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.
and yet it has no, none, nada evidence to back it up
Maybe, my mistake, this is the Darwinists club? or what? I am confused by your rather combative responses. Or is that just the norm here--- If so, I am not very good at combat---
it is simple and yet very deep and factual and science
This is merely ego-pushing not science. Science proves. Science Knows. Science tests, retests, reproves, verifies, and comes at it again from as many perspectives as possible to verify its veracity. Yet they cannot explain the fact of, or the reason for an infinite, fine, shimmering energetic pulse of liveliness in all of time-space-matter-energy. I would assert that most of them do not even know about that.
Darwinism has never done this reproving, testing, etc. – Evolution cannot even do this even if they desired to which they do not. The ruling elite in evolutionary biology wish to maintain their esteemed positions of influence, money, authority."
You can get it at Amazon- It really quite a brilliant study on how Darwinism became such an accepted theory and yet it has no, none, nada evidence to back it up
One thing for sure, the Darwinists never ask "so where did the first 'cell' that divides come from
what is it that was here to 'create' the first thing that mutated--or what made the planet with the water for the first cell thing to even exist? or he even takes it to DNA and how DNA was not known about during Darwin's time.
He also mentions that atheists say maybe it all came from another planet
but they do not ask 'yes, so where did that other planet come from"
anyway, he really takes apart the Darwinists in such a very brilliantly factual intellectual way
i take it you are both "Darwinians" ? So, I guess it felt like huge 'slam'--- but his book is a huge slam on Darwin and he states his proofs really really well. You know Darwin is a "theory" not a proven at all---not even close.
Maybe, my mistake, this is the Darwinists club? or what? I am confused by your rather combative responses. Or is that just the norm here--- If so, I am not very good at combat--- so I can delete perhaps? Let me know if you'd rather I delete my thread--- or suggest where else I might post it---I was just very excited about this book--I've not read anything quite like it, it is simple and yet very deep and factual and science and includes the Intelligent Design and quantum stuff---really a good book --
Originally posted by Sweetmystery
oh, I see I got some more responses!
Someone asks about this 'vibration' stuff:
Never mind---not worth the effort to discuss with ---
Originally posted by CodyOutlaw
I'm not a scientist, so can someone explain to me if Darwin ever managed to explain those flowering plants that plagued him to the point where he called them "abominations."
Originally posted by Barcs
I'm not a creationist, but can someone explain to me why people only talk about Darwin in 1850, while ignoring everything about the field of science since?