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.

 

evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

page: 29
6
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   


No... You did NOT just call me ignorant!! For having my own opinion?? Really?? That just shows how smart you are..


Yea, I guess I did. Not so much for having your own opinion's, but more for having quiet a few misconceptions of what evolution is.



And before you called me ignorant you admit that no one knows how evolution works in full.. well duh.. really???? Wouldn't that make them ignorant.


Do you also dispute gravity, light? We don't really know what gravity is, what light is, yet it's there and it works. Same goes for evolution, we've seen it through transitionary fossils, we've seen it nature and in the lab. We even play with it. Yet we're not 100% sure how it works in full. We've got some bits and pieces that fit the puzzle, just not the whole thing. Same goes for the big bang. The theories are about IF they happen, but on HOW they happen.

In a way, it does make them ignorant, not ignorant is such a manner as being 'wrong;, but ignorant in how the proccess works. Which is why they're trying to discover HOW these thing's work, not by writing them off to unseen and unprovable supernatural magical little fairies.



My opinion which is interbreeding, my reasoning is how the fossil record shows the many different species of humans through out human history. It is the only theory that works in full, doesn't it? Tell me please if you see beyond a shadow of a doubt why this has holes in it.. please state your opinion with out the name calling. And if you have a link to prove your theories then please post a link to it.. oh ya.. I'm sorry.. no one knows how evolution works in full... I guess that would be hard to post a link to evidence of evolution huh?


School.



Ok, yes that last sentence was snotty.. sorry... I couldn't help myself


Quiet understandable. Wannabe know it alls tend to have this similar psychological profile. Guess it's just to hard to accept that we can't know all the answer's at the snap of a finger and at the same time find it acceptable to just babble on about the "truth" without ever once showing a single shred of verfiable evidence for it. Yea, I tend to call those kind of people ignorant. Arrogant too. Can't forget arrogant!



If so then why did only one breed of chimp live on to today with out ever evolving into something better?


He gave you the answer already. Dispense with the misconception your holding right here in this post and re-read what he stated. Learn abit more about evolution as well, there's tons of good website's out there that can teach you about what we do know so far about it. Wouldn't hurt to learn, even if you disagree with it. Who know's, maybe you'll come to terms with reality, learning tends to have that kinda impact on people.




posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Well spanishcaravan it was nice.. but I was just called ignorant and arrogant for having my own opinion again. Let me answer a few of these questions without any name calling.


Originally posted by Prot0n
Do you also dispute gravity, light?


No


Originally posted by Prot0n
Yet we're not 100% sure how it works in full.


So it is only a theory.


Originally posted by Prot0n
School.


You must be young or my teachers didn't see fit to teach other peoples theories.


Originally posted by Prot0n
Guess it's just to hard to accept that we can't know all the answer's at the snap of a finger and at the same time find it acceptable to just babble on about the "truth" without ever once showing a single shred of verfiable evidence for it.


I never said that I have all of the answers.. but you sure are acting like there is no other opinion or theory of how humans came to be other than evolution. Isn't that arrogant?

It is my opinion based on what is known about the fossil records. Which let me remind you is only bones here and their and they are put together to make 1 complete skeleton. Sometimes archeologists guess what the rest of the body looks like just from the skull.

You are allowed to have your opinion Prot0n, but please do not call me names for having mine.



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Proof of evolution: 500 years ago a person was concidered very tall at 5 foot, today the average man is six foot and very tall is approaching seven foot. Take a skeleton from 500 years ago, the pinky is longer than the average pinky of today, same with the small toe. Mankind is evolving.

There was an argument very early on about apes, there are apes with language, ever species of monkey on the planet has its own language and dialect depending on where they live.

Why are there no other "human" like people's co-existing with us today?
Simple, war and breeding. If there is something different than us competing with the same resources as us, it is human nature to gather armies and kill it. From the smallest things like microbes and insects, to every kind of mammal, which would include any of our human cousins, and continues onward to to this day with people of different color and religious belief.

Look back just sixty years, we rounded up mentally retarded , autistic and gay people and sterilized them, drugged them, and locked them away in instituitions. The nazi's thought that US policy was pretty neat and did the same thing, extending it to jews as well.

