly over millions of years, just because it MAY be possible? Which I don't even think it is.
Like I said before, fossilisation requires (in most all cases) the body to be entombed. How do we even have a fossil record, that appears to be regulated in some fashion across the planet, unless there was an event which entombed many animals all at once, across the entire planet.
Why do we find fossilised trees straddling strata? Why do we find entire schools of fish and large groupings of animals in one spot. Do fish return to graveyards to die like elephants? Or does it seem more likely that the whole school was impacted and entombed at once.
And lastly, just look around you for pete's sake. Does the natural world support uniformitarianism or catastrophism?
truth is truth and these things are not for me to know here. alchemy is the true nature here and even though i'm no expert one should not quickly dismiss my knowledge. i try to be humble and let those who have suffered gaining knowledge know even though it will fail them here it will help them in another life.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: deadeyedick
At least you admit to coming to a debate unarmed, but that still doesn't make it right or you what you are saying true. Seems rather odd to me that you would write a topic off as a matter of faith without fully investigating it. Doesn't sound very open minded to me.
why is the debate in the faith section if it is not a faith topic based on as another poster stated conclusions?
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: deadeyedick
I'm a spiritual person and a Scientist. My Faith does not contradict my science, nor my science contradict my faith. I've been one of the more prevalent posters in this thread. Thus your "point" is really not worth the pixels on the screen they take.
Further more I would suggest my knowledge is not going to fail me in this life thanks.