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: Akragon
a reply to: Out6of9Balance
Why would it insult me? You haven't got the slightest idea what I look like...lol
Though IF I told you that you had the mentality of a 5 year old... and about as clever and bright as a sloth, im sure it would be different... at least that is on display lol
And as far as variety is concerned... well, im not a geneticist... but that doesn't matter anyways... Even IF I was and I gave you an answer you'd just attempt to insult me again because you don't like or understand said answer
typical with religious types
originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: TzarChasm
There's no proof evolution is right so that would make up for proof it being wrong.
The spiritual can only pray for the fallen ones to gain knowledge from the source of existence which they deny.
This is just a circus where the lion jumps through a loop of fire only to end up eating the magician.
originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Akragon
You're just here to troll, right?
accurate adjective correct, without error
PROBLEMS WITH THE “PROOF”
What, though, of the fossils that are used to show fish changing into amphibians, and reptiles into mammals? Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action? Upon closer inspection, several problems become obvious.
First, the comparative size of the creatures placed in the reptile-to-mammal sequence is sometimes misrepresented in textbooks. Rather than being similar in size, some creatures in the series are huge, while others are small.
A second, more serious challenge is the lack of proof that those creatures are somehow related. Specimens placed in the series are often separated by what researchers estimate to be millions of years. Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.”34* [Henry Gee does not suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. His comments are made to show the limits of what can be learned from the fossil record.]
Commenting on the fossils of fish and amphibians, biologist Malcolm S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small, “possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that existed in these groups at those times.” He further says: “There is no way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have been to each other.”35* [Malcolm S. Gordon supports the teaching of evolution.]
34. In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, 1999, p. 23.
35. Biology and Philosophy, p. 340.
originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: turbonium1
Do you have any citations supporting your number of one quadrillion species being used as a number regarding biological organisms over the last 500 million years? Or perhaps a citation supporting your claim that not a single one ever evolved? You keep using the same argument and pretend it’s a fact yet you’ve never once been able to support this argument other than “anyone who believes it is an idiot”? Because if you’ve got the facts to support this idea you have falsified the MES and deserve a place amongst the pantheon of great scientists right up there with Einstein, Max Planck and the Leakey family. If you were able to put your money where your mouth is, you wouldn’t need to resort to petty name calling and ad hominem attacks. Yet here you are, never a citation and still resorting to talking S#