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
Evolution has won in the courts
could each of you you tell us specifically why you have a problem with it [keep it simple] and post links so we can analise the evidence ourselves?
Originally posted by DevinS
But riley, these are the people who after killing millions finally admitted the Earth was round, do you think something small like evidence is going to make them admit to Evolution?
We could be one of a billion universes, much like the galaxies in this universe, and God while does 'play' with his toys, has better things to do. Isn't it being slightly egotistical to say the man, thing, woman, that created everything would waste their time on little ol' us?
Originally posted by riley
Recently, a member said that scientists had found a fossilised miners helmet that could not have been over seventy years old.
'fossil' hat
'Fossil' hat
This miner's hat is rock hard. It was found in a mine in Tasmania where it had been covered with water for more than 50 years.
Over that time the chemicals in the water precipitated within the open structure of the felt material of the soft hat, thus turning the soft hat into stone by a process called calcification, which means that solid calcium carbonate has impregnated the original felt material of the hat.
The hat is now on display in a mining museum on Tasmania's west coast.
This quick-forming 'stone' hat adds weight to the claims that creation scientists are correct when they say that thousands or millions of years are not needed to form rocks and fossilize animals and plants.
www.answersingenesis.org...
Brian Sykes in the prestigious journal Nature clearly states that the rate at which DNA breaks down in the laboratory is such that after 10,000 years no DNA should be left. Writing about the magnolia leaf fossils (and others in the same ‘ancient’ layer found to also have DNA, including oak, cypress and tulip tree fossils) he says:
‘This means these compression fossils defy the prediction, from in vitro estimates of the rate of spontaneous hydrolysis, that no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years. What a good job not everybody knew that, grant reviewers included.’
snip
1)In the absence of the repair machinery of a living cell, DNA breaks down, by itself, at an observed, measurable rate which would mean that after 10,000 years there should be none left.
2)Therefore, any specimen which has DNA still in it cannot be more than 10,000 years old.
However:
3)Intact DNA has been found in specimens which evolutionists ‘know’ to be millions of years old. (Because it is found in lavers which, according to the geological age-dating system, are assigned this age—17–20 million years in the case of the plant fossils mentioned here.)
4)If this system of vast ages is not correct, the whole evolutionary scenario collapses.
5)Therefore, the logical deduction in the first two points above (based on real science—that is, an observable process) must be flawed. There must be some special conditions which can somehow ‘hold up’ the breakdown of DNA quite dramatically.
Notice how point 3 brings in the assumption/belief that the vast evolutionary age assigned to these fossils is correct. That belief becomes the justification for discarding the prima facie implications of the laboratory data.
This is not meant to be classroom.. it is meant to be about conspiracies yet it has gotten to the point that before any productive discussions can begin we have to explain why a buried helmet is not a fossil, why turnips don't turn into bumble bees, why the sun is not 10,000 years old [let alone the earth], how apes and humans just share a common ancestor, why dinos and humans could not have co-existed and many other things that boarder on the ridiculous.
Evolution has won in the courts yet the dissinformation campaign continues..
What happens when even ET life is found? We know this is inevitable- wonderful as it will be it will feel like a demotion for many.
Originally posted by DevinS
These people killed you for SNEEZING to much, having a birthmark, using herbal medicine, saying Earth wasn't center, being born with cerebal palsy or other mental disorder, women for answering math questions, having a rash, because another person said you used magic to kill his cow, because of a belief. Right now they have a belief that creation, not evolution, is correct.
Originally posted by Rren
Evolution has won in the courts yet the dissinformation campaign continues..
I don't think the courts/judges are qualified to make such determinations, you do?
Originally posted by Rren
*that's actually the entire article... not a whole lot to go on there.
Here's another essay on DNA degredation and how that fits the young earth model:
www.answersingenesis.org...
