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 utellem
Okay, listen up. Of course there is God. Where do you think the singularity came from?
However, he created men as men, and did not cause us to evolve from any other species, which is why there is no "missing link".
You can believe the recount of creation that is told in the Bible. It's all good.
austrolopithicines?
Originally posted by junglejake
The point being made here is that there are major holes in the evolutionary theory, holes that proponents choose (generally) to turn a blind eye to. There are many things supporting evolution, but as Darwin said, "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."
...Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. Archeopteryx, the closest form to this, the theoretical dino-bird, and there is a strong case argueing that it is not a transitional form.
Originally posted by Methuselah
Lucy isnt a hoax? when her knee was found in a different layer of strata?
Bull @#$%
The claim is not only false, it is clearly shown to be false in Johanson's published writings about "Lucy" (e.g., Johanson and Edey 1981, ch. 7-8) and it has been pointed out repeatedly to its proponents that it is false. Despite this, none of the major proponents of the claim has publicly retracted it. One major proponent has privately agreed that it is false, and a few creationists have agreed to stop repeating it. One minor proponent made a public retraction.
In November 1973, during my first major expedition to Hadar, I found a perfectly preserved knee joint (minus the kneecap) at a locality numbered A.L. 128/129. All detailed anatomical analyses and biomechanical considerations of this joint indicate that the hominid possessing it, Australopithecus afarensis, was fully capable of upright bipedal posture and gait.
In 1974, "Lucy" was found in locality A.L. 288, situated some 2-1/2 km northeast of the knee joint locality. "Lucy" preserves a proximal tibia, as well as enough of distal femur, to indicate that the anatomy of this skeleton in the knee joint region was identical to that of the 1973 discovery. Hence, "Lucy" was also capable of fully upright bipedal posture and gait, as her hip and ankle joints also indicate. Stratigraphically, these two discoveries are separated by nearly 70 meters.
Mr. Brown is thoroughly incorrect in saying that "Lucy"'s femur was found 2-3 km away from the rest of the skeleton. As you can see, these are two very different discoveries; the 1973 knee joint in the lower part of the stratigraphic section, and "Lucy"'s skeleton some 70 m above it.
Originally posted by silQ
here we go again.....another pathetic religion junkie that's trying to convert us all into believing a cult that goes by lies. there are definitely a lot more flaws in creationism than evolution. evolution is still a THEORY as in it's still stubject to change. it's not rock solid until it's called the evolutionary PRINCIPLE. whereas the bible claims that the idea of creationism is rock solid. pfft....we obviously have the common sense (well...most of us anyway) to know that something as big as life on earth can't be created in just 7 days. also, animals are evolving right now. in australia, this monkey just evolved a special omnivorous intestine whereas ten years ago, it had a herbivore's intestine. there are obviously a lot more evidence and common sense supporting evolution than creationism. by the way...considering the fact that the church tried to suppress lots of scientific discoveries, such as the sun being the center and not the earth which the church finally accepted in the early 20th century, the church is obviously a control freak bent on dominating the world. who ever follows the church doesn't deserve to have a voice here. what ever happened to "deny ignorance?" so go kiss a bible, ya lying freak.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Originally posted by utellem
Okay, listen up. Of course there is God. Where do you think the singularity came from?
first law of thermodynamics. the matter and energy ALWAYS EXISTED.
Originally posted by Octocat
reply to post by Methuselah
Not even Behe, the biggest proponent of Irreducible Complexity, argues that the flagellum is impossible. He admits in his book "Darwin's Black Box" that such a thing is possible via an indirect route.
What has biochemistry found that must be explained? Machines--literally, machines made of molecules. Let's look at just one example. The flagellum is an outboard motor that many bacteria use to swim. It consists of a rotary propeller, motor, and stationary framework. Yet this short description can't do justice to the machine's full complexity. Writing of the flagellum in Cell,2 Lucy Shapiro of Stanford University marvels, "To carry out the feat of coordinating the ordered expression of about 50 genes, delivering the protein products of these genes to the construction site, and moving the correct parts to the upper floors while adhering to the design specification with a high degree of accuracy, the cell requires impressive organizational skills." Without any one of a number of parts, the flagellum does not merely work less efficiently; it does not work at all. Like a mousetrap it is irreducibly complex and therefore cannot have arisen gradually.
The rotary nature of the flagellum has been recognized for about 25 years. During that time not a single paper has been published in the biochemical literature even attempting to show how such a machine might have developed by natural selection. Darwin's theory is completely barren when it comes to explaining the origin of the flagellum or any other complex biochemical system.
The sterility of Darwinism indicates that it is the wrong framework for understanding the basis of life. As I argue in my book, an alternative hypothesis is both natural and obvious: systems such as the flagellum were intentionally designed by an intelligent agent. Just as in the everyday world we immediately conclude design when we see a complex, interactive system such as a mousetrap, there is no reason to withhold the same conclusion from interactive molecular systems. This conclusion may have theological implications that make some people uncomfortable; nonetheless it is the job of science to follow the data wherever they lead, no matter how disturbing.
Q. You say, Even if a system is irreducibly complex and thus could not have been produced directly, however, one cannot definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And by indirect, you mean evolution from a pre-cursor with a different function than the system being studied?
A. Yes, different function, perhaps different number of parts, and so on.