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.
...evidence for creation doesn't exist.
creation... is not a valid scientific theory.
it doesn't matter is everyone in the world is wrong, they're still wrong.
there are more scientists named steve (or a variation of steve) that support evolution than there are scientists that support creationism...
This suggests Dawkins remains willfully ignorant - 'Unless you show me conclusive proof I won't consider it evidence; I discount it.'
all i can say is, i don't know why they disagree with me, they just do
and, so far as the science is concerned, they are incredibly wrong.
...not my posts, it's more the resources i tend to give with my posts that they need to read.
...that doesn't count. we're talking creationism, that's flood theory.
Radiohalos research was a major focus of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project (Snelling 2000). As a result of this research it was concluded that the 238U and Po radiohalos frequently found together in biotite flakes in granitic rocks had to have formed simultaneously (Snelling 2005). Because of the very short half-lives of the parent Po isotopes, this implies that hundreds of million of years worth of 238U decay (at today’s rates) had to have instead occurred in only a matter of a few days. There needs to have been that much decay of 238U to produce both the visible physical damage (the 238U radiohalos) and the 500 million–1 billion polonium atoms required to generate the polonium radiohalos. However, that much polonium would then have decayed within a few days. A hydrothermal fluid transport model was thus proposed which explains how the polonium was separated from its parent 238U, transported very short distances, and then concentrated in radiocenters close by to form the polonium radiohalos (Snelling and Armitage 2003; Snelling, Baumgardner, and Vardiman 2003; Snelling 2005).
require post high school education to refute
the link takes me to a subscription page.
you could possibly provide a scientific basis for disagreeing with evolution.
it might even be helpful if you could provide me with evidence of an alternative theory that doesn't come from someone with a religious spin in their idea...
bible vs koran is quite the prize fight for which book i most disagree with while still liking some of the teachings...
go over to the thread i linked you to and we can do a few rounds of intellectual sparring and see what happens.
the flagellum motor just irks me to the point that i have to call shenanigans whenever someone brings it up. it's been thoroughly debunked as an IC part.
...no the message between the lines is a challenge for people to actually be open minded and think freely instead of simply saying "no, you're tempting blah blah blah"
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
here's how it goes, buy "The God Delusion" and read it with an open mind. see what happens and share your experience. it's out in paperback and is only 460ish pages.
if you don't want to take up this challenge, i'd like to see why.
conversely, brave atheists could just read "The Bible" with an open mind and share their experiences to make the experiment equitable.
[edit on 3/31/08 by madnessinmysoul]
The biggest problem for atheists is that they have to find a way to explain away Jesus Christ. ...is this even on the topic at all?
Originally posted by Vicky32
I have read it (about the same time as you created this thread, years before I discovered ATS. I was not impressed - 'The God Delusion' is riddled with bizarre errors.
Dawkins knows all about evolutionary biology but nothing at all about religion, let alone theology.