Brian Sykes in the prestigious journal Nature clearly states that the rate at which DNA breaks down in the laboratory is such that after 10,000 years no DNA should be left. Writing about the magnolia leaf fossils (and others in the same ‘ancient’ layer found to also have DNA, including oak, cypress and tulip tree fossils) he says:
‘This means these compression fossils defy the prediction, from in vitro estimates of the rate of spontaneous hydrolysis, that no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years. What a good job not everybody knew that, grant reviewers included.’
References
Bryan Sykes, in Nature, Vol. 352, August 1, 1991, p. 381. In this context, his statement is sarcastic. Sykes is not denying that the fossils are multimillions of years old. He is saying that if the inferences from the laboratory data had been completely trusted, no one would have bothered to look for DNA in such old sediments. The fact that it exists is to him evidence that the inferences were wrong, not the age
I'd be interested to know how many conspiracy "theories," do you think, do not border on the ridiculous?
Turnips into bumble bees is, while a little disingenuous, just a dramatic way of pointing out they evolved from the same thing (LUCA.) Not the greatest argument in the world but not entirely innacurate either.
Every time someone comes in and makes the mistake of saying man evolved from an ape/monkey he/she gets it from all sides. "Hey dummy they share a common ancestor... BIG difference." They evolved from an 'ape-like' species and not an actual ape, why do some folks get so worked up over the distinction?
I could give you some links from ToE supporters around here whom mis-understand/represent evolution as much as any creationist, those guys seem to get a free pass though.
Basically, unless i misunderstood your post, you're saying that YECists shouldn't be allowed to post on ATS?
While i disagree with their scientific and Biblical interpretations, they have as much of a right to post on this discussion board as the next guy imho. You could always just ignore them.
I don't think the courts/judges are qualified to make such determinations, you do?
Why is it the assumption that ETs will be atheists and their existence with be the death blow to religion?
Originally posted by byhiniur
I think Riley meant this as a metaphor.
Nice thread Riley.
Originally posted by Rren
Every time someone comes in and makes the mistake of saying man evolved from an ape/monkey he/she gets it from all sides. "Hey dummy they share a common ancestor... BIG difference." They evolved from an 'ape-like' species and not an actual ape, why do some folks get so worked up over the distinction? I could give you some links from ToE supporters around here whom mis-understand/represent evolution as much as any creationist, those guys seem to get a free pass though.
Originally posted by riley
Thanks Rren.. might've been the 'helmet' in question. I tried looking further into it but all I could find was that same one photograph and no mention of which museum it's meant to be in. Things do indeed calcify but I'm still unsure how that supports their young earth idea.. concrete exists. They may as well dip something in it and call it a fossil.
References
Bryan Sykes, in Nature, Vol. 352, August 1, 1991, p. 381. In this context, his statement is sarcastic. Sykes is not denying that the fossils are multimillions of years old. He is saying that if the inferences from the laboratory data had been completely trusted, no one would have bothered to look for DNA in such old sediments. The fact that it exists is to him evidence that the inferences were wrong, not the age
This is what happens when scientists jump to conclusions.. he spoke too soon. there would be many things that could keep dna somewhat intact like amber and ice.
These are very infantile ideas.. and yes it's a shame that people are this ignorant. We deny it as the motto says.. thats fab and all but it's time consuming and in the meantime we've lost track of what the anti-evolutionists are up to. It's possible that those 'silly' arguments posted are meant to distract us from their goals.
Are we immune from cyber terrorism? The internet seems to be the battle field for the present culture wars now. I know I sound overly suspicious but when googling I found a forum talking about how to get around being banned from ats.. thats definently premeditated trolling.
Rren
Why is it the assumption that ETs will be atheists and their existence with be the death blow to religion?
Riley
I guess people assume they would be more evolved than us.. but a narrassistic alien filling the role of long lost messiah is possible. The universe is full of opportunites for missionaries. Religion wouldn't die, it would change along with human progress like it always has. Some however don't like change and will continue to resist it.