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.

 

4 in 10 Americans Believe God Created Earth 10,000 Years Ago

page: 11
19
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed


Does this look like a "different species" to you?

Oh, and mind you (do some research please)..they also already used some carvings/symbols, basically math to tally their production, things like that respective an early form of written language. 100.000 years ago. Sorry too lazy now to pull out all those links and references, but there are plenty if you look around on the internet.


First, you need to re-read my post, I said a few 100,000 years as in no less than 300,000 years not 80,000 or 100,000...

Also a lot has happen genetically to Homo Sapiens in the last 30,000 years that really separates us from earlier man.

Also how did the poll define modern man? was it talking about the one and only 196,000 year old skull that showed a transition to homo sapiens, or the 80,000 year old Y-chromosomal Adam, the oldest genetically related male, or the extinction and/or mixing of all Archaic humans that started about 50k to 70k years ago due to an extreme bottle neck point of our past.

As example:


In 2003, a discovery was made in a Romanian cave named Peştera cu Oase that supports this hypothesis. It was a partial skeleton of a 15-16 year old male Homo sapiens who lived about 30,000 years ago or a bit earlier. He had a mix of old and new anatomical features. The skull had characteristics of both modern and archaic humans.


Modern man has not really been around all that long. We are truly a mix of Archaic humans that all basically ended up extinct or a part of what we are today.




posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Xtrozero

There's been more than one skull found (again, Google is your friend) and that alone refutes the idea that humans have not been around for more than 10,000 years. Heck, we've found human settlements waaaay older than that. More to the point, the poll question is "God created human being pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years". Your attempts to bend and twist this to mean anything else is rather silly indeed.


How many skulls are there that points to the 200,000 year mark? please indulge me on that one.... As I said we have only one that was then used to determine the 200k point, only one. The rest that are older back to Lucy ALL can be put into the back of a pickup truck, so my point is very few total.

Why is it that you seem to just throw my points based on specific periods to any which way. When I say there is only one skull in existence as the 200k marker, I am not saying 10,000 year old skulls too.

Please define "present form" are we talking 200k years ago?

I'm telling you the poll is open to interpretation and is really capitalizing on faith more than anything else.

My point is I can define "present form" as post bottle necking of the archaic humans...

You can define it as when homo sapiens first showed signs in a skull....

We both can be right since "present form" is not defined.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Unity_99
It sounds like a very fundamental controlled poll, not real. Something that the president might endorse and his Saudi friends, hmmm.....

They all are...

They work well because people are basically gullible.

I believe its fairly common knowledge that polls are nothing more than a propaganda tool used by the controlling cabal for social conditioning or mind-control.


Pollaganda uses outcome-based opinion samples (polling instruments designed to generate a preferential outcome) reflecting prior-opinion indoctrination or cultivation by the media. The results are then used to manipulate public opinion further by advancing the perception that a particular opinion on an issue enjoys majority support. The MSM then presents this "data" as if it were "news."

Then the media uses poll results to proselytize further by treating the results as “news,” which, in turn, induces “bandwagon” psychology – the human tendency of those who do not have a strong ideological foundation to aspire to the side perceived to be in the majority – and thus further drives public opinion toward the original media bias, ad infinitum.

patriotpost.us...



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Something to note for those that question the validity of radio-carbon dating, as it seems there is some misconception about the use of this method.

First, radio-carbon dating is only valid/used on organic material. Rocks/minerals (or anything inorganic) cannot be dated using this method. So, that is not how we date the geologic column, fossils, etc. Scientists use other dating methods for inorganic material (meaning fossils) and those dating methods are not susceptible to being compromised by coming in contact with modern materials. Again, C-14 method is only used on things like wood, leather, etc.

Second, radio-carbon dating is not used alone or run once. Scientists will always compare to other available dating methods, to verify age range, as well as testing multiple samples and testing through multiple labs. While it is possible that one sample may be compromised, testing more than one sample area at different labs will confirm any findings. Everything from climate records to tree rings to archaeological evidence (types of tools etc.) are compared against C-14 results.

Third, radio-carbon dating is only valid back to approx. 50,000 years. Anything older than this is always dated using a different method. As, fossils are mineralized (technically rock), methods such as Uranium-Lead or Potassium-Argon are used . . . however, even then the results are compared with several dating methods to find a consensus.

Forth, C-14 dating doesn't give an exact date. The results will give an upper/lower range based on available C-14 measured against decay rates. This is always used as a criticism, as the further back in time you go the greater the range. So, when scientists say things like "approximately", the creationists jump up and down and say "see . . . they're just guessing". This criticism is based on nothing but ignorance.

