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: Barcs
You said "no evolution at all", not "no major evolution".
originally posted by: Barcs
You claimed many creatures showed this but didn't give an example.
originally posted by: Barcs
Major evolution isn't even a term. Evolution always is minor and always occurs on the genetic level by definition.
originally posted by: Barcs
You are defining what is considered proof and I don't think you are qualified to determine that.
originally posted by: Barcs
Obviously a slight increase in height over thousands of years isn't considered a new species. New species aren't just born overnight. It takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years of those small changes to add up for complex creatures before they are considered a new species.
originally posted by: Barcs
You don't have have 1 species one day and another the next. And it's not just increased height. It's little things like fingernails instead of claws, opposable thumbs, less body hair, greater intellect, bipedalism, ability to use tools and plan ahead, etc etc that define humans from their ancestors just a few million years ago. You don't seem to understand that big changes are brought about by lots of little changes over longer time periods.
originally posted by: Barcs
The age of the earth was never an exact figure. It was always "at least xxxx years". Even today there is still a margin of error. As scientists learned more the number got bigger and more precise and haven't changed in something like 70 years. You are suggesting they just made up the figures for age of the earth to appease evolutionary theory and scientists are all involved in some mega conspiracy to suppress religion.
originally posted by: Barcs
So your vast research was all reading a single national geographic article and proclaiming it wrong? LMAO! Way to go into detail! I posted the evidence but you keep ignoring it. Can you PLEASE address the science, instead of pretending it wasn't posted and STILL arguing that there is no evidence. That notion is laughably absurd and ignoring evidence is dishonest.
originally posted by: Barcs
Why should I offer proof when you haven't offer a shred of evidence against evolution or for an alternative theory?
originally posted by: Murgatroid
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Just as I figured; you ignore anything and everything that shows flaws in your chosen theory... But, hey, don't let the facts bother you.
In order for a cult to succeed, one MUST ignore all facts and reality.
Darwinism is nothing less than a MASSIVE form of mind control masquerading as knowledge.
*snip*
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Here's the kicker.....
The skeletons were extremely well preserved some even retained soft tissues
How does soft tissue survive 100 - 150 million years on a fossilized skeleton?
Fossilized means the original material is mineral saturated and hardened.
Ancient 'fish lizard' graveyard discovered beneath melting glacier
If there is soft tissue then the mineral saturation over eons was halted abruptly, when there was still flesh. This implies abrupt burial in the mud and sudden deep freezing.
How do creationists and evolutionists view such data, and which will be more likely to attempt to dismiss this data?
I don't consider
Yes, I did. Go back and re-read.
By definition, claiming fossils are proof, then claiming genetics are the key, is arguing against yourself
That way, you can conveniently ignore the fact that science requires you to be able to observe a thing, as part of the proof.
This is basic science.
Offer it, or admit you are full of crap. You made a very serious statement, and you can't offer proof? The list of ALL scientists, and their positions, or admit you pulled that figure out of a hat, or someplace.
The way the evolution supporters debate, it's crystal clear it's a religious matter for them. NO ONE gets that bent out of shape over a scientific debate!
originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
This isn't a debate, and it never was. It has been me explaining things to you, and you flat out denying them while ranting.
originally posted by: Barcs
You don't win debates by denial of the opponent's points. You prove your side with evidence.
originally posted by: Barcs
I have offered several links, one with 29+ facts of evolution that prove common decent. I have posted direct OBSERVED proof of speciation, and showed how exactly DNA plays a role in evolution and helps prove it.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Seems pretty complex to me! Darwin even said, concerning the eye,
"Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."
When even the guy who first expressed the theory knows it's "absurd", and we know a lot more today than he did back then, and how complex are other parts of our bodies, such as the heart, or the ears, or blood composition, then it is clear that his theory doesn't hold water. Real science proves this. Assuming mutations that would account for the working of the eye alone, that would have to occur all at once, is beyond reasonable. Mathematically, it's virtually impossible, the odds are so small. We have many such systems. Instead of blindly following old data, do some actual research, and learn. There is NO WAY all the complex systems of our bodies alone formed randomly over time, from some single-celled creature millions of years ago. it simply isn't feasible.
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
originally posted by: Barcs
Obviously, you read none of it and denied it all without offering a piece of legitimate evidence against anything I posted.
originally posted by: Barcs
I posted several links that show slow gradual change is exactly how evolution works.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
I have posted evidence, and you have denied it. Thus, you haven't won the debate. Once again, and listen carefully - speciation is NOT evolution. Until you can figure that out, there is no point in bothering to take this further.
No, you posted links that make the same old tired assumptions.
Speciation doesn't prove evolution. Period. You don't get DNA from fossilized remains, either. It's ROCK. There are no transitional forms. Claiming "all fossils are transitional forms" simply makes people look foolish. Show the forms that are 97% this and 3% that, or 85% this and 15% that. Oh, wait, that's right; there are NONE. None.
Real science proves this. Assuming mutations that would account for the working of the eye alone, that would have to occur all at once, is beyond reasonable. Mathematically, it's virtually impossible, the odds are so small. We have many such systems. Instead of blindly following old data, do some actual research, and learn. There is NO WAY all the complex systems of our bodies alone formed randomly over time, from some single-celled creature millions of years ago. it simply isn't feasible.
There you go again, assuming that disagreement means I "didn't read it".
No, you posted links claiming that is what happens, when that isn't observable, or provable, or testable.
Small changes within a specific type of animal do not prove, and never will prove, changes to an entirely different type of animal, no matter how much time is assumed to have passed.
Everything you claim is based on guesswork, on assumptions, and the guesses don't hold up to real scientific scrutiny.
Animals that "evolve" don't appear in the fossil record from "nowhere", with no "ancestors". If animals evolved, then all would, and we wouldn't have so many that are virtually unchanged.
No matter how many links to pro-evolution sites you post, the data presented won't change, and it won't be proof any more than it was yesterday, or last month, or last year. Lists of "transitional forms" from wikipedia? Sorry, no. Bad source, and worse data. The same old tired unproven lists. Nothing anywhere to prove the forms lined up are part of any genetic line of descent. No partially-this and partially-that forms. Just the same old false data.
Lucy's stiff wrists suggest that her ancestors - and ours - walked on their knuckles. "We have found evidence in the wrist joint that sheds new light on arguably the most fundamental adaptation in humans ... which is why did humans start walking upright?" Dr Richmond said. Flexible wrists "Walking upright is the hallmark of humanity. It is the feature that defines all of our ancestors to the exclusion of our ape relatives." Lucy, who lived in Africa between 4.1 and 3 million years ago, did walk upright. Her hip and leg bones make that clear.
why is there zero evidence of modern humans existing this far back?