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: FinalCountdown
a reply to: Krazysh0t
So I ask again, where is the evidence that new species are being created and deposited on the earth?
Have you seen modern man?
With it's purposely mangled DNA?
How did we get here?
They still haven't found the missing link.
It's missing.
The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
originally posted by: GetHyped
originally posted by: FinalCountdown
a reply to: Krazysh0t
So I ask again, where is the evidence that new species are being created and deposited on the earth?
What "purposely mangled DNA"?
What "missing link"? There's no such thing as "missing links". They're called "transitional forms". We've found loads. Any creature that successfully reproduces is a transitional form.
If evolution isn't true, then that must mean that God creates animal species whole and just deposits them onto the planet, correct?
originally posted by: uncommitted
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JonMel77
Possibly, I'm just trying to follow the Creationist logic.
But you aren't, not literally. If someone believes that the universe was created, does that make them a creationist? Logically, yes. Does that mean that it's a given that they believe any mixture of notions such as no evolution and young earth theory and wrapping them all into one seemingly convenient bundle? No, not really, in fact most likely not as such views are not ones the majority subscribe to, whether they follow a particular faith or not.
Anyhow, only mentioned that is it makes such a sweeping assumption (I'm not sure if a figure is available who believe only in the 'species appeared out of nowhere' and 'The earth is less than 6,000 years old' is available? I'm sure in some American states it may be a high proportion, but that tells a different story in itself). Having said that, and just to show the exception can sometimes be worth considering, at some point in the indeterminate past, nothing which we as rational people would classify as life existed on this planet. Then something we would classify as life did....... so, it's not an unfair question to ask, where did it come from? Yes, I am talking about a single cell life form, but before it there were no others.
originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
We must have been created by something greater than ourselves, the arrogant little shaved ape said.
The arrogant little shaved ape went on to explain that it had to be something greater than himself because he feels himself to be so great and powerful and it would be impossible for him to rise from something he ignorantly considers to be lesser than himself....
....
Do trees in your yard just appear? Or do they grow from seeds, or "suckers" growing off the original tree?
Do people (and animals) appear suddenly whole and fully grown, or do they reach full growth by a process?
Therefore, when God created our current existence, it was not instantaneous but rather the result of a process. Indeed one could say that He created the process that created us. Therefore, God created man, correct?
originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Krazysh0t
If evolution isn't true, then that must mean that God creates animal species whole and just deposits them onto the planet, correct?
Let's just put the habeus stoppus with the oversight in your logic. If creationism is the answer ... then God is real. If God is real, it is possible for him to do any damn thing he wants. I want new animal species ... voila!!
The evolution/creationism argument has 'always' been about denying the existence of God. I am not fooled by this, are you?
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: FinalCountdown
2. Transitional forms have been posted up many times. You have access to google, there's no exscuse for such ignorance.
originally posted by: luciddream
a reply to: Quadrivium
My aim was at the parroting part of the cult.
The only difference i see between a group following scientific principals and a group following religious principals is that one group does not and are not allowed to question.
Then again, science has many branches that are proven to work.. physcis(enginerring, eletrctonic...), chemistry,,, i have no time to list scientific accomplishments... Religious accomplisments on the other hand... are all taken by faith.
If you take something happened to you as god's works or miracle, someone else might taken them as effect of action and has no meaning to supernatural.
Are religious minds smarter than scientific minds? generally they tend to trap themselves in a small space and are satisfied with unprovable answers provided by a uneducated person.
originally posted by: FinalCountdown
a reply to: GetHyped
Funny.
Let's see,
We evolved, right, from apes, correct?
Rather quickly in my opionion, no?
Evolved from a creature that could live in the world as is, covered with protective fur and tough skin, right? We evolved into a fur free "advanced" creature that requires some form of clothing just to survive the worst I the elements, right?
Suddenly we're building fires and counting stars with piles of gold, right?
Flash forward from not having electricity to 100 years later talking about cloning man and the next shuttle mission.
Yeah right.
We had help.
Modern man did not "poof" "evolve" into such a fragile and mentally complex creature in the short timespan that evolution dictates.
We had help.
Creationism