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 Icarus Rising
Me, I'm still straddling the fence, with inconsistencies piling up on both sides (creation and evolution). You call that a concrete conclusion?
An earlier post also pointed out that soft tissue and DNA aren't supposed to be around after 70 million years due to radioactive decay. I'm just stating that this is a new challenge for science to explain how it happened.
And if they can't, score one for creation.
I'm not a creationist per se, I merely passed on what I've heard from the creationist viewpoint.
Personally, I think that both viewpoints (creation and evolution) have elements of truth to them. The timeframes just seem whack to me.
But I'll let a real scientist figure that out for me.
Is that ok with you Anubis?
Originally posted by tomcat ha
Well true science has holes and i do believe god made it in such a way. I do not believe religion is as solid as a rock at least islam isnt. There are many different ways to interpet the qu'ran.
Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
Gosh with a little fancy DNA manipulation we could have our very own mini pet T-Rex's
Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I want to see science explain the soft tissue and dna remnants in the T-Rex bone.