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 theindependentjournal
You know I don't even have to debate this with evolutionists, I will just let you put your DUMB theory out and everyone can see it for what it is!!! Thanks Again
The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.
Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years when their basic organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if there respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still evolving?
Originally posted by infolurker
There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred.
Originally posted by theindependentjournal
reply to post by Yoda411
Seriously I am telling you the truth, I haven't seen a better post that proves the ridiculousness of the theory than this one!!!
Originally posted by infolurker
Got anything besides a human skull
Originally posted by infolurker
I could throw a bunch of different cat skulls and skeletons (lions, tigers, panthers, housecats, pumas, bobcats) next to each other and claim.. look, evolution and it would line up better than the drastic changes and "leaps of faith" we have to go with to completely believe evolution..... Sorry, that's the truth, either way you have to put faith in it as there isn't concrete proof.
Originally posted by centrifugal
reply to post by Yoda411
Two common arguments among creationists(christians) are that
A) Satan created the fossils to deceive us, making them appear to be aged
B) The timeline in the bible is not to be taken literally, and that God allowed for evolution to occur. In this case evolution would support creationism. According to Genesis God created all forms of life in the same order that evolution describes.
My objective here is not to prove creationism, but to demonstrate that you can't disprove creationism and that you are the delusional one if you think you can. I apologize for the circular argument but it is neccessary.
Creationism is based on faith, and no amount of scientific observation can prove it to be false.
The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred.
Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us.
Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years when their basic organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving?
Evolutionists claim that the genetic and biological similarities between species is evidence of common ancestry. However, that is only one interpretation of the evidence. Another possibility is that the comparative similarities are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life.
New specimens of fossils are constantly being unearthed all over the world. The number of fossils so far discovered exceeds 100 million. Scientific institutions and academies examine these fossils in detail. Yet as a result of all these endeavors, not a single intermediate life form that might represent evidence for evolution has ever been found.
New life forms also appeared suddenly and with complete, flawless structures in the ages after the Cambrian. Basic groups such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals each appeared on Earth in a single moment and in flawless forms. Not a single intermediate form of the kind hoped for by evolutionists exists among them.
There is no difference between this 54- to 37million-year-old fossilized plane tree leaf and leaves of the same species alive today.
This 50-million-year-old fossilized bowfin is proof that these fish, still alive today, have remained unchanged for tens of millions of years
The distinguishing feature of these fossil crabs discovered in Denmark is that they are discovered in round concretions that rise to the surface of the ground at specific times of the year. These fossils, consequently known as "crab balls," generally date back to the Oligocene Period (37 to 23 million years ago).
Originally posted by Yoda411
That's OK, because I am here to prove that creationists are delusional.
A.) Satan is an easy cop-out for anything Christian's don't want to hear.
B.) It is also a complete cop-out to say that God allowed for Evolution. This not only is not contradictory to my argument, it actually supports it.
Is faith of a false truth delusion?
Originally posted by centrifugal
First thing you must understand is that evolution does not contradict creationism. So it can't be used to prove creationists are delusional. Your logic is flawed.
The term creationism is generally used to describe the belief that creation occurred literally as described in the Book of Genesis (for both Jews and Christians) or the Qur'an (for Muslims)[12] The terms creationism and creationist have become particularly associated with beliefs about the time frame of creation, conflicting with scientific understanding of natural history, particularly evolution. This conflict is most prevalent in the United States, where there has been sustained controversy in the public arena, centering over the issue of the science curriculum in public schools.