Continue going back in time until you find the last remaining village of humanoid cousins, wait for the dawn, when the armies of our ancestors rode in and started cutting off heads. That will explain where our "missing links" went.

Virii and bacteria today are evolvling to be drug resistant, there is no intelligent
design at work.

There is a saying that is older than the Christian and Hebrew religions: As above so below.



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stari

Originally posted by Prot0n
Do you also dispute gravity, light?


No


Originally posted by Prot0n
Yet we're not 100% sure how it works in full.


So it is only a theory.


Originally posted by Prot0n
School.


You must be young or my teachers didn't see fit to teach other peoples theories.

Why is it you don't dispute the theory of gravity yet dispute the TOE? They are both SCIENTIFIC theories.. they are based on observed scientific facts so saying they are 'only theories' is like saying that the earth might be round. The word 'theory' is meant in an entirely different context.

BTW. There are many different species of primate.. we all share a common ancestor and chimps have been genetically proven to be our closest relative. There is plenty of information available if you are willing to learn about human evolution further.

[edit on 24-6-2006 by riley]



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
So it is scientifically proven that only one breed of chimp out of two different breeds was able to evolve? Isn't evolution supposed to be able to happen with all species?

If so then why did only one breed of chimp live on to today with out ever evolving into something better?


Well all the groups would evolve. We are still evolving.

what is better? Evolution will just evolve an adequate solution, not the best. We already know of certain species that have not changed that much over time. Some species could even be considered to have devolved (e.g. insects that have lost eyes when isolated in an environment without light). It depends on selection pressure/environment.

If we start with the original ape-like ancestor, this would have spread over a wide area. At least two populations became separated (one hypothesis is due to the rift valley) - one evolved into all the homonid species we know of. The other became the ancestor of both chimpanzee species, a few hundred thousand years later, this population was split in two by the congo river. The population on one side (the south I think) became bonobo chimps, the other side, common chimps. These two populations have evolved, the common chimps are larger and more violent than bonobo chimps; even though their environments are almost identical.

The original ape-like ancestor no longer exists, it evolved into what we see today.

here's an interesting hypothesis of what caused our divergence from the common ape-like ancestor.

[edit on 24-6-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Legalizer
Proof of evolution: 500 years ago a person was concidered very tall at 5 foot, today the average man is six foot and very tall is approaching seven foot. Take a skeleton from 500 years ago, the pinky is longer than the average pinky of today, same with the small toe. Mankind is evolving.


This is very true how humans were smaller farther back in time you go. At least until new evidence was found to contradict this. I have never heard anything about the pinky finger or toe but I will do some searches for this unless you can provide me with a link?

This very well could be an arguement for evolution. Do you have an explaination though for how it only took 500 years to change the size of a humans height? When it took millions upon millions maybe even trillions of years for us to evolve from monkeys? If height took only 500 then in the next few thousand years we should be something totally different.. and what of the humans that lived a few thousand years ago? Egytians just to mention a famous culture. They looked like us. Plus can you explain why there have been giant skeletons found in the past?

Giants

Here is another link of giant fossils of lions and other mammals.

Giant fossils

And this makes me wonder.. if animals where bigger and then became smaller as they "evolved" then how does this help to explain how humans are evolving to a bigger species now?



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
BTW. There are many different species of primate.. we all share a common ancestor and chimps have been genetically proven to be our closest relative. There is plenty of information available if you are willing to learn about human evolution further.


I do not dispute the fact that chimps are a common ancestor.. it is how evolutionist believe that we came to be from them. My opinion to explain how chimps still walk the Earth to this day would be from interbreeding between different species of chimps and apes millions or trillions of years ago. And then the new breeds interbreeding with new breeds so on and so forth. This happening throughout time eventually humans came to be.

It is my opinion and I am not alone in this opinion. Until I read or watch a documentary that can explain with out a shadow of a doubt evolution then to me it is still just a theory or peoples opinions.. and you are allowed to have them. Just like I am allowed to have mine.


Originally posted by melatonin
Some species could even be considered to have devolved (e.g. insects that have lost eyes when isolated in an environment without light). It depends on selection pressure/environment.


Ok, I have seen stuff on this also.. but isn't this just the same insect but without eyes now? I mean to say.. the insect is not a different species, but the same species just with out eyes? Am I wrong? Does your source tell you that this insect is now a new breed of insect because of this happening? I do not recall hearing that, but I could be wrong.


