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.
Originally posted by jimbo999
Originally posted by camaro68ss
reply to post by jimbo999
so your telling me a big bang magically apeard to creat all things? sounds alot like god to me.
Nope - I''m NOT telling you that. Nor did I say anything along those lines. Trying to put words into other peoples mouths is a desperate act my friend. Do you have any rational explanation for life on this planet that does not involve evolution then?
Originally posted by CaptChaos
The big bang theory is: first there was nothing. Then nothing exploded, and became something. This is so illogical it hurts. It is also just a way for "scientists" to have their cake and eat it, too, as in, "let there be light" basically was the big bang.
Evolution is complete bunk. It makes no sense.
Even Darwin himself recanted his THEORIES in the end.
And remember, it is just a THEORY, and a very weak one at that.
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.
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.
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.
What do you say about the evolution that we can observe and have been observing over the past few decades of the Italian Wall Lizard? I suppose that god is causing the gradual change in them as well? They are adapting, and therefore evolving to obtain the food they need.
Also, I enjoy the fact that the religious website has dubbed itself "superior-education."
Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by SuperiorEd
You did not answer my question, though. You seemed to talk in circles. A seed becomes a tree, like a child becomes an adult. There are observable changes that are taking place in the lizard as a result of adaptation, which is proven through evolution. Changes that are gradually converting it into a different creature than what it was before. Either you don't enjoy factual evidence of a contradicting claim, or you are ignoring it.
Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by cypruswolf
There is not one part of what he posted that could be inaccurate. He is stating a hypothetical scenario in which the Evolution Theory is flawed. How could that be inaccurate? Misleading? I don't think so.
He is asking for factual evidence in support of Creationism. Pretty upfront, if you ask me. Try to add to the thread and not clutter it with the Creationist pleasing, "Evolution is wrong" crap.edit on 21-9-2011 by Tony4211 because: add- in