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 Tony4211
reply to post by Noey777
How did he date the footprint?
Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Both creationists and evolutionist use the same method of persuasion, trusting in THEIR belief , that their's is not only the better way but the correct way of thinking. Should we put our trust in God or man, that is a choice we all have to make on our own. There are unanswered questions on both sides. What we believe as indivduals is our own truth by choice.
Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by Prezbo369
...................evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.
Evolution is not just physical, it's mental and a way of life ie.: adaptation. to survive.
Man was either born knowing how to adapt or was taught .
Originally posted by Prezbo369
...................evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, abiogenesis attempts to explain this.
Dinosaurs were not lizards.................why is it that folk who do not have even the most basic education and understanding of science, attempt to educate others?
Originally posted by sceptredisle
Evolution as the cause of life is an inherently inductive proof.
Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by CaptChaos
Evolution is complete bunk. It makes no sense.
Quite the opposite, especially given the whole of modern biology makes no sense except in light of evolution. But let's see what you have to try and make your case...
Even Darwin himself recanted his THEORIES in the end.
Actually, that's a complete fabrication. Even creationist websites recognize that this is a lie. Strike one.
And remember, it is just a THEORY, and a very weak one at that.
Ah, the "just a theory" chestnut. You need a better understanding of what constitutes a scientific theory:
From the American Academy for the Advancement of Science:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
From the US National Academy of Sciences:
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.
So not only is evolution not "just a theory", but it's one of the most well-supported scientific theories. Strike two.
Those who are stating there is EVIDENCE to support evolution: where is this evidence? The fossil record in no way supports evolution. Not only is there a "missing link" from apes to man, there is an equally missing link for every species. We have found plenty of bones of wooly mammoths, for example. Explain to me how they "evolved" into a smaller and weaker version, the elephant. Where are some bones of the in between stages? They do not exist.
Apparently, one day a wooly mammoth gave birth to an undersized and under-furred baby, then keeled over and died. This baby then gave birth to more exactly like itself, nothing like their grandmother. Explain that one to me?
The fossil record contradicts evolution in every way. There are no in between stages of anything.
So this boils down to "there are no transitional forms". You're probably right. There can't be any fossils of transitional forms. Nope, not one.
Strike three. Sorry, but if you can't be bothered to actually research your claims to make sure that you're not spouting things that are demonstrably incorrect, why should I? Maybe you should go back and fact check your post and at least try and find some links that support your claims.
Originally posted by ChesterJohn
Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by Noey777
How did he date the footprint?
You know the same ol circle jerk reasoning they always use
A. We dated it by the rock it was found in.
Q. How did you date the rock?
A. By the footprint found in it.
Q. How did you date the footprint again?