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.
Originally posted by ken10
The only answer i can give in response to your post is to look at Viruses and bacteria, They are able to evolve very quickly to become immune to anti-biotics
etc. So if evolution is true for those then why not all life.
And maybe in the case of the Coelacanth is it has never been put under any pressure to evolve.....Meaning it is able to efficiently survive today just as it did 65 million years ago, I think the same is true of the crocodillians.
Sorry i'm no expert and this is just my understanding of things.
Originally posted by selfisolated
I'm with JPhish on this one.
Why evolve if its doing just fine?
And BTW, 65MA is a geological estimate of when the dinosaurs died out. Rock is formed as layers of sediment build up, and based on known facts and figures (such as accumulation of sediment we can see in various parts of the world today -ie new rock forming), it is thought that the most recent layer of the Earth's crust where any evidence of dinosaurs is found is approximately 65 million years old.
And carbon dating is impossible on dinosaur bones, because they don't actually contain any organic carbon. It's been replaced, slowly, by various non-organic minerals.
I don't know if evolution is strictly true, but at the same time, would such a kind, loving God create a species where the most greedy come to dominate?
Originally posted by Unsane
Undeniable proof against evolution will come when an 'advanced' or modern organism like a rabbit or poodle is found in the same era as a trilobite.
Unfortunately for creationists, having something which hasn't evolved actually favours evolution, so we can measure more accurately environmental adaptation - it will help with research and PROGRESS our understanding, something creationism will not.
Originally posted by riley
Originally posted by LannockYou CANNOT compare a shark to a coelacanth. It might be remotely possible for a shark to remain unchanged but a shark is a predator, coelacanths are targets for predators.
Some species are good at fighting.. others are good at fleeing. Maybe it could always swim and hide well.. no need to evolve.
Bob Sholtz.. what is the conspiracy? You've only posted creationist propoganda.. and it's not even good propoganda. The site you mention even talks about carbon dating live penguins and snails.. :shk:
..hang on a sec:
1) From a video Lecture by Dr. Kent Hovind
[edit on 1-7-2008 by riley]
Originally posted by Conspiriology
Look,, JPHISH said it once and now I am saying it again so listen up Darwinist's .
It doesn't matter that they micro evolved into two "sub species" jeez I would at least hope so but that in and of itself PROVES thewre were pressures so now we have Darwins Finchs for Coelacanths, we have proof they micro evolved due to the pressures damning Macro evolution to smithereens because they have had all the time and necessary environmetal pressures including evidence thereof but
what do we got as a new species??
they are still Coelacanths ! GET IT NOW???"
a. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding"
Originally posted by round_eyed_dog
Why does evolution have to be absent from creationism? I'm surprised more people of faith haven't embraced evolution, since it's such a beautifully designed system.
I'm not saying that I am a person of any particular faith, but this has always perplexed me.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
"Whoa! You are comparing a static form to a dynamic one. Not only will a computer not improve its code, it will not replicate. In the scheme of a dynamic Universe, one might expect improvements with each generation - with each generation of computers we create, there ARE improvements in code and function..."
Once again, you prove my point better than i could have myself. There are improvements in code and function because WE CAUSE THEM. The same is true of our dna, it was created by an external source.
THE COMPUTER CODE TO HUMAN DNA IS AN ANALOGY. It proves that the code cannot come from nothing, you assume a creator when computers are concerned, so does it not logically follow that our code came about the same way?