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 Fromabove
Evolution simply cannot work because of the randomness and the fact that any organism doing one thing would have no knowledge of needing to pass it on to the next generation, nor would any following organism know the need to keep it. So math is on my side by far. And math alone condemns evolution to to rubbish heap of ideas.
Life is far too complex to be a chance event with spontaneous knowledge and understanding.
Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by radkrish
So the author is a dentist and had no schooling in biology or evolution, and hasn't done a single experiment or research project about evolution. Just wanted to make sure because it sounds like he has no idea about anatomy whatsoever. The heart evolved long before the longs, and the very first organisms had neither. It's not like one day we had a single celled organism and then the next we suddenly have a a creature with lungs and heart that breathes oxygen and has B- blood type. All of that guy's "20 questions" are very easily answered, and pretty much prove he doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about. Funny website, although you have to be REALLY gullible to believe any of that horse dung.edit on 17-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by radkrish
Not many agree with this. We still don't know how it all evolved without any direction or guidance.
Questions can never be wrong. They are questions and they can be answered. I'm saying that his questions clearly demonstrate his lack of knowledge on the subject. If they are merely questions, that he's asking because of genuine interest in the subject, why is his website called evillusion.com?
And these are genuine questions that he asked which does not need one to be an evolutionary biologist. He mentioned in his website that simply questioning his credentials does not mean his questions are all wrong.
Time this and Time that- we get complex organisms?! Why and how does Time and Nature have to assume and create something when it itself is not self-conscious?
Originally posted by edmc^2
1) Which came first - the rock layers or the organic remains (i.e.humanoid and animal remains - like bones)?
I'm sure you'll agree with me the rock layers since the earth is around 4 byo (depending of course on recycle times and the amount of radioactive isotopes in them).
Originally posted by whereislogic
Originally posted by edmc^2
1) Which came first - the rock layers or the organic remains (i.e.humanoid and animal remains - like bones)?
I'm sure you'll agree with me the rock layers since the earth is around 4 byo (depending of course on recycle times and the amount of radioactive isotopes in them).
I read this some time ago and now that I've made an account I have a chance to ask...
Are you trying to point out here that the minerals that replace the bones during the fossilization process are already much older than the bones? Therefore when the fossil (the minerals/rock) is dated you get a much older date (or younger is also possible if the minerals are relatively newly formed) than if you had been able to date the bones? In other words the fossilization process does not FORM new minerals but takes/absorbs already existing minerals from the surrounding rock so dating those minerals is useless in determining the date of something that isn't there anymore (cause the organic parts have been broken down and moved elsewhere, you'll need to find them first or anything left of the real specimen to get a real date, anything else is, considering the movement of rock layers, pure speculation).edit on 20-7-2012 by whereislogic because: forgot reason for ressurrecting a dead topic
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Here we go again, the evolutionists trying to claim the high ground from the get-go.
No, evolution is NOT science, that's a blatant lie - evolution is a scientific paradigm. Creationism if it involves research using the scientific method, is also a scientific paradigm. To claim otherwise is dishonest and delusional. We need to discuss the philosophy of science instead of bashing each other over the head with evidence which the other side will dismiss anyway.
Originally posted by Barcs
Evolution is a Scientific Theory.
Originally posted by whereislogic
Originally posted by edmc^2
1) Which came first - the rock layers or the organic remains (i.e.humanoid and animal remains - like bones)?
I'm sure you'll agree with me the rock layers since the earth is around 4 byo (depending of course on recycle times and the amount of radioactive isotopes in them).
I read this some time ago and now that I've made an account I have a chance to ask...
Are you trying to point out here that the minerals that replace the bones during the fossilization process are already much older than the bones? Therefore when the fossil (the minerals/rock) is dated you get a much older date (or younger is also possible if the minerals are relatively newly formed) than if you had been able to date the bones? In other words the fossilization process does not FORM new minerals but takes/absorbs already existing minerals from the surrounding rock so dating those minerals is useless in determining the date of something that isn't there anymore (cause the organic parts have been broken down and moved elsewhere, you'll need to find them first or anything left of the real specimen to get a real date, anything else is, considering the movement of rock layers, pure speculation).edit on 20-7-2012 by whereislogic because: forgot reason for ressurrecting a dead topic
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
reply to post by Barcs
If we don't discuss things like the philosophy of science, rules of evidence, and [oh yeah, that one] rules of debate, the two sides will never be on the same page and able to discuss the subject in an objective, fair debate with due consideration for the other side's position.
Your bashing approach seems to be an ingrained habit. I have seen a number of evolution/creation debates, some of them live, and these professionals adhered to the rules of debate, and were polite to each other. In the case of the amateur self-appointed gatekeepers on these thread, guys, I am just embarrassed by you.
I can only assume that the bashing of every idea, and silence on every telling point, is just a ploy to stay on top of the debate. A real debater would call you on it.
You say "theory."
I say "paradigm."
BFD - anyway, you missed my point, as usual.
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 edmc^2
Evolutionists liked this idea because it seems to support their premise but of course we know that it DOES NOT.
Uranium-Lead dating provides a good example of this. Zircon (zirconium silicate (ZrSiO4) is a common mineral in igneous rocks such as granite. When magma cools and crystallizes, zircon crystals formed will often contain trace amounts of uranium in place of zirconium. Lead, however, will be strongly rejected by the crystallizing zircon, as has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments.
As uranium decays over millions of years, it eventually turns into lead. Uranium-238 decays to lead-206 with a half-life of 4.47 billion years, and uranium-235 decays to lead-207 with a half-life of 704 million years. Measuring the proportion of lead to uranium thus provides a very accurate date when the rock solidified. Since there are two uranium isotopes and two lead isotopes with two different half lives, this method of dating also checks itself, providing two calculable ages for each sample.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by edmc^2
Evolutionists liked this idea because it seems to support their premise but of course we know that it DOES NOT.
Radiometric dating - How does it work?.
Uranium-Lead dating provides a good example of this. Zircon (zirconium silicate (ZrSiO4) is a common mineral in igneous rocks such as granite. When magma cools and crystallizes, zircon crystals formed will often contain trace amounts of uranium in place of zirconium. Lead, however, will be strongly rejected by the crystallizing zircon, as has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments.
As uranium decays over millions of years, it eventually turns into lead. Uranium-238 decays to lead-206 with a half-life of 4.47 billion years, and uranium-235 decays to lead-207 with a half-life of 704 million years. Measuring the proportion of lead to uranium thus provides a very accurate date when the rock solidified. Since there are two uranium isotopes and two lead isotopes with two different half lives, this method of dating also checks itself, providing two calculable ages for each sample.
What you're, however, proposing is that the rock solidifies and then much later engulfs animal remains? Really? How exactly would that work? There's a beach in Portugal where you can see dinosaur bone remains inside gigantic stones. Are you saying that there's a way that these bones made it inside the stones millions of years after they solidified? You should go there someday to see with your own eyes. I don't really see the point of this line of argument anyway. Clearly you're not arguing for young Earth since you acknowledge that at least the rocks themselves are millions to billions of years old. Also, quite the coincidence that e.g. rocks from the Pompei ruins don't date to millions of years, huh?edit on 23-7-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by TheJackelantern
You should try actually studying fossilization before making a comment on what you want to believe is possible and isn't possible.