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: kennyb72
a reply to: Astyanax
Oh Ok, Hello
point1
I am a confirmed believer(yes I said that word) in intelligent design, which if one where to read between the lines so was Charles Darwin in his later years. One does not throw away a life long reputation because you have changed your mind. Towards the end of his life he pondered on the complexity of the eye and how it could ever be possible for a process of mutating genes to arrive at such a complex biological mechanism.
point2
The second law of Thermodynamics dictates that order deteriorates to disorder without outside influence and yet we are told that evolution creates self organising systems that strive to create order without any assistance.
So which of these opposing views are correct?
Point3
The much vaunted fossil record does not support Macro evolution, yes, yes, I understand the reasoning of incremental changes but there is no evidence and you can argue until you are blue in the face, it does not change this fact.
Therfore it is a faith based theory.
I hope you are not just being nice to stab me in the back, I will be so disappointed! It is more than a MeerKat can bear.
originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: WakeUpBeer
I`ve addressed almost every piece of so called evidence for common descent since I started pages ago and ripped them all to shreds. Quite frankly, I`ve grown tired of this eternal cycle of circular arguments coming from the ape men, I`m finished addressing this foolishness.
originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: WakeUpBeer
It is a circular argument because I am using this example to suggest that if in fact evolution was responsible for creating the eye then why would it do so selectively. Why did evolution favour humans over dogs, or birds over humans for that matter.
Why are we not all super animals with every faculty at it's pinnacle of perfection, why don't humans live to be a thousand years of age, screw evolution, we got a raw deal. Unless something else decided the order of things of course.
Organisms have evolved a great variety of life histories, from Pacific salmon, which produce thousands of eggs at one time and then die, to human beings, who produce a few offspring over the course of decades
originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: kennyb72
No problem.
I just wish people would look at the evidence people have shown.
The evidence is all in this thread kindly given by ATS members more intelligent than myself and they have the patience to continue the debate while repeating themselves while bashing their heads against a wall because some folk ignore or dismiss the evidence so easily.
Blackman is blinded by his religion, he sees nothing but that and has no hope of evolving into a better human being.
I just hope he has nothing to do with education or kids.
At least you ask decent questions.
originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: kennyb72
In the minds of most evolutionists, the origin of life is a seperate issue. The few that still preach abiogenesis AKA chemical evolution are just throwing the problem into outer space about it all starting with aliens and floating rocks. The level of stupidity will reach its peak pretty soon.
Krazysh0t
You just confused the Panspermia and Abiogenesis hypotheses. Which is odd because you correctly described Abiogenesis as a chemical process...
originally posted by: BlackManINC
Krazysh0t
You just confused the Panspermia and Abiogenesis hypotheses. Which is odd because you correctly described Abiogenesis as a chemical process...
I meant abiogenesis by means of panspermia. They can't prove it occurred on earth but for some reason they expect someone like me with his head screwed on straight to believe that throwing the problem into outer space will magically solve the problem. Evolution has no legs to stand on, so this anti-scientific rubbish just shows how desperate they are to produce something as the foundation for their belief in common descent.