Originally posted by melatonin
If we start with the original ape-like ancestor, this would have spread over a wide area. At least two populations became separated (one hypothesis is due to the rift valley)


We believe that they became separated only because there has not been any fossils found yet to show that they were not separated. At least none found that we are being told about unless some one here is reading this and can enlighten us with a source?


Originally posted by melatonin
The original ape-like ancestor no longer exists, it evolved into what we see today.


Unless they were killed off by other breeds of apes.. just like Legalizer said:


Originally posted by Legalizer
Why are there no other "human" like people's co-existing with us today?
Simple, war and breeding. If there is something different than us competing with the same resources as us, it is human nature to gather armies and kill it.



Originally posted by melatonin
here's an interesting hypothesis of what caused our divergence from the common ape-like ancestor.


Thanks for the link. I am reading it now



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   


No


wtf?! Well why not?! Why not dispute how gravity works or what light is? We don't know 100% what either are or how they work! Why not dispute them then? Damn hypocrit.




So it is only a theory.


Umm duh... The HOW is the theory. Not the IF.




You must be young or my teachers didn't see fit to teach other peoples theories.


Or you didn't pay attention? Would explain the many misonceptions you have.




I never said that I have all of the answers.. but you sure are acting like there is no other opinion or theory of how humans came to be other than evolution. Isn't that arrogant?


If that's the case then I guess it's also ignorant to say gravity and light exist! do you dispute thos two as well?




You are allowed to have your opinion Prot0n, but please do not call me names for having mine.


Then don't be ignorant.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
Everything you said in your post was very interesting.. but I have to point out a couple of things. First, the defenses that are passed down from generation to generation is not necessarily evolution, what I mean is it is not changing the species of human that we are, it is merely helping the species of human that we are become stronger and able to with stand the forces of this planet from making us extinct like we have seen so many times over in nature.


Yes, that is what evolution does though. The more defenses and traits that humans gain over time, the more possibilities they have of breaking off from previous humans. Because the Europeans of today have such resistance to the Black Plague, that is what separates them from the Europeans of yesteryear. The deviation may be slight, but all it takes is for many thousands (probably more) of those slight deviations to make an evolutionary leap. If Europeans of today were placed with the Europeans of old (during the Black Plague), they would more than likely appear to be devils or witches for the simple fact that the Black Plague may not even affect them, or if it does, it wouldn't be deadly. Although most of Europe was killed off by the Black Plague, the ones that survived are the ones that passed down genetic defenses against it. If we were to compare today's Europeans with yesterday's, genetically, I can certainly fathom that there will be slight deviations - there won't be a perfect match. Of course, the same can be said for most any civilization.

We are changing. Evolution is all about adapting - making us stronger. Probably one of the first things on our bodies (externally) to go will be our pinky toes - they really serve no function anymore. The're not going to fall off or anything like that but they may get smaller and smaller to where it appears that you have none. Only the bone of the pinky toe, in the actual foot, serves to help with balance. Also, another good small step is that there are people being born today who do not even develop their wisdom teeth. This is being seen more and more. We have no use for our wisdom teeth anymore and humans are evolving to show that fact. Just because we do not see the effects of human evolution immediately (because of our slow development and breeding processes), doesn't mean that we are not evolving. However, if we look at fruit flies, bacteria, and viruses, genetic changes can be seen immediately within a short while because of the many, many generations that can be created within a minute time. I think that is why evolution is so hard for some individuals to consider as a possibility because they may be expecting instant gratification - in terms of external changes. :-D


Originally posted by Stari
Some of us do, I guess that is why we are here posting.


True, it is hard to think that we may have come from primates. But I like to think of it this way: intelligence generally isn't natural, it is something that must be worked on - a learned trait. Look no further than feral children. There have been many instances where children were found to have had almost no human interaction - they were locked away, treated like animals, or they were possibly raised by animals (although I think I recall only one case like this). Because of the lack of human interaction, they literally acted (when found) like wild dogs or other such creatures. Their intelligence could be, when found, considered extremely sub-human - even, unfortunately, below that of many non-humans. Without that human interaction, their growth was forever stunted (this has been shown with other creatures as well - if they were to never interact and learn from members of their own species). After finding these individuals, depending on their age, their mental capabilitie could only be developed so far. In most cases, they would never be able to function in society. There is a crucial point in all living creature's lives where they must interact and learn or their mental capacities, even physical development, will forever be stunted.

