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.
this post is a refutation of gentries work. This is a guy explaing why gentry is wrong.
It is his interpretations and applications of his results that err. As just one example of the problems with his interpretation, in some places polonium halos occur in granite that underlies some fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks and is older than the sedimentary rocks, but in other places polonium halos are found in granites that penetrate sedimentary rocks and are younger than the fossil-bearing sediments, impossible on Gentry's view.
reply to post by Xtrozero
The suggestion that there are infinite universes may be more difficult to support than intelligent design. It is theoretical, like the oort cloud, and is used to explain away impossibilities. Infinite universes and oort clouds are pure conjecture, and show no evidence. None have been found. They exist to support the secular belief that there is no god.
Can I ask simply, What are the most accepted main arguments from both spectrums? Arguments for evolution and arguments for creation? I have read quite a bit and it seems on both sides things are almost always loaded one way or another but what really is the fundamentally different view points? I do understand that there is more to it then just those two sides but as a summary, what are the most accepted arguments from either side from solid sources if anyone could provide them that would be great.
What ifs are worth 0%.
Show me an alternate universe and we'll talk about it's properties.
It takes a lot longer for a species to emerge than to become extinct. Extintion does open up a niche though, giving existing species a chance to flourish (and not necessarily evolving to do so).
Then why is it that we do not see emergence of new species in our day and age but observe extinctions?
No. Species don't get weaker. They get replaced for a variety of reasons; changing environment, the rise or "invasion" of better competitors, the extinction of their symbiotes. The thing is, speciation would tend to occur in relatively small populations. Populations in which a small mutation could make a large difference in their likelihood to reproduce.
Or is it that copies start to get weaker over time in regards to millions of years of reproduction on top of change in the environment?