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: Barcs
originally posted by: logicsoda
originally posted by: Barcs
100m years ago there were no mammals. Now there are.
That's not true. Mammals have existed for more than 200 million years.
Woops, I was thinking primates, but for some reason went to mammals as a whole. My bad.
Why do you want to turn science into woo, why the big mystery religion of evolution
Why the lie
Woo-RationalWiki
Woo is a term for pseudoscientific explanations that share certain common characteristics, often being too good to be true (aside from being unscientific). The term is common among skeptical writers. Woo is understood specifically as dressing itself in the trappings of science (but not the substance) while involving unscientific concepts, such as anecdotal evidence and sciencey-sounding words.
Woo is usually not the description of an effect but of the explanation as to why the effect occurs. For example, homeopathy may occasionally give results, but as a placebo—the explanations for these occasional results, e.g. water memory, are woo.
Woo is used to blind or distract an audience from a real explanation or to discourage people from delving deeper into the subject to find a more realistic explanation. You can't make money if nobody buys your bull#. (As such, "woo" that has zero paying customers is more like just ordinary bat# crazy.)
As though the virgin birth,walking on water, bread, wine, lazarus, rose from the dead, burning bush, cloud-riding party was anything but "woo."
originally posted by: Raggedyman
I am interested in how we can tell a whale was once a hippo, not adaptation, evolution.
The evidence that whales descended from terrestrial mammals is here divided into nine independent parts: paleontological, morphological, molecular biological, vestigial, embryological, geochemical, paleoenvironmental, paleobiogeographical, and chronological. Although my summary of the evidence is not exhaustive, it shows that the current view of whale evolution is supported by scientific research in several distinct disciplines.
originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
As though the virgin birth,walking on water, bread, wine, lazarus, rose from the dead, burning bush, cloud-riding party was anything but "woo."
But those aren't the topic of discussion. The OP has repeatedly stated those are not the topic.
People hypothesize , then they test their hypotheses. After the hypotheses have sufficient evidence to support them, they then make a theory. The theory is theoretically very difficult to prove or disprove(in math and physics there are working theorems that have yet to be proven or disproven, yet they are still building blocks upon which advances are made). Evidence suggests that the single ancestor model of evolution is flawed. That's pretty much the topic. I don't have a problem staying on topic.
originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: TzarChasm
I didn't know there was a creationist model...
I always figured it was like... Poof!!
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: TzarChasm
I didn't know there was a creationist model...
I always figured it was like... Poof!!
not that im an expert in theoretical theology, but 'poof!' sounds a lot more suspicious than ''descent with modification'.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Seee.... Poof!!
originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: WakeUpBeer
Thank you WakeUpBeer,
I'll look those over. And I gave you a star.
I think the offtopic people are here to give each other stars, just a hypothesis.
it is also the least flawed theory we have available.
originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: Raggedyman
There is a big difference between being a murdering athiest, and killing purely for the cause of athiesm.
Religion is lightyears ahead when it comes to killing in the name of.
There is no athiest handbook that talks about killing theists or encourages it. Nor is there an atheist creed for morality or beliefs.
However, there are plenty of "holy" verses that condone or encourage violence.
I'm sorry, but the whole "athiests kill for their cause too!" arguement is BS. It's not even close to being on the same level as religion.
originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: TzarChasm
it is also the least flawed theory we have available.
Maybe as far as handed out for public consumption theories go.
Did you miss my little what if?
What if a new life form comes to be today?
Hypothesis: If discovered in 5 years by scientists would it be classified as a more primitive life form and get plugged into the currently theorized evolution tree as an ancestor to more developed life forms?
Answer: Absolutely.
Conclusion: There's something flawed about the currently theorized evolution tree.
the biggest flaw in evolutionary theory is that it is incomplete
In my view, just my opinion, is that it is too rigid in definition, therefore modification is very slow to occur, like a very traditionalist as opposed to evolving view.
originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Raggedyman
Wouldn't that be funny They would never know they were wrong. Why? Because they put too much faith in the tree that they made themselves.