What is my point? The continued progression of humans through passed down knowledge, genetics, and many other things, is what keeps us from reverting back to something non-human. But it also keeps us progressively moving forward towards something possibly non-human. Truth be told, it is not really how we look that makes us human (non-animal per say - mice and chimpanzees are very closely related to us, DNA wise), but how we think and act (although how we think and act sometimes makes me double-think our humanness). In the scheme of things, we are really only as unique as we make ourselves out to be - since we have the capacity to do so (until we are possibly proven otherwise).


Originally posted by Stari
This is not a discussion about God, but I must admit that when I think of God I do not think of God as being a man.


You are right, this is not a discussion about God. However, if we are not talking about Evolution, the only other thing that could come to mind is Intelligent Design (although there are many alternative viewpoints in competition with Evolution, I.D. is generally the only one ever brought up). All signs point to Intelligent Design referring to God, regardless of what the supporters say. If aliens are brought into the equation, a "higher intelligence" is then brought up - it couldn't possibly be aliens. I wonder who it could be? :-D I brought God up for the simple fact that some who do not support the idea of evolution, do not support it because of the Bible, God, etc. I was merely streaming my thoughts on the idea that God and Evolution can co-exist (Evolution possibly being another Godly creation) - nothing more. I shall further refrain from bringing it up though. I'm not trying to sway opinions or the topic of the thread from one to another. I merely bring my own observations to this interesting thread.


In response to the definitions you posted, interbreeding would definitely be an almost instant evolutionary (although evolutionary does not always mean better, nor is it always natural - it can be forced) step of two species mating to form a new one. Look no further than a liger: the interbreeding of male-lion and a female-tiger. The resulting offspring share similarities to the parents, but because the growth-hormone of lions and tigers are in their respective parents sexes (male-lion, female-tiger), it is possible that it is canceled out in the offspring (that is the theory). The resulting effect is of a creature that has an uncontrolled growth-spurt - it grows much bigger than its parents. They also seem much more docile as well. Is it a better creature, genetically? Probably not because the liger generally does not occur naturally in the wild. The uncontrolled growth-spurt and natural docility would prove to be futile for a cat in the wild.

I'd also like to emphasize some things in the definition of Evolution: "a gradual process ... usually more ...." Unfortunately, the liger would probably fall in the percentage that is not better than the originals. Certain things may have hit their evolutionary peaks - they are evolving no longer because they have no stimulants to do so. Humans, however, have not quite hit a peak because we are ever-changing our environments, our thoughts, our tools, our foods, our ways of communication, etc. This barrage of changes will ultimately affect everything about us, sooner or later.

[edit on 6-25-2006 by EmbryonicEssence]



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stari

Originally posted by riley
BTW. There are many different species of primate.. we all share a common ancestor and chimps have been genetically proven to be our closest relative. There is plenty of information available if you are willing to learn about human evolution further.


I do not dispute the fact that chimps are a common ancestor..

Wow I can't believe how you just completly changed what I said. I'll help you out:

we all share a common ancestor and chimps have been genetically proven to be our closest relative.

Re-read it again carefully. I'm not sure why you are saying I said that.. perhaps I was too vague. I said all primates share a common ancestor. I did NOT say that chimps are our ancestors. They are like our first cousins not fore fathers.. apes would be like our 3rd cousins.

it is how evolutionist believe that we came to be from them.

Again no it isn't. This is what I corrected you on.. and you are just reverting back to that same incorrect statement.

ToE does not make assertions that chimps are our ancestors.

Individual 'evolutionists' do not claim or believe this. I have tried to tell you this. Melatonin has told you several times.. perhaps other people have as well.. I don't know but it would be nice if you paid more attention.

It is my opinion and I am not alone in this opinion.

Just because an idea is popular does not make it true. Evolution has scientific facts supporting it.. conversly.. things like god and demons do not.

[edit on 25-6-2006 by riley]



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 07:32 AM
link   


they are evolving no longer because they have no stimulants to do so.


