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 supergravity
reply to post by boncho
What does the big bang have to do with evolution? wow , that is one of the main evolutionary talking points.
Why cant you debate that if you have such a solid understanding of evolution?
The reason the universe's expansion is INCREASING is because there was not one big release of energy,in fact since it is speeding up it is logical to say more energy is added every day to accomplish the acceleration.
Where does that energy come from and in what form?
I think it is definitive that the big bang did not happen like the science books teach us.
Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by boncho
The reason the universe's expansion is INCREASING is because there was not one big release of energy,in fact since it is speeding up it is logical to say more energy is added every day to accomplish the acceleration.
Where does that energy come from and in what form?
I think it is definitive that the big bang did not happen like the science books teach us.
Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by boncho
The comment I made about people dont turn into fish and we have never had wings was regarding what is called interspecies mixing. It would be logical to say if evolution ruled the day we would have many examples of intermixing of traits, arms, gills, wings,web feet,etc
Every one on this thread knows It is close to impossible to prove a piece of ice existed thousands of years ago. But every action has multiple secondary reactions that could be used to reconstruct the past.
Specifically the mastodons died WITH FRESH FLOWERS in the stomach, they did not have time to digest indicating a very fast event.lets reverse engineer how this happened.
A mammoth was walking in a snowstorm eating lilies and died from eating to much. I hope none of you think that is remotely possible.
It is obvious to me that the animal was walking in a mild climate that promoted vegetation and a sudden and profound temp change occurred that went though the whole animal within minutes.
I dont even think a polar shift could do this that quickly.
Can any of you explain how this happened?
So you cant answer my question? How did these animals die so quickly the flowers in there stomach did not digest?
This is a debate and you must participate and provide your view and not deflect my questions.
Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by spy66
Forgive my ignorance, but according to the laws of physics gas and matter SHRINK when cooled, and expand when heated, so saying space is cooling causing it to expand does not make since, please explain this.
Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by iterationzero
Can you see they were ..."very well preserved" and ...."blood ran out of the carcass when moved"this was sudden and profound deep freezing.
I have posted about question 6 ,
Question 5 you misquoted me and are just confusing what I thought was a debate.
There are some examples of small local evolution but people don't turn into fish and there is no evidence we once had wings.
the reason I want you to answer about a secondary reaction to possible canopy collapse is to go line by line and you assist in finding the truth.
I f you are going to turn it into your process and your own rules then this is no debate.
Can you see they were ..."very well preserved" and ...."blood ran out of the carcass when moved"this was sudden and profound deep freezing.
You can remove the question about saturn's rings ,as I told you it is well known
We will just have to disagree on the canopy.