It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
if your theory didnt have a huge hole in it, I would believe it.
but since its not scientific and its based off of many flawed assumptions im not going to believe in it.
you can show me 2+2=4 you are trying to say 2+2=22 when it does not.
the logic of evolution is based on its own imaginitive process. yes if you add 2 to 2 you get the number 22. but in real life if you have 2 of something and you add an additional 2 of the same thing, you are not going to have 22. you are going to have 4.
I hope this helps your understand. I know its hard to let go of what you wish to be true. but true denial of ignorance only comes when you look at all sides and learn them.
I know its hard to let go of what you wish to be true. but true denial of ignorance only comes when you look at all sides and learn them.
creationists/IDists, admit your defeat
"Evidence for creation"? Did you actually write that with a straight face...
...post-grad level scientific literature which has been presenting the evidence for creation over recent decades.
Evolution hasn't been scientifically proven on many levels either if you take a look at what some scientists have said. It all does go back to the same topic, in which case my statement still stands.
I don't have any problems dragging this out for you as long and as boring as you'd like...but at the end of the day, you still haven't answered my question...decisions decisions...
Proceedings of the Microbe Forum, June 2007
Microbes and the Days of Creation
An Apology and Unification Theory for the Reconciliation of Physical Matter and Metaphysical Cognizance
Louis Pasteur’s Views on Creation, Evolution, and the Genesis of Germs
Toward a Practical Theology of Peer Review
Creationists complain that we are excluded from the peer-reviewed literature (Anderson 2002; Kulikovsky 2008; see also Tipler 2004) and are therefore required to publish in our own peer reviewed-literature (Morris 2003).
So far Dawkins and MIMS have revealed their ignorance. Now that makes three...
none of the literature you provided does anything to prove creation or disprove evolution.
none of the articles actually tackle how the theory of evolution is incorrect...
i think i've mentioned it before (if not here than on other threads) that it's not a scientific theory
Does absence of a human theory impact on whether something actually happened? Some people don't need such boxes in order to think...
also, forgets that there are two separate accounts of creation, each with a different order of events...the paper only takes genesis 1 into account.
i can tell you why they're excluded...they don't submit to them and, when they do, they're denied on the basis of being unscientific.
ok, so one source down.
I count hospital consultants, doctors, PhD and research scientists, a research mathemetician, lawyers, etc., among my personal friends who have also concluded that the evidence favours special creation. Among my former acquaintances who have reached the same conclusion are a world-renowned professor of archeology, a not-world renowned professor of archeology, a top-level engineer, etc., etc. Around the world countless thousands of people of the same calibre have examined the evidence and come to the same conclusion. This does not prove that they are right, but it does show that Dawkins is staggeringly ignorant.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
where are the voices of objection raising questions that show scientific literacy?