Embryo,

The post was excellent, but this one part didn't sit well. Everything is still evolving. But like you said, it's not some instant gratification thing. Just don't want you giving this guy the wrong idea, he already holds to many ignorant misconceptions about the subject.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by EmbryonicEssence
If Europeans of today were placed with the Europeans of old (during the Black Plague), they would more than likely appear to be devils or witches for the simple fact that the Black Plague may not even affect them, or if it does, it wouldn't be deadly.


External Source


In 1522, at the age of nineteen, Nostradamus decided to study medicine and enrolled at Mont Pellier (the most famous school of medicine in France). He graduated with a bachelor degree and was soon licensed to practice medicine. As a healer, he was active in treating the victims of the "Black Plague" and developed unique and effective methods of treatment which helped to lessen the suffering of many people.


No he didn't solve the black plague, but he had a hand in making some people well again. Perhaps he had a helping hand in helping humanity evolve to be able to fight off this strain of virus. I will have to think about this and do some more research.

Us becoming resistant of the black plague, does this make us a new species? Or help us become a new species? Or does this only help us to become a better species?


Originally posted by EmbryonicEssence
True, it is hard to think that we may have come from primates.


Oh I believe that we came from many different species of apes and primates. Maybe that is why people here are having a hard time grasping the interbreeding concept.

I think millions or trillions of years ago apes and other primates living in those days, mated and interbred. Over many millions or trillions of years these interbreedings came down to us. And yes I can see how interbreeding into a different species that the new species would look down on other species that could be after their food sources and then kill them off. I had not thought of that before, but reading that here in the postings on this thread that could be one explaination for the reason why there are no more of those breeds of apes and chimps.


Originally posted by EmbryonicEssence
mice and chimpanzees are very closely related to us, DNA wise), but how we think and act (although how we think and act sometimes makes me double-think our humanness).


Everything that you have said makes alot of sense and I appreciate your addition to this conversation. You almost have me believing in evolution as an only way that we can be here today except for a few things. You wrote that mice and chimps are very closely related to us, DNA wise. And I agree with this and this is what makes me think that we are here today not only from evolution (which you and other posters here that can carry on a civil conversation are starting to make me think) but mix it with interbreeding to get us where we are today.

Mice are also closely DNA related to us, not just chimps.. does this mean that we could have evolved from mice? No, scientists have not even once said or considered that. Why? Because it is much easier to believe that we came from a chimp like creature than a mouse? Not for me.. not with out some other mix in the equation at least.. like interbreeding.


Originally posted by EmbryonicEssence
I was merely streaming my thoughts on the idea that God and Evolution can co-exist (Evolution possibly being another Godly creation) - nothing more. I shall further refrain from bringing it up though. I'm not trying to sway opinions or the topic of the thread from one to another. I merely bring my own observations to this interesting thread.


I'm sorry, I didn't mean you shouldn't speak your mind about God and evolution. I believe in God (what ever God is). Something created everything, and for lack of a better word, God.

I want to hear more of your thoughts on this subject. You make sense in some things that you are saying but I can find some holes in it as well. I am not trying to sway anyones opinions either. I am starting to wonder if we are both right.

Could we be here from both the works of evolution and interbreeding? Would that help fill the gap in evolutionist theories?


Originally posted by riley
Re-read it again carefully. I'm not sure why you are saying I said that.. perhaps I was too vague. I said all primates share a common ancestor. I did NOT say that chimps are our ancestors. They are like our first cousins not fore fathers.. apes would be like our 3rd cousins.


I'm sorry Riley, I was the one vague. I knew what you meant and I believe that as well.


Originally posted by riley
Just because an idea is popular does not make it true. Evolution has scientific facts supporting it..


Evolution is not a full working idea yet. And I say yet because it could be one day when more evidence is found. It has holes in it for now. There are facts that support it but the same can be said about the interbreeding theory. And yes Evolution and Interbreeding are both just theories with facts that help to support both theories.

I can agree with ProtOn with only one thing. It was an excellent post EmbryonicEssence. Maybe between us posters on here we can get down to the bottom of this evolution and interbreeding problem and fill holes that are obviously there for both theories. Once again, excellent post.


ProtOn can't even get my gender correct.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   


ProtOn can't even get my gender correct.


Oh I'm sorry. I forgot this was the internet and not a face to face conversation. My bad. Silly me!

