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.
It's not easy to understand I will say that.
These genomes always move from less complex (single cell) to more complex (humans).
No mutation observed by any scientist in the genome of a species has ever resulted in "more complex" genetics. 100% of all observed mutations in genetic code results in "less complex" traits the genome becomes retarded (not in the deragitory way but literal) into a being with little to no chance of survival without aid from other life forms. Since mutation can be prooven to only lead to less complex genomes, the theory of Evolution cannot be factual.
This is a scientific law, not a theory, this law states that all life must come from life; life cannot be originated from non-life. Now in the Theory of Evolution step one occurs in a cease pool billions of years ago on a colling Earth's surface, where amino acid (no life of themselves) "magically" came together to create a single cell organism which claims to be the ancestor of us all. Again this jump is neccisary in order to believe in Evolution and this assumption disregards sciences on prooven Law of Biogenesis.
Carbon dating requires the exact same ratio of carbon in the atmosphere, if this ratio is not the same in the distant past when this creature died, then the date you recieve from carbon dating is inaccurate. The very inventor of this technology said it should never be used to factually date an object because carbon levels in the atmosphere changes constantly.
A fossil is not made slowly over time. There are many bones buried in human crypts, tombs, graves around the world where the bones have disinegrated into dust, same with cattle bones in Texas etc. Bone turns to dust over time without something substancial effecting it. Bones do not turn into fossils over time. The fossilization of calcium occurs under pressure, massive amounts of pressure (like diamond is created do to massive amounts of pressure on coal). Something MAJOR had to occur when these things died for the nessisary pressures to exist to fossilize the calcium found in the bones.
Since carbon dating is not accurate, through out whatyou think the timeline of Earth's history is and look at what you actually see.
Deep layer full of dinosaur fossils, and larger then life insects and other such fossils. Then a layer of sediment indicating a lack of life for a time. Then a large area full of fossils of mamoths, sabertooth tigers, neanderthals and gaint sloths. Then a layer of sediment indicating something major happened. Then you have our current layer with regular bones decompossing at the normal rate over time.
This is why chirstains believe th Earth is only 6000 years old, when in reality the Earth is potentially billions of years old, but mankind has only dwelt on it for 6000 years. it has only been 6000 years since God re-created the Earth for mankind to live, mankind could not have lived long in the world ruled by Lucifer with giant carnivours and massive insects etc.
Neandrathal man and all saber tooth, mammoth, sloth etc. are fossils that were created during the flood of Noah, all that water would cause ample pressuer enough to fossilize the calcium of those beings. All neandrathal fossils are pre-flood mankind who died in Noah's flood.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by RebelRouser
reply to post by colin42
ok.. if i should have to prove God exists, then please, prove to me why he doesn't.edit on 22-11-2011 by RebelRouser because: (no reason given)
Argument from ignorance
You're not really doing a good job though considering nothing you posted disproves evolution
I guess you believe we made trouser pockets so we could hide our useless hands so no one would see we dont belong.
Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by colin42
OK let me rephrase- math supports the young earth theory in terms of reproduction leading to a world population of 7 billion present day.
Originally posted by RebelRouser
enlighten me on the dna changes that you would look for in a hippo that would compare it to a whale? why? anybody who understands their own theory should be able to have this answered quick.
Almost overnight, the find threatened to change our understanding of human evolution.
It would mean contemplating the possibility that not all the answers to human evolution lie in Africa, and that our development was more complex than previously thought.
Critics, however, dismissed the hobbit's discovery as nothing extraordinary. They continue to argue that the hobbit, just 3 feet tall with a brain the size of a baby's, was nothing more than a deformed human. Its strange appearance, they say, could be blamed on a range of genetic disorders that cause the body and brain to shrink.
The feud has played out in top scientific journals. But a growing consensus has emerged among experts on human origin that this is indeed a separate and primitive species that lived in relatively modern times - 17,000 to 100,000 years ago. The November issue of the highly respected Journal of Human Evolution was dedicated to the Flores findings and included a dozen studies supporting the hobbit as a new species.
There is massive evidence of a global flood if you understand what caused the flood, and where the water in the oceans was at the time of it. This is also the very reason why any pre-flood radiocarbon dating is way off. But this is not what the OP wanted and this discussion is not meant for these forums.
Here it is stated that complex (that is where the word came from) biochemisty that makes up life (currently) came from simpler (less complex) chemical reactions. Also here it states evolution says that life may have (asking you to make the assmption) originated by a selfreplicating molecule such as RNA (made up of lifeless amino acids, just as I explained) and the assemble of simple cells (simple to more complex).
Again it is fine that you do not agree, but please there is no need to be cruel in your responses, I have a Masters degree in science and am not some uneducated bible thumper who doesn't do his research before posting. I fully understand the current theory of Evolution even if I use language that you do not associate with the theory.
Originally posted by RebelRouser
reply to post by MrXYZ
100,573,245- check it. prove me wrong
the reason why evolutionists get away with what they can^ is just like thisedit on 23-11-2011 by RebelRouser because: (no reason given)
reply to post by RebelRouser
my point is. man has always been man. just like very other species remains the same with small changes over time. man was made to be man.. and everything else the (relatively) the same if you dont start going off on the diversity tangent. yes ik there are small changes. but its still the same. thats what you guys dont grasp about evolution..
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by RebelRouser
reply to post by MrXYZ
100,573,245- check it. prove me wrong
the reason why evolutionists get away with what they can^ is just like thisedit on 23-11-2011 by RebelRouser because: (no reason given)
Present evidence that this number is correct. If you can't, your answer simply isn't scientific.
Thanks for proving my point