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 Evolution Cruncher
I have a question to one of the earlier posts....
if Dinosaurs were killed by a metoer or comet, or whatever it was...
why have there been reports of dinosaurs still being alive?
ex: lochness monster, Mokele bmembe
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
why have there been reports of dinosaurs still being alive?
Joshm2u
some dinosaurs that are much much larger than horses, had the same sized nostrils as them. perharps the atmosphere was different when there were many dinosaurs roaming the earth. in some fossilzed amber, the air bubbles in them have revealed that there was 50% more oxygen than today
Giving the giant dinos 50% more oxygen would not permit any kind of forest life.
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
just because there is highger percentage of oxygen does not mean that CO2 could not be present.
Originally posted by SupaSmoove101
The "global forest fire" is a good arguement that I am not positive how to answer. Although I can say that according to some the Earth was much different back then and there were no storms or lightning.
Instead plants retained water from underground. Apparently in those days that is where most of Earth's water was.
That could help prevent some of the forest fires perhaps.
evolution cruncher
because if they are started by anything else but pure light, I believe that the bible gives a great explanation as to why there could have been a higher oxygen ratio without the problem of forest fires and such.
the bible teaches what is called to canopy theory. to us its a theory, but to the bible, its a fact
this can be explained by the bible, I mean this is scientific, the only thing we are unsure of, is if it really happened,
Originally posted by SupaSmoove101
You cannot mix Evolution theory "mesozoic" with Creation theory.
In creation theory there is no such thing as a million years in terms of the world or universe.
without scientific testing or any professional testing on the topic who's to say what the truth is about Oxygen levels.
I think based on the testing toward Evolution we can become quite sertain that epochs that far back will mainly be studied with mere ponders and assumptions.
And I do realize that you wrote of scientific testing that shows Oxygen damages lung tissue. However until testing is done with a complete Earthly environment with every possible combination of gasses and other things this study would be held to... "in the lab room this would seem to be the case".
Creationism is not a scientific theory.
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
evolution assumes that life can spontaneously generate.
Miller and Urey showed that life cannot evolve without oxygen and if you have oxygen the product oxydizes.
we have never observed animals changing into different Kind of animals.
it is assumed to happen.
it is assumed that both spontaneous generation and macro evolution have taken place long ago. it is assumed. there has never been an observation. that is not scientific.
, the big bang is the best theory I can find and yet it is not even a good theory,
people try to say that Cosmic, Stelllar and Chemical Evolution are not a part of the evolution theory, when is fact it has to be, because without the sun life could not exist, without chemicals, life could not exist, and without having an origin to the entire universe, life would not exist.
. yes I understand that they are not a part of biological evolution, but you need to answer those in order to have life.
I think he does a great job at showing people Gods word and showing how the evolution theory cannot be tied in with the bible and that evolution along with creation are both religious beliefs.
Evolutionary biology makes no assumptions about the origins of life. Life clearly exists, and evolutionary biology is the study of it. Organic chemists other reserachers are reseraching the origins of life, but its a seperate science, seperate theory, and does not effect evolutionary biolofy.
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
the only evolution observed is micro evolution and that is biblical. that is the only kind of evolution that the bible agrees with.
no it isn't...micro evolution isn't even hinted at in the bible...
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
it makes the assumption that humans can ultimately evolve from bacteria or something other than a human, or even that any living thing can evolve into something other than its kind or come from something other than its kind.
this has never been observed, they say that it [must] have happened.
the only evolution observed is micro evolution and that is biblical.
ok so you are saying that a horse and a zebra are not the same KIND of animal?
and you are also saying that a dog and a wolf are not the same KIND of animal?
so yes the bible does agree with Mirco Evolution
neither of those two processes will caue bacteria to turn into a human no matter how much time given to do so.
time seems to be the god of evolution, without time, things cannot get better.
there is a line between Micro and Macro and the line is; macro has never been observed. micro has
No they don't. Science doesn't say that it absolutely had to happen any particular way.
In biology, there are mechanisms that 'limit' species, that form species barriers and hold the speicies intact. There are no such things beyond the level of species, there are no Kinds.
That it cannot happen has certainly never been demonstrated and the evidence that we do indicates that not only can it happen but that it infact did.
Evolution, not being a religion, has nothing to do with gods or anything like that.
Populations of organisms are variable and that variation is acted upon by natural selection