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 Lord Jules
reply to [url= by Prezbo369[/url]
From the perspective of God, creation is perfect, because God does not have a corruptible body to get pimples and in grown hairs. Now if pimples cause death then it would be an imperfect world.
Originally posted by Lord Jules
reply to post by Noncompatible
I never said I could comprehend all of the unverse but I do know the light in the mind is the best proof of God. All I really know is that my soul is the same substance as the origin and creator, and consequently also the same nature as the end/death/transcendence. I am eternal, that is my true nature, not this body which changes everyday.
The universe can be comprehended one thought at a time, moment to moment, through human reasoning. Experiencing the universe all at once is the same as experiencing God since He is the All.edit on 6-6-2012 by Lord Jules because: (no reason given)
You call me arrogant because you have never experienced the light of meditation. Have you ever meditated? Have you ever had a transcendenal experience? I don't assume to know everything about plumbing but if I have experience and knowledge than that is my power, arogance is irrelevant.edit on 6-6-2012 by Lord Jules because: (no reason given)
Indeed Evolutionary theory has changed over time. It has evolved. Along with all scientific study.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
Everything in that image you posted is factually incorrect
Originally posted by edmc^2
Fossil Records does not support it unless you bend it to conform to the theory.
What does the fact that there are no 100 million year old fossils of contemporary animals (with a few exceptions) imply? What does the fact that there is a clear progressions towards contemporary animals in the fossil record imply?
Don't bother mentioning made up problems in dating of fossils. So, what gives?
What is bend and how? If there was no evolution, then how come there are no 100 million year old fossils of humans, bears, lions, and such? If there was no evolution, then how come the fossil record shows a clear progression towards contemporary species?
Don't bother mentioning made up problems in dating of fossils.
Originally posted by edmc^2
What do you mean by made up problem?
Originally posted by edmc^2
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
Everything in that image you posted is factually incorrect
I'm glad you got the point - evolution is unreality if I may add.
Fossil Records does not support it unless you bend it to conform to the theory.
All changes we see in nature are just part of natural cycle of life unless of course you interpret them as Darwinian evolution. Of course you wouldn't do that because the current theory - says a change in the alleles over time.
Cause there's no such thing as transitional forms!!
Unless of course you want to bend the truth to conform it to the theory - and that's the truth.
Originally posted by Daemonicon
To throw a slow ball for the deniers.
Please explain, if biological evolutionary theory is incorrect, how would you explain something like nylonase ?
Originally posted by Daemonicon
reply to post by MrXYZ
The end bit with Carl Sagan almost made me piss my pants. Pretty sure my coworkers think I'm insane now.
Thanks for that. hahaha
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by edmc^2
What do you mean by made up problem?
A problem that only exists in the minds of creationists, and has been addressed numerous times in the past. Now back to your answers..
...only exists in the minds of creationists
“The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historical and the prehistorical epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000 years. . . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately.” - Science, “Radiocarbon Dating,” by W. F. Libby, March 3, 1961, p. 624.
What does the fact that there are no 100 million year old fossils of contemporary animals (with a few exceptions) imply?
“were so virtually indistinguishable from those of today that even the most skeptical had to concede that they were humans,” -- book Lucy, p. 29.
“
...“dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.”
...
Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.” - Popular Science, “How Old Is It?” by Robert Gannon, November 1979, p. 81
“Only six or seven thousand years ago . . . civilization emerged, enabling us to build up a human world.” -- The Fate of the Earth, by Jonathan Schell, 1982, p. 181.
What does the fact that there is a clear progressions towards contemporary animals in the fossil record imply?
So c14 dating is accurate around it's half-life - great for carbon life-forms.
Originally posted by Daemonicon
To throw a slow ball for the deniers.
Please explain, if biological evolutionary theory is incorrect, how would you explain something like nylonase ?
Originally posted by edmc^2
Originally posted by Daemonicon
To throw a slow ball for the deniers.
Please explain, if biological evolutionary theory is incorrect, how would you explain something like nylonase ?
So what about nylonase?
Do you know that some bacterias are used to liberate microscopic bits of gold locked up in ores with stubborn impurities?
Or what about this one:
Do you know that companies have devised methods for using microbes to clean up toxic chemical and industrial wastes? One such system was tested on the oil spill off the coast of Alaska. Amazing!
In fact some Japanese companies have even used microbes to manufacture a component for a pair of luxury headphones. I want one of that!!
So not all bacterias are harmful - then again may be they are not.
The wonder of Creation!!
Originally posted by edmc^2
Originally posted by Daemonicon
To throw a slow ball for the deniers.
Please explain, if biological evolutionary theory is incorrect, how would you explain something like nylonase ?
So what about nylonase?
Do you know that some bacterias are used to liberate microscopic bits of gold locked up in ores with stubborn impurities?
Or what about this one:
Do you know that companies have devised methods for using microbes to clean up toxic chemical and industrial wastes? One such system was tested on the oil spill off the coast of Alaska. Amazing!
In fact some Japanese companies have even used microbes to manufacture a component for a pair of luxury headphones. I want one of that!!
So not all bacterias are harmful - then again may be they are not.
The wonder of Creation!!
Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by edmc^2
So much stuff about C14 dating, although it's not really relevant in any way when it comes to dating of fossils, which are millions of years old. Try again. Also, you failed to answer all the questions I posed. Try that again too. Or you can't?
Originally posted by edmc^2
Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by edmc^2
So much stuff about C14 dating, although it's not really relevant in any way when it comes to dating of fossils, which are millions of years old. Try again. Also, you failed to answer all the questions I posed. Try that again too. Or you can't?
hahahaha...so you can't refute the problems inherent to carbon dating.
The fact that the tool is so inaccurate for dating "fossils" it leads one to wonder if evolutionists are that so gullible.
Looki here - a 150 million fossil!! proof of evolution. Not!!