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 doctorvannostren
As crazy as the bible may seem, I think evolution sounds much more far fetched. Its been proven, animals do adapt and over several years this may result in a slight change, but animals do not just shape shift. Say you have a lighter in your hand, and this lighter must start opening bottles to survive. Starting fire has gotten too difficult. But it must do one or the other to live. There will have to be a point in time when it can either do both at the same time, or suddenly change overnight. There was never a time when a bat's front legs were strong enough to run from predators or chase down food and also fly. There are several examples of this nature.
Originally posted by andrewh7
Originally posted by doctorvannostren
As crazy as the bible may seem, I think evolution sounds much more far fetched. Its been proven, animals do adapt and over several years this may result in a slight change, but animals do not just shape shift. Say you have a lighter in your hand, and this lighter must start opening bottles to survive. Starting fire has gotten too difficult. But it must do one or the other to live. There will have to be a point in time when it can either do both at the same time, or suddenly change overnight. There was never a time when a bat's front legs were strong enough to run from predators or chase down food and also fly. There are several examples of this nature.
I lied - one last time. That is not what evolution is - please stop watching video made by Kirk Cameron. Evolution does not involve any animal changing in any way whatsoever during the course of its life. There is no shapeshifting.
If an animal is born with a slight advantage, say height, and this advantage makes him more successful than his counterparts with regard to survival and reproduction, then that trait will be pass on to the next generation. If an animal is born with a disadvantage, then that animal is less likely to reproduce and pass on its disfavorable genes.
Please research what Evolution is before making such comments that are completely wrong.
A precursor to a bat, which is a mammal, most likely did have stronger legs. However, the importance of legs diminished with the development of flight as a primary means of locomotion.
Once again - there are zero changes during a single animal's life span. Rather it is genes that they are born with that give them the advantage. We are talking about changes in the species over hundreds of thousands of years. Not a single animal suddenly growing wings so it could fly.
With regard to your rant about lighters, it made absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. So, no comment on that one.
[edit on 5-10-2009 by andrewh7]
Originally posted by John Matrix
In support of the OP of this thread I present the following and encourage everyone to read the entire article:
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission, The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959.
Source: www.chick.com...
The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand, a much more famous French biologist (he was a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy). The precise quotation is as follows: "Transformism is a fairy tale for adults." (Age Nouveau, [a French periodical] February 1959, p. 12). But Rostand has also written that "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions - ED.] the fact of evolution." (L'Evolution des Especes [i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190). Jean Rostand was ... an atheist
Originally posted by doctorvannostren
Seriously? So for THOUSANDS of years this bat-rat rodent thing could fly and walk? Yeah it makes more sense when you stretch the process out over hundreds of generations. Come on guy youre missing the point! Youre suggesting the legs disappeared following the appearance of wings! So it at one point had SIX legs!? HELLO MCFLY!
from Wikipedia article "Flying and Gliding Animals"
Flying squirrels are known to glide up to 200 m, but have measured glide ratio of about 2. Flying fish have been observed to glide for hundreds of metres on the drafts on the edge of waves with only their initial leap from the water to provide height, but maybe obtaining additional lift from wave motion.
...
Paradise tree snakes, Chinese gliding frogs, and gliding ants have all been observed as having considerable capacity to turn in the air. Many other gliding animals may also be able to turn, but which is the most maneuverable is difficult to assess.
Youre over analyzing and I fear your brain might be hurting. Which is probably why you failed to understand my somewhat simple analogy. There is a common theme among atheists, scientists, etc. and that common theme is frustration.
Originally posted by John Matrix
As I am sure most of know, abiogenesis is the idea that life can evolve from non life particles floating around in a chemical soup.
This was dealt with on another thread and the evolutionists got so beat up by the Mathematical evidence against the possibility of this ever happening through random natural processes that they abandoned the argument
and claimed: "Ya but that isn't evolution....that's abiogenesis.....that's completely different".
And they did the same with cosmology...which is a big ta-do about the evolution of the Universe, galaxies, stars, nebula, planets, etc.
Then they distanced themselves from micro-evolution....which we demonstrated was just another name for variations in species with no evidence to support speciation or transformation. In other words, micro-evolution, although observable to the extent that we have variations within species, does not prove macro-evolution which involves transformations or speciation.
So, There is no evidence for macro-evolution.....None, zilch, zero, nana.
If you think there is. Bring it on.
Genesis 1:28
"Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and master it,
and have dominion over the fish of the sea and the flyer of the heaven,
and every live creature that creeps on the earth."
