It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Yes, but that's not nearly fast enough to replace the energy/mass lost.
You misunderstood me.
I meant, if they guy adapted to poison,
it would not make him or his offspring a different species.
and viruses can adapt to drugs and immune systems, but they will remain viruses. you can call it mutation, but adaption is a better description of what is going on,
because it does not correlate to larger mutations to new species.
As for the Rock origins: Okay, well the theories change so much it's almost useless trying to keep up because atheist keep getting proven wrong and need to change their theories like a kid trying to get out of a bad lie.
So educate me, if we did not come from rocks, what was to origin of life from?
Start with the Miller-Urey experiment. And by that I mean actually read the work that they published and the work of other scientists that followed up on their results, not creationist websites that only seek to refute it. All you'll get from there is a lack of real understanding of the science involved.
Sure! Living snails dated at 27,000 years old. greatshroudofturinfaq.com...
We'll say they were 5 years old, and that's generous for snails.
5 / 27000 = .00018518% accurate.
But i forgot.... it's supposed to get more accurate when it's measures things billions of years old, even though that's what it measures everything at...
Originally posted by windword
Originally posted by Hydroman
Either that's a giant foot, or it's a small dinosaur...
Originally posted by bluemooone2
There is definitely some evidence for this.Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Maybe
Or some kind of Emu or Ostrich.
Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by CalledOUT
I guess you missed this at the bottom of the link you posted:
What this means in simpler terms is that the shells of the snails were formed from existing ancient material from which most of the carbon 14 had been depleted. It is an exception to the normal way carbon 14 is absorbed by living things. There is nothing wrong with carbon dating, per se. Riggs’ point was that what causes anomalies must be accounted for. To hold this example up as a reason to distrust carbon dating is completely bogus.
Originally posted by ripcontrol
cant wait Saturday you said...
Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by WhatAliens
Personally I think your judgement of those with different opinions and views speaks volumes about "intelligence".