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: luthier
I know this may come as a shock but the vast majority of Christians don't believe the creation story is fact. They believe it's allegory. The young earth folks are just the most sensational and say the most ridiculous news worthy things.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I don't know, Trolls were thick hided and seeing as we have stories with them in they must have existed
Yea apparently according to people like him humans didn't have imaginations back then and only wrote about the absolute truth.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton
The other side of the argument? What is that? Last I checked there are more than two sides to the evolution debate. There is evolution and then there is the creation accounts of EVERY OTHER religion in the world. And THEN there are any other accounts a human wants to dream up that you or I haven't thought about.
I certainly DO know the Christian account, and even the YEC account. I did use to be Catholic and I know how to read the bible literally to understand the YEC account. But those aren't the only other options and I don't feel like I should have to learn every possible alternative out there to evolution when none of them stack up in the evidence department to evolution.
Being open minded isn't about considering all possibilities absolutely equally. It means to consider all possibilities and discard the ones that are lacking in evidence. Your YEC account is just impossible from literally every scientific possibility. Like literally all of science would have to be wrong in order to believe that account. So until you can disprove all of science with valid evidence I'm not going to entertain that idea outside of fantasy.
I know this may come as a shock but the vast majority of Christians don't believe the creation story is fact. They believe it's allegory. The young earth folks are just the most sensational and say the most ridiculous news worthy things.
originally posted by: cooperton
Christ refers to Adam and Eve multiple times (i.e. Mark 10:6). There is even a full lineage from Adam to Jesus in Luke 3, and from Abraham to Jesus in Matthew 1.
Despite these written records, people still believe our ancestors are fish. Despite Beowulf having a description of a T-Rex (along with many Other Historical Descriptions and Ancient Dinosaur Art), people still believe dinosaurs are millions of years old.
originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Krazysh0t
What is more logical?
1. There was an extinction event a long time ago but some species of dinosaurs survived, which explains the stories and OOP fossils?
2. Or random people tell the exact same story all over the world without ever having seen such animals?
If the stories of dragons/dinosaurs were spefic to even one continent we could write them off as just stories. But on every continent we find stories of man walking with animals that can only be considered dinosaurs
The drawings are the same and the stories are the same, some have embellished the stories more than others but the similarities seem to logically suggest something more than coincidence.
Therefore I believe it is logical that globally some species of dragons/dinosaurs did actually survive unti the early days of man.
This would logically explain the stories, the OOP fossils and the soft tissue, without needing to make up lame non-scientific excuses.
originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Krazysh0t
So it's more logical to believe science which changes every 15 minutes then it is to believe in historical stories.
Welcome to the religion of pseudo science.
Minimum viable population (MVP) is a lower bound on the population of a species, such that it can survive in the wild. This term is used in the fields of biology, ecology, and conservation biology. More specifically, MVP is the smallest possible size at which a biological population can exist without facing extinction from natural disasters or demographic, environmental, or genetic stochasticity.[1] The term "population" rarely refers to an entire species. For example, the undomesticated dromedary camel is extinct in its natural wild habitat; but there is a domestic population in captivity and an additional feral population in Australia. Two groups of house cats in separate houses which are not allowed outdoors are also technically distinct populations. Typically, however, MVP is used to refer solely to a wild population, such as the red wolf.
There is a marked trend for insularity, surviving genetic bottlenecks and r-strategy to allow far lower MVPs than average. Conversely, taxa easily affected by inbreeding depression – having high MVPs – are often decidedly K-strategists, with low population densities while occurring over a wide range. An MVP of 500 to 1,000 has often been given as an average for terrestrial vertebrates when inbreeding or genetic variability is ignored.[3][4] When inbreeding effects are included, estimates of MVP for many species are in the thousands. Based on a meta-analysis of reported values in the literature for many species, Traill et al. reported a median MVP of 4,169 individuals.[5]
originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Krazysh0t
So it's more logical to believe science which changes every 15 minutes then it is to believe in historical stories.
Welcome to the religion of pseudo science.
So because science has come to an answer that you don't like, it is wrong and "pseudo science"? Confirmation bias...
originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Krazysh0t
So because science has come to an answer that you don't like, it is wrong and "pseudo science"? Confirmation bias...
No claiming unproven theories as the only possible answer is pseudo science. Dinosaur extinction happening millions of years ago is a theory that started well before it could be proven. Since that time everything that doesn't fit the original story is discredited with weak assumptions.
Maybe it's better to say we don't know, when we,don't know.
originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Krazysh0t
So because science has come to an answer that you don't like, it is wrong and "pseudo science"? Confirmation bias...
No, claiming unproven theories as the only possible answer is pseudo science. Dinosaur extinction happening millions of years ago is a theory that started well before it could be proven. Since that time everything that doesn't fit the original story is discredited with weak assumptions.
Maybe it's better to say we don't know, when we don't know.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
originally posted by: coopertonIt is a fact that contemporary science has never had the grace of directly studying a dinosaur skin sample.