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 jfj123
Here's a website as example:
www.ocii.com...
I do not endorse this site in any way and find it almost as funny as an Austin Powers movie but no where near as entertaining.
But we know that dinosaurs lived for 160 million years and died out approx. 65 million years ago.
This is of course just an opinion based on interpretation.
There is quite a bit of evidence that disagree with this statement. Do you have any evidence to support your statement?
In 1971, Do-While Jones received the degree of Bachelor of Science (with distinction) in Electrical Engineering, from a midwestern university better known for its football team than its engineering school. Since graduation he has been employed in the defense industry of a well-known free-world nation. During the course of that employment he was granted a patent for a radar signal processing algorithm.
Upon reading a published report that someone at Montana State Northern University found evidence of dried blood on dinosaur bones (which certainly could not have survived millions of years), I actually went to Montana to check out that report myself. Not only did I confirm it, but I went on a MSUN dinosaur dig, and found evidence that the bones in that area seem to have been buried after the formation of the coulees in that area (which are believed by geologists to have been formed thousands, not millions, of years ago). We published the details of my trip in the We Dug Dinos article in the September, 1999, newsletter.
Last summer, when I investigated the undisputed dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy River (near Glen Rose, Texas) I found that the tracks followed the (geologically young) course of the river. Is it reasonable to believe that the Paluxy River cut through 20 feet of recent rock and just happened to follow the tracks of dinosaurs made millions of years earlier? or do those tracks follow the river because the river was there first?
Originally posted by AshleyD
And if the speed of light is decreasing as has been proven, it didn't take quite as long for the light from a distant star to reach us as previously believed. This is the laws of physics we're talking about- not spiritual mumbo jumbo.
Originally posted by melatonin
There are YECers like Setterfield who spread this sort of BS. There are some physicists who posit a change in c in the very early periods of the universe (before Planck time - 10^-43secs), but there is no evidence of this.
Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by jfj123
Did you check out the article that stated sedimentary layers might not take as long to form as we previously thought? The eruption of a single volcano or a localized flood can create several feet of stratum layers in a few days or weeks.
And again, not all creationists believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. That was only a hypothesis started by a man who assumed the genealogies were closed, that there was no time gap between Genesis 1:1-2, and that creation was six literal days.
There are several different ways of dating volcanic rock such as Magnetostratigraphy, that would help to eliminate this problem.
I don't want to generalize it's just I have heard this quite a bit from different sources.
Originally posted by melatonin
So, now we're all for embracing hypotheses
There is no evidence that the speed of light has changed
I think it's all a bit like pick-an-mix for you really, and I think jfj has your approach pegged above...
Originally posted by AshleyD
I respectfully disagree. There is evidence but then some say that evidence itself is flawed.
No, this is a discussion and I proposed a hypothesis and even stated I do not necessarily believe in Theistic evolution personally. But don't be close minded. Maybe our beliefs are not mutually exclusive.
Originally posted by jfj123
My favorite is the one where they say,
"after all, evolution is just a theory. Even scientists call it a theory".
By saying that, they are actually agreeing that evolution is a theory. So they are agreeing evolution is correct.
The reality is, they have no idea what a Scientific Theory is. Wouldn't you think that creationists would at least know the most basic information behind science if they were going to debunk it?????
Here's the definition of a scientific theory that apparently no creationists no about.
In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
So needless to say, every time I hear a creationist say that, I point and laugh
Originally posted by melatonin
Heh, no they posit it. It's not the same thing. Davies even says it could be that thermodynamics is wrong. He makes a personal judgment as to which should alter. That's even taking his speculation as having worth.
I'm not really. I think scientific hypotheses are great. They are the driving force of scientific investigation. We need as many as possible, but then we use an evolution type mechanism and filter out the weak and falsified. Like YEC.
I agree that our positions are not mutually exclusive in some ways. But that would require you taking an old-earth theistic evolutionist position. That is the scientific position as host, with a faith-based parasite.
I can even tell you your best line of argument, it is the fine-tuning issue. Based on the physical constants. You have no real credibility arguing about the validity of evolutionary biology and the age of the earth, both are well-established science.
Originally posted by Conspiriology
Evolution has been debunked by people whose accomplishments and intelligence makes Dawkins look rather like an imbecile. I read Dawkins "explanations" to "support" his theories and see that he is handicapped by his own atheism and will not test or go near ANYTHING that starts looking like a mind was behind it. He simply won't go there and Mel wants to say Creationism is dogmatic?
As your own definition offers no words to convey anything absolute, nothing to convey "bonafide fact" nothing to say it is "unequivocally proven"
According to your own dichotomy of logic you are saying that because we say a "Truther" has a 911 theory we are admitting it is correct when it is "just" a theory.
Unless you add another qualifier to make the verbal distinction that they agree to it's "correctness" , they are merely reminding you what it is.
You suggesting their is even room for such attempts to debunk it tells me your genuine interpretation for the intended message the Christian placed on the original phrase "it's just a theory" proves that you not only knew what they were trying to convey but that you intentionally convoluted it to use in some sophomoric attempt to cast them as less intelligent.
Evolution has been debunked by people whose accomplishments and intelligence makes Dawkins look rather like an imbecile.
I read Dawkins "explanations" to "support" his theories and see that he is handicapped by his own atheism and will not test or go near ANYTHING that starts looking like a mind was behind it. He simply won't go there and Mel wants to say Creationism is dogmatic? Creationism can go either way but Evolution is proving to be more and more a dead and archaic draconian research into a cosmic crap shoot. A science where the only reason to defend it is because the alternative suggests he is accountable to something greater then himself.
Any time my opponent admits that the only way to live successfully as an atheist is to be willfully or blissfully ignorant of atheism's logical ramifications,
I recognize the futile purpose for their involvement in such discussions as pathetic antagonism behind the guise of deep seeded hatred of a God
The atheists disdain of a science where prejudice is so clearly rejected the moment it is deemed creationism, isn't one of bad science, it is one of intolerance for what it might prove, not to mention what it has already debunked as Biobabble. I'd be very surprised if evolution is still even taught ten years from now.
Originally posted by AshleyD
If Genesis (a book thousands of years old) refers to an evolutionary process before Darwin's hypothesis in the 19th century, how can theism be a parasite to science? It would seem to me the first one to mention such a theory (the Bible, hypothetically) would be "the winner" of the race while the second comer (secular science) would be the parasite.
Again, remember Darwin was a theist. He never claimed evolution was an atheistic principle- just the opposite in fact when you read his studies. Of course, he did not believe in the Judeo-Christian god but instead a supreme being not consistently and continuously involved in earth's affairs.
I don't think our universe is billions of years old either. Neither dates of origin are without their scientific contradictions.
Originally posted by melatonin
We're still waiting for the ID test, how can Dawkins test the untestable? Tell me the scientific hypothesis for intelligent design or creationism? I'm waiting in suspenders for that.
Nice to get a mention in the same paragraph as Dawkins, cheers!
Make Dawkins look like an imbecile? That's rather funny. Like who? Dr Dr Dembski?