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 BillHicksRules
Evolution may be a theory but it is one that uses scientific facts to come to said conclusion.
Creationism is simply taking what a book says as the truth with no basis in fact
Evolution can be shown to still be taking place.
Creationism/Religion has no explanation for the change in animals over time. In fact the Bible says it should not happen.
Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Evolution is a generational concept. A specific mutation develops over several generations.
Gowyo.com (horse evolution)
Michael Denton in, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis writes, "Considering that the total number of known fossil species is nearly one hundred thousand, the fact that the only relatively convincing morphological sequences are a handful of cases like the horse, which do not involve a great deal of change, and which in many cases like the elephant may not even represent phylogenetic sequences at all, serves to emphasize the remarkable lack of any direct evidence for major evolutionary transformations in the fossil record. A great deal has been made of the horse series and other similar cases. The traditional view is that they provide powerful evidence of the reality of evolution; and that what has happened in the case of the horse happened in all other cases, but the fossil links were not preserved or have not yet been discovered. In other words, the horse is the exception which proves the rule" (Denton, p.185). Why weren't we told that many of the supposed links of the horses have never been found? Because that doesn't make the data fit evolutionary theory. Instead of waiting for evidence to support their theory, they drew pictures of intermediates from what they believed they should look like, and told the unsuspecting learner, "here is proof of evolution".
What about Eohippus? Again, we were told that was the first horse which was very small and had 3 toes in back and 4 in front. The problem with this is today there is an animal still living called the hyrax. This creature has a skeleton very similar to that of Eohippus yet it has not "evolved" to what the present day horses are. If evolution were true Eohippus, nor anything like it, should be found today.
Michael Denton again remarks, "The difference between Eohippus and the modern horse is relatively trivial, yet the two forms are separated by 60 million years and at least ten genera and a great number of species.. . . If the horse series is anything to go by their numbers must have been the 'infinitude' that Darwin imagined. If ten genera separate Eohippus from the modern horse then think of the uncountable myriads there must have been linking such diverse forms as land mammals and whales or mollusks and arthropods. Yet all these myriads of life forms have vanished mysteriously, without leaving so much as a trace of their existence in the fossil record" (Denton, p. 186).
Originally posted by djohnsto77
It sounds to me like it's an economic issue. You can't force people to pay for something they don't want to see because it conflicts with their beliefs.
Originally posted by Seapeople
Pay attention, and maybe you will begin to understand economics just a bit, because as it stands now, you need tutoring.
Originally posted by JoeDoaks
Originally posted by Seapeople
Pay attention, and maybe you will begin to understand economics just a bit, because as it stands now, you need tutoring.
All ears here-
enlighten us. Explain why market forces are or are not relevant to the IMAX 'incident.' Will your explanations also help me udnerstand other economic questions I have?
I am sure curious about this
Originally posted by drogo
evolution is just a bunch of hogwash. that being said i see no reason that the movie should not be played unless of course it says that "this is what happened". makeing it sound as if it is established fact. keep in mind it is JUST a theory and not established fact.
as for schools if they have to teach evolution they should have to teach the creation as well as both are not established fact. maybe they should leave both out of schools. both take faith to believe after all.
Originally posted by Seapeople
common knowledge
School of Math, University of St. Andrews, Scotland
Copernicus's cosmology placed a motionless sun not at the centre of the universe, but close to the centre, and also involved giving several distinct motions to the Earth. The problem that Copernicus faced was that he assumed all motion was circular so, like Ptolemy, was forced into using epicycles (see for example [78]). It was consequently considered implausible by the most of his contemporaries, and by most astronomers and natural philosophers until the middle of the seventeenth century.
St. Andrews, again
Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-
[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship.
Originally posted by James the Lesser
WTF? I can't believe how ignorant christian are.... SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE FACT!
Originally posted by djohnsto77
WTH are you talking about Seapeople? Have you even read the article, especially the original source article from the New York Times? There is no government censorship here. There are no protests pressuring anyone. What has happened is a decision from private businesses to not carry a product because they believe it wouldn't be popular with their customers. There's nothing wrong, not free, or unamerican about that!
Originally posted by Seapeople
Try this. Its called reading. Go back through, I know its hard, AND READ!
Originally posted by James the Lesser
Theory of Gravity ring a bell?