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.

 

Creation, where is the evidence? I see none.

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
The point was you should go to a museum and see that 99% of the fossils are not extinct. Go talk to paleontologist. Do something besides researching this on the computer because the computer could be all lies on both sides. I'm stating these things based on what I've seen.


Where? The creation museum?

Here, I quickly went to the american museum of natural history...


Species go extinct all the time. Scientists estimate that at least 99.9 percent of all species of plants and animals that ever lived are now extinct. So the demise of dinosaurs like T. rex and Triceratops some 65 million years ago wouldn't be especially noteworthy—except for the fact that around 50 percent of all plants and animals alive at the same time also died out in what scientists call a mass extinction.

www.amnh.org...



Yes species of animals but not families of animals. They are referring to something called microevolution.




posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Yes species of animals but not families of animals. They are referring to something called microevolution.


What are you on about now? I said species right from the start. They aren't talking about microevolution at all. They are talking about the number of species wiped out by extinction. That is all.

Just a little question...are you a homeschooler?

[edit on 24-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Yes species of animals but not families of animals. They are referring to something called microevolution.


What are you on about now? I said species right from the start. They aren't talking about microevolution at all. They are talking about the number of species wiped out by extinction. That is all.

Just a little question...are you a homeschooler?

[edit on 24-1-2008 by melatonin]


Good one.
I was talking about families of animals. We have dog fossils, we have dogs now. we have elephant fossils, we have elephants now. The same could be said about every family of animals. Only for a minority of fossils could we say we have this fossil. we don't have this animal now.
I know you are talking about changes from species....that is microevolution.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Good one.


Are you? Just being nosy. I might want to take that into account, if so.


I was talking about families of animals. We have dog fossils, we have dogs now. we have elephant fossils, we have elephants now. The same could be said about every family of animals. Only for a minority of fossils could we say we have this fossil. we don't have this animal now.
I know you are talking about changes from species....that is microevolution.


But even macroevolution would involve change from a particular species to a whole new group.

Just go back and read what I was saying again. Lets start from here:


Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
It's funny how you keep changing the subject to evolution everytime I provide compelling evidence for creation. This thread has nothing to do with evolution but you keep referring to it.


Heh, nice try. Compelling my ass.

ABE:


rather each kind of organism should appear all at once and fully formed as they are today.

clclutheran.org...

Is clearly wrong. The 'kinds' don't appear 'all ot once', and 'fully formed' (in the sense they use it).

Also, I found the source of the quote myself. Thanks for showing your poor scholarship. I can see why you wanted to hide it, it's a screed full of dishonest quotemines. False. Shalt. Witness. Bear. Not.

More Menton dishonesty.

.....


'There is an abrupt appearance of animals and plants in the fossil record. As well almost all fossils are very similar, if not identical to creatures of today.' Prove this wrong. Tell me how this is not proof even though the fossil record shows it.


Jeez, we would expect fossils to be similar to species that come before and after. Again, that is not what creationism would predict. But species in the fossil record are not 'almost all very similar'. Some are, some aren't. Unless you can point out a species alive today that is very similar to, for example, tiktaalik, pterodactyl, triceratops, archaeocyatha etc etc. About 99% of the species that been on the earth are now extinct.

So, far the only creationism-related evidence you have raised is that there are either no transitionals or not enough - which is incorrect. There is more than enough to show evidence of major diversification over hundreds of millions of years.

That species appear 'abruptly', depends on timescale, if you think periods of millions of years are abrupt, then cool. It's not a surprise, I've already pointed out that we will only have snapshots of a process that has been ongoing for billions of years. However, again, there are species leading to and from other fossils. Indeed, we have transitionals right down to the cambrian (e.g., lobopods).

The fact that you think the fossil record is some sort of proof of creationism is actually quite amusing.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by melatonin]


And we'll try again...



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
I read a very interesting scientific article on Pravda titled "Evolutionary origin of life is impossible"

While the site is not a favorite of mine (propaganda) the do have some occasional cutting edge scientific write-ups.

Sorry atheist and evolutionists, you are wrong


english.pravda.ru...



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by LeftBehind
 


i agree with you ..left behind... it is sad that so many people believe in they fairy tale that was told 2,oooo years ago.. yeah .. the world was no different... these people are a joke...why don't they read some of the documents from that time that describe why this was being done. history is not "only" written in the bible. proof? look at my signature...it applied back then as it does today



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon365
I read a very interesting scientific article on Pravda titled "Evolutionary origin of life is impossible"

While the site is not a favorite of mine (propaganda) the do have some occasional cutting edge scientific write-ups.

Sorry atheist and evolutionists, you are wrong


english.pravda.ru...


And I read a book called "jesus never existed"

sorry religious people,you are wrong.




posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
We just had a debate on this subject in our AP Biology class. I really don't think there is any other explanation for the origin of species except for evolution.

The problem is is that there is no proof for creationism. People can reference the Bible, but can we trust a bunch of archaic individuals who had not the intelligence and technology that society today possesses? Can we trust people like a certain group of Indians (the tribe name leaves me) who used opium as part of their religious practices to have "visions?" NO! We can't trust that they were accurate in their judgments. For all we know, they could have interpreted storms to be bad omens (which I do think they did)...well, you get my picture...they reacted to little things that are common to us today.

And what about Charles Lyell's work on geology. His findings basically showed that the world was much older than the 6,000 years that religious people came up with. In fact, the world is around 4.6 billion years old.

And lastly, why is it that we had so many Great Awakenings in our history? Because churches realized that people were starting to turn to science and technology because of the harsh beliefs of the clergy (you were born to be condemned or sent to heaven). But suddenly, when everyone starts turning to science, the churches' policies change, and we find out that you can change your destiny and go to heaven or stay condemned (if this is the case for you) and go to Hell. It's all pretty far fetched to me....



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by LeftBehind
 

well realize this creationists cannot deny evolution to an extent there is always evolution of a species but never to another species two god can create something out of nothing by the big bang he is or has energy that he can mold into animals or earth

the big bang theory was actually a catholic idea to prove creationism and it does

and the bigest evidence you guys have and the only evidence if im not mistaken is the geologic timetable which is compatable with the bible as well

answer this how is it if everything in the bible is right this one thing in it is wrong

most people dont know that contrary to the beleif polytheism came first actually polytheism and other beliefs of creation and such came off of ine religion why cant judaism be that religion why

plus if all cultures talk of a world flood and similar creation accounts why cant you believe that theres got to be some alarm going off in youre head

there is way to much proof for christianity and creation be specific on what evidence you would liike



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by LeftBehind
 

first of all youve got an arrogant atitude if we didnt believe in evolution because it can be proved wrong than everybody should have that evidence and you should not blieve in it because ots wrong not because ID suppossedly doesnt have any proof of a world flood if you do the research there is evidence of a world flood everywhere in every culture

my main source is this and please read it if you really want proof against evolution and proof for ID the collapse of evolution by scott M huseif evolution can be proved wrong you then look for something else to believe in he gives proof for ID AND disproves evolution just look



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ghost
 

i agree i think that a squirrell can change to another squirrell but not to a monkey thats one of the reasons noahs ark could fit all the animals in the world



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join