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.
First of all, also organic material has been isolated from even dinosaur remains (proteins). Second, you acknowledge that the rock is indeed old, but why do you fail to realize that this implies that the fossil is at least as old as the rock it's formed from? I think even children are able to make such logical conclusions, but not you. No, it's beyond your intellectual abilities...
“the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years
Originally posted by SisyphusRide
reply to post by Barcs
I guess you guys aren't familiar with Piltdown man? you can read about him on wiki and the lineage they were trying to prove (fake)
it's going to be hard to get this theist (or any creationist for that matter) to argue with you about this...
Creationist already believe you are very special and not just some random occurrence... most creationist place human life above all the species on the planet but then again most creationist value all life forms most of the time above their own even... it's just comes natural to us.
Creationist do not hesitate when it comes to protecting life... no matter the rank on the food chain.
an atheist is the coward who will walk right past another being mugged or raped... (just look at Richard Dawkins lol) it's possible they will call the report in though..
it's my guess the military just doesn't have many atheists either
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Here is a question for the OP. I'm convinced by the scientific evidence of how the Earth was made and the evolution process, but there is something that keeps bugging me...
At what time did a separation between plants and animals happen? is there any evidence of a plant/animal hybrid? This always puzzled me so please help me understand how the difference between plants and animals came to happen.
Originally posted by Yoda411
Are you looking for a half-lizard half-mammal? The whole principal behind evolution is that these species developed along their own evolutionary tree. A lizard didn't just give birth to a hairy mammal one day.
Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
evolution and science are both based upon a set of beliefs just like any religon.
See Newtons theory of Gravity if you have any problems understanding the concept
The only perfect science is math. 1 + 1 will always equal two.
One evolutionist plus one creationist will almost alays result in both sides making retarded unfounded claims based upon belief passed off as fact...
What a load. Scientific theories are based on facts that can be observed, tested and falsified. Creation is based on faith. They aren't even close to the same. It's funny how so many people resort to this nonsensical type of thinking. Stop blindly following fundamentalist websites. Learn for yourself.
Originally posted by vasaga
Things in science must be falsifiable. That's all.
Originally posted by 4REVOLUTION
So... you're saying that a HUUUUGE explosion happened out of nothing, in which DUST collided with DUST, formed planets, and somehow this dust also "evolved" into single cell organisms, which then somehow "evolved" into multi-cellular organisms, and then somehow branched off into Plants, Animals, & Humans?! That makes no sense without 1/3 Plant - 1/3 Lizard - 1/3 Mammal concoctions.
Isn't the point of Evolution to adapt to a more suitable form/function in our environment? Right there is a reason Evolution is a gimmick.
To think that everything came from dust and a 1:100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [continued...] chance is 100% ridiculous.
I love science! I can't wait to board the Starship Enterprise...
I have learnt for myself. teslas unified theory of dynamic gravity is a testament to wrong science can get it. Maybe you should do some more study...
So... you're saying that a HUUUUGE explosion happened out of nothing, in which DUST collided with DUST, formed planets,
and somehow this dust also "evolved" into single cell organisms, which then somehow "evolved" into multi-cellular organisms,
and then somehow branched off into Plants, Animals, & Humans?! That makes no sense without 1/3 Plant - 1/3 Lizard - 1/3 Mammal concoctions.
Evolution is also responsible for the intricate web of symbiosis encompassing EVERY living thing, down to the tiniest organism?
Evolution is responsible for Humans?!
Isn't the point of Evolution to adapt to a more suitable form/function in our environment? Right there is a reason Evolution is a gimmick. We [humans] are completely helpless at birth, our whole lives are easily influenced by our upbringing and care, and we are easily killed off at a young age.
Cockroaches are far more cut out to use as an example for Evolution. At least you could say they live in any environment and are pretty much guaranteed to survive a nuclear fallout. lol
To think that everything came from dust and a 1:100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [continued...] chance is 100% ridiculous.
BTW, Radio-Carbon dating is a joke. You could Carbon Date my brand new shoes and they would be 3Billion years old.
Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
evolution and science are both based upon a set of beliefs just like any religon.
See Newtons theory of Gravity if you have any problems understanding the concept
The only perfect science is math. 1 + 1 will always equal two.
One evolutionist plus one creationist will almost alays result in both sides making retarded unfounded claims based upon belief passed off as fact...
What a load. Scientific theories are based on facts that can be observed, tested and falsified. Creation is based on faith. They aren't even close to the same. It's funny how so many people resort to this nonsensical type of thinking. Stop blindly following fundamentalist websites. Learn for yourself.
I have learnt for myself. teslas unified theory of dynamic gravity is a testament to wrong science can get it. Maybe you should do some more study...
Yeah.. Or they suddenly push back the origin of mammals back a few hundred million years.. You make it sound so easy, but that's not how it works in practice.. They use fossils for the fossil record (obviously), so if something is out of place, they simply change the so-called 'tree' to fit the so-called evidence better...
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by vasaga
Things in science must be falsifiable. That's all.
Are you implying theory of evolution isn't? All you need to do is to show one fossil that is completely out of place, e.g. 100 million year old rabbit, and TADA, the theory of evolution is falsified unless we invoke time travel
Originally posted by vasaga
Yeah.. Or they suddenly push back the origin of mammals back a few hundred million years.. You make it sound so easy, but that's not how it works in practice.. They use fossils for the fossil record (obviously), so if something is out of place, they simply change the so-called 'tree' to fit the so-called evidence better...
Aside from that, the word evolution suffers from equivocation.
That is not what I stated. I said that the word evolution suffers from equivocation. You're requesting examples for something I did not state. In any case, what I meant is, well, let's take the Wikipedia definition of equivocation;
Originally posted by Barcs
Please give examples of equivocation, in the theory of evolution.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
So now we're down to attacking the theory based on semantics?
Fallacious reasoning
Equivocation is the use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time. For example:
A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
In this use of equivocation, the word "light" is first used as the opposite of "heavy", but then used as a synonym of "bright" (the fallacy usually becomes obvious as soon as one tries to translate this argument into another language). Because the "middle term" of this syllogism is not one term, but two separate ones masquerading as one (all feathers are indeed "not heavy", but it is not true that all feathers are "bright"), this type of equivocation is actually an example of the fallacy of four terms.
Originally posted by vasaga
When people talk about evolution, they never say what they're referring to.. The fossil record/tree of life? Common descent? Change over time? The mechanisms? All of those..? The problem is that when people give a counter argument about for example the fossil record, people jump to the mechanics & natural selection. When someone brings in a counterargument regarding natural selection, people then jump to common descent to counter back and so on. And at all times, the word evolution is used for all of those different aspects. It's like a whole party of drunk people not knowing what the hell they're talking about.
The process of evolution (genetic changes sorted by natural selection) IS a fact. Our methods of dating fossils ARE factual. Common decent is a slam dunk in genetics. Not a single one of those concepts is wrong. Your viewpoint constantly misunderstands the theory and process of evolution. It is not equivocation. That is laughable. Tangible scientific evidence is not the same as misunderstanding terms. That is what creationists do.
It's kind of funny really, because rhinoceros gave that comment regarding that single out of place fossil to 'disprove' the tree of life, but if such a fossil is actually found, then all the rest, like natural selection and change over time etc are still in place, and people can still go on about screaming how evolution is a so-called fact.