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: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: edmc^2
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: edmc^2
Let us merely agree to disagree on the fact that transitional fossils exist. The science is very clear, you just refuse to admit its validity. You are also showing that you do not understand certain terminology.
If you wish dispute any of my points about the bible and the lack of archaeological evidence for large parts of it, then have at it.
Sure we can agree to disagree but at least give some explanation as to the use of speculative words/phrases like:
'likely, probably, must have been, possibly...*"can be considered transitional", "makes sense evolutionarily", "indicating it may have been able to", "species likely represents the transitional form of"* if the evidence is certain.
(Weary sigh)
No, because there's nothing I can say that will change your mind.
Let's get back to the archaeology shall we?
originally posted by: edmc^2
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: edmc^2
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: edmc^2
Let us merely agree to disagree on the fact that transitional fossils exist. The science is very clear, you just refuse to admit its validity. You are also showing that you do not understand certain terminology.
If you wish dispute any of my points about the bible and the lack of archaeological evidence for large parts of it, then have at it.
Sure we can agree to disagree but at least give some explanation as to the use of speculative words/phrases like:
'likely, probably, must have been, possibly...*"can be considered transitional", "makes sense evolutionarily", "indicating it may have been able to", "species likely represents the transitional form of"* if the evidence is certain.
(Weary sigh)
No, because there's nothing I can say that will change your mind.
Let's get back to the archaeology shall we?
Ok, no answer. On with geology then.
The earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Change my mind that it's not.
originally posted by: edmc^2
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: edmc^2
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: edmc^2
Let us merely agree to disagree on the fact that transitional fossils exist. The science is very clear, you just refuse to admit its validity. You are also showing that you do not understand certain terminology.
If you wish dispute any of my points about the bible and the lack of archaeological evidence for large parts of it, then have at it.
Sure we can agree to disagree but at least give some explanation as to the use of speculative words/phrases like:
'likely, probably, must have been, possibly...*"can be considered transitional", "makes sense evolutionarily", "indicating it may have been able to", "species likely represents the transitional form of"* if the evidence is certain.
(Weary sigh)
No, because there's nothing I can say that will change your mind.
Let's get back to the archaeology shall we?
Ok, no answer. On with geology then.
The earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Change my mind that it's not.
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
4.5 billion years old. Why would I want to change your mind about a fact?
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
A nice little list of transitional fossilS - note that there are a lot of them and this barely scratches the surface.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
4.5 billion years old. Why would I want to change your mind about a fact?
You are certain to the degree of two decimal places that it is 4.5 billion years old? What is the evidence that surely indicates it is 4.5 and not 4.6 or 4.4? Or even in that ball park for that matter? Please no science blogs for your sources.
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
A nice little list of transitional fossilS - note that there are a lot of them and this barely scratches the surface.
Lol here's one of the "transition fossils" from that list
They felt this small alotment of bones justified it as a "transition fossil". As we can see this missing link is missing most of its bones. I'll go through more of them later, but this is just pathetic that they call this a transition fossil. Yet your giving condescending diatribes to people who are simply asking questions and analyzing empirical evidence.
This "transition fossil" is an example of how desperately archaeology is grasping for straws to try to fit their out-dated baseless theory.
originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: TzarChasm
I always thought that most paleontology and anthropology when they are working with bones and bone fragments and not complete skeleton's was a bit like using pieces from different jigsaw's and then claiming the resultant image was what used to be there, linking bone's from separate period of time and then claiming they were related is even more sketchy at best.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: TzarChasm
I always thought that most paleontology and anthropology when they are working with bones and bone fragments and not complete skeleton's was a bit like using pieces from different jigsaw's and then claiming the resultant image was what used to be there, linking bone's from separate period of time and then claiming they were related is even more sketchy at best.
Then clearly you're not actually a lab tech, at least not on that field. A good forensic anthropologist can derive a surprising amount of information. Put your clicker to work on some of these helpful resources. Modern technology has really helped the deductive process as well as making methods and materials available for public study.
www.sfu.museum...
www.pnas.org...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: edmc^2
Personally I see no conflict, those that need the earth to be 6000 years old to believe in God need more faith, those that use the geological aging data to deny creationism need to look at the fact the whole universe is a mystery and that the whole point of science is to try to understand that - in essence to MEET GOD so in effect they are morally corrupt in claiming there is no God and trying to use science to prove that for themselves which is like using a road to prove there is no destination?.
Ecclesiastes 1:9
All things are wearisome, more than one can describe; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear content with hearing. What has been is what will be, and what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a case where one can say, “Look, this is new”? It has already existed in the ages before us.
So in essence the PLANET may actually be home to MANY earths, earths before our own and earths after our own were our earth - our world is therefore bordered by time.
But even if there were not then you have to ask yourself since you are like a fly in amber within TIME and God is outside of TIME so what is a day to God, if a thousand years are as a day then how long is a year to God?.
But this is about two faith's, those that believe in God and those that believe in the opinion's and observations of men we creatures whom are so blind to the real universe that we have to construct convoluted theory's to try to see what is beyond our ability to see.