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 centrifugal
It is a popular belief among creationists, and certainly receives the most attention when evolution is involved. But it does not define creationism.
Originally posted by Warrior of Light
reply to post by Yoda411
I just wanted to re-post this question posed to you by an anonymous user, as I too am interested to read what you and others have to say in response. (I didn't see a reply, so I figure you have anonymous posts blocked, or just didn't see it)
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.
wait what? natural process that has is and will be observered to have is and will alter genetics in living organisms is fantasy
Originally posted by freakyty
God created monkeys. The annunaki took those monkeys, spliced their own genes in, and created man as slaves. I used to believe in evolution, but it is pure fantasy.
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.
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
is there any evidence of a plant/animal hybrid?
Originally posted by John Matrix
The beginning of our planet: Your explanation is pure fantasy. It is not based on empirical scientific methods. No one observed any of this.
wow havnt i explained exactly why this metaphor is wrong twice already? and how if theose electrons were subject to natural selection the image would quickly appear?
Think about a television set that is turned on but not receiving a transmission. You have random static referred to as snow. It's a black and white picture of snow created by the electron gun in the television firing random electrons. The likelihood of evolution is the same as the likelihood that the electron gun is going to randomly, over millions of years, produce a color picture of my naked wife.
except theres no logic to show its designed
I remain unconvinced. It is quite logical to associate design in the universe to an intelligent designer.
yes wont get any crusades witch burning or children in africa today bieng killed and tortured ...... o wait thats what christianity as a religeon did and is still doing today......
Teach people that they are a product of chance and evolved from slime, then on to animals, and they will act like animals.
what that countries with the highest athiest count highest science education are the ones with the lowest crime rates? the best education systems? best health systems?
They daily news programs are proof of that. That's something that can be observed!!
yes becasue magic is so logical isnt it ...?
No offence intended, but I do find this hypothesis to be an assault on logic and reason.
actually that would be a start, after all atheists are just those looking for proof before they jump in feet first ... so maybe he should
I am convinced that the creator himself could not come down to earth and convince you otherwise. So, I leave you with my two sense.
actually science is quite often self supporting, and when a high capital earner like the bio industries make lots of money they share some of it for the less able to self fund fields of science
Evolution scientists get all the gov. funding. Creation scientists don't. It's hard to speak the truth when you know your funding depends on your promulgating lies.
I remain unconvinced. It is quite logical to associate design in the universe to an intelligent designer. ~~~~ Teach people that they are a product of chance and evolved from slime, then on to animals, and they will act like animals.
Latest Evidence: Sahelanthropus tchadensis and
The Missing Link That Never Was
Originally posted by John Matrix
Latest Evidence: Sahelanthropus tchadensis and
The Missing Link That Never Was
I encourage everyone not to close the door of your mind and go through this website:
www.darwinismrefuted.com...
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...
The results not only confirm that TM 266-01-60-1 is a hominid but also reveal a unique mosaic of characters. The TM 266-01-60-1 reconstruction shares many primitive features with chimpanzees but overall is most similar to Australopithecus,
Originally posted by John Matrix
Evolution is a "blind faith" based system for explaining life on earth from it's origin to this present day. The mathematical probability for one living cell to have come into existence (over any period of time) as a result of non living particles coming together is utterly absurd....A single human cell is more complex than the space shuttle.....which makes evolution even more absurd.
Evolution is a conspiracy and a fraud. But the spoon fed masses are too close minded and far too lazy to do their own research so they blindly put their faith in it and in the scientists that keep the conspiracy alive in order to collect their gov. funding.