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 riley
There is even a village in italy where everyone is immune to cancer.. it's in their dna.
Originally posted by deesw
God left nothing missing. How can you believe scientists that find bones scattered about over a twenty mile radius and swear they belong to the same creature?
Originally posted by deesw
No I'm not, there is a difference between something adapting to it's environment and something evolving into something else.
If we evolved from something else, then why aren't we still evolving into something else?
If we share a common ancestor with apes, then why can't we talk to each other? Too many loop holes, doesn't hold water, and Darwin was a Godless fruit.
Originally posted by deesw
But there is no proof that that is what those beings were or what happened. Remember there is a such thing as adaptation.
Originally posted by deesw
Creationism has never changed.
Originally posted by deesw
How can anyone actually believe that they were an accident?
Originally posted by cybertroy
I once again ask. Has anyone done the math on the probability of life coming about with there being a creating force?
Originally posted by cybertroy
I'm afraid man is a bit more than just mud that magically jumped to life
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories
Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.
Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."
In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.
Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.
An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.
A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.
An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.
A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.
Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
Originally posted by deesw
That's the thing. Evolution claims to have evidence and proof all of the time. But that evidence and proof changes with the wind, along with all of the theories. Creationism has never changed. How can anyone actually believe that they were an accident?
Originally posted by gypsyskyes
Now, the reason, I decided to post, I have a question:
If (and I use the word loosely) science clones a human, is that human the result of evolution, or ID?