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.
However, no matter how grand we make the story, future generations will look back at us as idiots.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
But making stuff up isn't LEARNING.
Originally posted by Tony4211
So why would you fall for this particular joke?
Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by IAMIAM
If one believes in evolution, prove you are more evolved by ceasing senseless debates without knowing the facts of one's own existence. No man knows all the facts. We do not know enough to even begin the debate of the beginnings of OUR existence.
I agree " No man knows all the facts", but also believe a great deal is understood.
The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed. There are mountains of evidence.
As more evidence accumulates, scientific findings become more and more certain.
In contrast creationism depends only on highly questionable and subjective ideas that DO NOT fit together into a coherent whole. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very, very highly motivated not to accept it. Scientists, on the other hand, welcomes disconfirming evidence.
This is why it's worth debating creationist so that others can decide for them selves what is fact and what is fiction.
Learning is memorizing # someone else made up.
I present a much greater challenge if you will entertain my arguments for a moment.
Originally posted by Tony4211
Absolutely wrong. Granted, you can learn by someone telling you something, but you can also do so by observing. And you can observe without external aid. For example, I can learn that the stove is hot by touching it. I don't need anyone to tell me. I observed it by burning myself.
If you were never taught about "hot" from others and you touched a "hot" stove, you would know it hurt.
I think that mathematically speaking, the population of the earth would be far greater than 7 billion if man has been here reproducing as long as the theory of evolution claims we have
Originally posted by Tony4211
What are your arguments against evolution?
Originally posted by Tony4211 Not philosophical arguments either. I want some evidence for creationism.
Originally posted by Tony4211 That is what you support, correct?
The doom of the creationist is believing that this contemplation is restricted to a priest class, just as the scientist believes it should be restricted to the university graduate.
Originally posted by Tony4211
There is no science in fables and their certainly is no faith in science. So I see nothing wrong with saying they should be separated. Mixing the two only causes confusion between reality and myth.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
Originally posted by Nosred
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
How did cystic fibrosis or any of the other diseases that kill children not disappear from our species? How would it survive if it kills the child before puberty? Did we inherit that from our pre-human ancestors? How is that a successfully adaptive trait?
Confirmed for not knowing what a recessive gene is.
www.nytimes.com...
What seems clear is that when Homo sapiens began displacing Neanderthals throughout Europe 40,000 years ago, they brought the cystic fibrosis mutation with them, and it was distributed more or less homogeneously across the subcontinent, said Dr. Luigi L. Cavalli-Sforza, a geneticist at Stanford University who has used molecular techniques to study the migrations of prehistoric peoples.
The timing fits just fine with Intervention Theory.
But you have ZERO proof for that intervention...you're just speculating.
But scientist have no explanation for it
Darwinian model
Originally posted by IAMIAM
Originally posted by Tony4211
Absolutely wrong. Granted, you can learn by someone telling you something, but you can also do so by observing. And you can observe without external aid. For example, I can learn that the stove is hot by touching it. I don't need anyone to tell me. I observed it by burning myself.
I am NOT wrong my friend, it is you who are in error.
If you were never taught about "hot" from others and you touched a "hot" stove, you would know it hurt.
You might explain the phenomenon any number of ways, but most likely a wail!
Then someone would explain to you that this phenomenon is already called "hot" by others.
This way you can more clearly explain the situation to others in the future.
However, the phenomenon could just as easily be called "cold" if you choose to. You will just be misunderstood by others who have accepted a different word.
What ever the label, the phenomenon remains as mysterious as ever.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
The phenomenon of something hot isn't "mysterious", we know why stuff is hot, down to the molecular level.
How did you come to this conclusion?
What do you mean based his work, they don't even talk about the same things. I have never found Sitchen or daniken talking about DNA.
OMG
If it takes you a century and a half to piece together an easy puzzle, your doing it wrong!