Honestly, what do you mean by interbreeding? Do you mean it in the sense that melatonin was discussing, as hyberdization? I'm not sure what in the hell would give you such an idea at all really. So, let's cut being an arrogant little wannabe know it all and post some actual evidence for the human species comming about by interbreeding of two different species. Other then that, your right, it's just your opinion. And yes, it's an ignorant one.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
you dont see any evidence? you must be blind or dumb or something i dont know. humans evolved from homosapians living in caves to masters of their planet dominating every other species, the only species with emotion, love, and such feelings that no other species has or recognizes that they have it.

some peoples threads on ats are like the lowest of low for intelligent.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   


the only species with emotion, love, and such feelings that no other species has or recognizes that they have it.


Agreed with the rest of the post except this one part. We're not the only species with these qualities. Many MANY animals, including us, share these same traits and many more. Many people find it hard to acknowledge and accept this and like to think our species is special in some way. Name one other species that destroy's it's natural habitat. We're probably the most dumbest animal on this planet.


Urn

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n

Name one other species that destroy's it's natural habitat. We're probably the most dumbest animal on this planet.


just nit-picking here but pretty much all spieces will destroy their habitat if left unchecked.

for instance if you were to have a large number of sheep on a small island, and some local catastrophy were to kill off a local predater, then the sheep will eat themselves out of house and home, provided that population is large enough.

and yes the human race has definatly been left unchecked...

(sorry for going off topic there
)



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
True, under those type of conditions any species would ultimatley destroy it's natural habitat. So in the light of effing common sense, let me rephrase this.

Name one species that purposefully and knowingly destroy's its natural habitat, beside's humans. How many chickens do you know with chainsaws cutting down tree's like they're going out of style? How many cattapillers do you see dumping toxic waste into it's drinking supply? How many panda bears do you see wasting valuable resources and just discarding them into landfills that poison the earth?


Now given your example of sheep on a small island with no more natural predators through some catastrophy. Granted the sheep no longer have a natural predator to keep the population down and in balace with the ecosystem of a small island, the sheep would eventually outgrow the natural resources of the island. It's not so much as they're trying to destroy their island, it's that they have no choice. WE DO.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n
wtf?! Well why not?! Why not dispute how gravity works or what light is? We don't know 100% what either are or how they work! Why not dispute them then? Damn hypocrit.


I think an apology is owed to Stari for this. Whether you think s/he is a hypocrite or not is fine, but to damn someone is well beyond your authority and is very rude.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Love this debate.

You have religious people saying C14 dating is inaccurate - if thats the case you best discount anything on the Dead Sea Scrolls as fake, forget all about the Shround of Turin and also throw out any religious relics that have been found


The only difference between the bible and a book by say, Douglas Adams, is the rather gullible belief that the Bible was somehow written by God.

Heres a heads up - it wasn't. It was written by man.

The bible is a collection of tales written by people with an agenda. It was written to present an idea of how the "shaman" or "witch doctors" of the time wanted the world to be. It was written to give them power, and it worked. The bible was the original WMD, and its killed (indirectly) more people than any gun, bomb or natural disaster.

As for "no proof of evolution", well.... what can you say? Theres more proof of evolution than there is of a God. In fact, theres more proof of UFO's than there is of a God. You can argue all you like about "intelligent design", but the fact of the matter is that it just equates to ignorant thinking.

Michael Hutchence, bless him, got it right when he wrote this;

"Whether its god or the bomb, its just the same and its only fear under another name"



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
You have religious people saying C14 dating is inaccurate - if thats the case you best discount anything on the Dead Sea Scrolls as fake, forget all about the Shround of Turin and also throw out any religious relics that have been found



The assumption here is that C14 dating does not lose accuracy the further you go back in time. Is this not the case? I'm asking because I've not personally worked with it. I hear a few thousand years is pretty on-point, but the further you go back, the less reliable it becomes in working with the radioactive isotope with half-life and all. My thing was Biology, not Physics so if someone wants to help me out here, I'm all ears.

I do like Hitchhiker's Guide by the way, great work of fiction. I'll disagree with the general populus of fans though and say "Mostly Harmless" was the best book in the series with the best character - Random.

[edit on 26-6-2006 by saint4God]




top topics



 
6
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join