Geniesis 2:20 KJV
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field;...
FoFossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly-living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.
Due to the combined effect of taphonomic processes and simple mathematical chance, fossilization tends to favor organisms with hard body parts, those that were widespread, and those that existed for a long time before going extinct. On the other hand, it is very unusual to find fossils of small, soft bodied, geographically restricted and geologically ephemeral organisms, because of their relative rarity and low likelihood of preservation.
Larger specimens (macrofossils) are more often observed, dug up and displayed, although microscopic remains (microfossils) are actually far more common in the fossil record.
Some casual observers have been perplexed by the rarity of transitional species within the fossil record. The conventional explanation for this rarity was given by Darwin, who stated that "the extreme imperfection of the geological record," combined with the short duration and narrow geographical range of transitional species, made it unlikely that many such fossils would be found. Simply put, the conditions under which fossilization takes place are quite rare; and it is highly unlikely that any given organism will leave behind a fossil. Eldredge and Gould developed their theory of punctuated equilibrium in part to explain the pattern of stasis and sudden appearance in the fossil record. Furthermore, in the strictest sense, nearly all fossils are "transitional," due to the improbability that any given fossil represents the absolute termination of an evolutionary path.
The rise of Idiot America, though, is essentially a war on expertise. It's not so much antimodernism or the distrust of the intellectual elites that Richard Hofstader teased out of the national DNA, although both of these things are part of it. The rise of Idiot America today reflects — for profit, mainly, but also and more cynically, for political advantage and in the pursuit of power — the breakdown of the consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people we should trust the least are the people who know the best what they're talking about. In the new media age, everybody is a historian, or a scientist, or a preacher, or a sage. And if everyone is an expert, then nobody is, and the worst thing you can be in a society where everybody is an expert is, well, an actual expert.
This is how Idiot America engages itself. It decides, en masse, with a million keystrokes and clicks of the remote control, that because there are two sides to every question, they both must be right, or at least not wrong. And the words of an obscure biologist carry no more weight on the subject of biology than do the thunderations of some turkeyneck preacher out of Christ's Own Parking Structure in DeLand, Florida. Less weight, in fact, because our scientist is an "expert" and therefore, an "elitist." Nobody buys his books. Nobody puts him on cable. He's brilliant, surely, but no different from the rest of us, poor fool.
Originally posted by andrewh7
Originally posted by John Matrix
It's not a common misperception. In fact, misperception is not a proper word....not found in the dictionary.
[edit on 5/10/09 by John Matrix]
Misperception is a word according to four different dictionary websites
www.merriam-webster.com...
Pronunciation: \ˌmis-pər-ˈsep-shən\
Function: noun
: a false perception
Now if you can't take the time to actually look up a word with 1 second Google search, why should any of us take you seriously with regard to any other opinion you might have?
Originally posted by rnaa
Originally posted by John Matrix
As I am sure most of know, abiogenesis is the idea that life can evolve from non life particles floating around in a chemical soup.
This was dealt with on another thread and the evolutionists got so beat up by the Mathematical evidence against the possibility of this ever happening through random natural processes that they abandoned the argument
This is not correct.
Your so-called mathematical 'evidence' depends on completely false assumptions. It boils down to this, if you buy one lottery ticket, the odds of you winning the big prize is vanishingly small. But nature doesn't buy one lottery ticket, it buys hundreds of quadrillions of lottery tickets, and that means that it will hit the jackpot many times over.
and claimed: "Ya but that isn't evolution....that's abiogenesis.....that's completely different".
That is correct. The Theory of Evolution is totally silent on abiogenesis. It is no good arguing about it one way or the other as a weakness in Evolution. Its sorta like saying the runner can't advance from first base to second base (in baseball) because there was never a kick-off.
And they did the same with cosmology...which is a big ta-do about the evolution of the Universe, galaxies, stars, nebula, planets, etc.
Not sure what you are talking about here. Two different uses of the word "evolution" doesn't necessarily relate the topics.
Then they distanced themselves from micro-evolution....which we demonstrated was just another name for variations in species with no evidence to support speciation or transformation. In other words, micro-evolution, although observable to the extent that we have variations within species, does not prove macro-evolution which involves transformations or speciation.
So, There is no evidence for macro-evolution.....None, zilch, zero, nana.
If you think there is. Bring it on.
No one has 'distanced' themselves from micro-evolution and you haven't demonstrated any such thing. You are simply fighting over definitions, and refusing to accept the scientific evidence.