Creationists (or those that use their arguments) always claim "unreliability" based on ignorance of how these tests are performed. Failing to realize that C-14 has been shown to be VERY accurate for those samples that are organic and less than 40,000 yrs old.


edit on 6/8/14 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/8/14 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid


They work well because people are basically gullible.

I believe its fairly common knowledge that polls are nothing more than a propaganda tool used by the controlling cabal for social conditioning or mind-control.



I agree, and as I said in another post this poll poorly worded "present form" to leave it up to the one being polled to decide what that means. The true purpose was to capitalize on faith more than anything else and then use the result to sensualized their original objective.

Most likely 3 out of the 4 said yes only because God was used as man's creator....

We can all debate it but really, is there anyone here who out of 100 people they know 40 believe humans and dinos walked the earth 10,000 with 100% conviction?



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Yeah, Carbon 14 dating only works for half a million years or so. There are other isotopes they can use and other methods. When designing these other systems, they used Carbon dating as the baseline though. There is one other that is more accurate, and it does work somewhat in some of the abnomalty areas but it still doesn't match.

Since I started researching fossils about seven years ago, I did a lot of research on this stuff at the technical level. I found the parameters of the dating practices they use. Although I am not an expert at this, I do know my fair share. I will take the actual search parameters associated with the science over an opinion here. Although, if someone wants to give me some new insight, I will investigate it. If you do give me links, make sure they are from the actual site of a dating company. Maybe it will be the guy I know who actually owns a dating company. Then I can ask him more about it when I see him next time in September.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

You can find evidence to back any theory if you try. You might have to discount evidence that disproves your theory, but if you have enough clout in the world, the theory can become accepted by others in that science, then it becomes reality. Meanwhile, all the evidence you had could fit the real theory that is all together different. Meanwhile, your theory has been used to structure science and it is wrong, now what do you do. The whole science is messed up.

Now, I don't think knowing how long ago the dinosaurs roamed the earth is important. Neither do two thirds of the people on earth. My question is why people are trying to make this so important when we have better things to work on. Dinosaurs were impressive animals, but knowing that they lived here a very long time ago is about all that is important in reality. Fossils do make some pretty good amendments to soil also and the Chinese like dragon bone soup.

So what is wrong with my post, because I do not believe as you do because my research shows possible discrepancies in the dating and I do not think it matters in the first place, I am wrong. This sounds like a religion discussion, not a scientific discussion. I discussed a few things a few years back with a guy who owns a company that does this, he just said it is accepted and it is the best we have presently. He is the one who told me about the areas with anomalies and I researched that part of it after talking to him.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: Woodcarver





If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out.



Don't you claim open mindedness?

And spirituality close mindedness?

I think a dogmatic atheist is close minded, or am I wrong?


A dogmatic anything is closed minded. But an atheist who gets there because of the lack of evidence/data, is being rational. It is not rational to refuse to read up on the topic. I know when people don't understand a theory like evolution. So why do they come here and say things like "we didn't come from monkeys". Or "there is no proof for evolution".

I have never argued with a creationist who had even a rudimentary knowledge of what the theory of evolution claims to be true. They always want to argue the damn watchmakers fallacy, or that it's not true because someone else who is a scientist says they don't believe it. They never stop to really read up on it. The work is out there but it is really difficult to understand without a solid base in biology.

I know im not changing your mind. I do this for those kids out there who are interested in this topic and haven't heard these same arguments a hundred times. Thats why i am always glad to answer questions and even go retrieve articles and bring them back to the forum. Most people who deny evolution don't even have an alternative and then you have some people who just don't think it's important to learn how old the earth is.

Evolution is undeniable when you do the work and study it for yourself. The real problem is convincing people that they need a solid education on a matter before they get on here and try to argue.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver


Evolution is undeniable when you do the work and study it for yourself. The real problem is convincing people that they need a solid education on a matter before they get on here and try to argue.


There is only one HUGE flaw with that premise...

It is impossible to understand propaganda by STUDYING propaganda.

That would be the same thing as studying the NIST report in order to understand 9/11.

Or trying to understand a cult by joining the cult and reading their own writings.


"Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons."

Jonathan Tennenbaum: Toward a True Science of Life

"The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency." ~ Prof. J Agassiz, of Harvard in Methods of Study in Natural History

"...many elite controlled organizations are heavily involved in the spread of the evolution theory"

"The illuminati have a much deeper agenda than most people know, they promote and fund the teaching of evolution, while behind the curtains they worship Lucifer the devil as their own God.. they know the truth in the Bible and they know satan is real, its the sheep who are under the illusion" Source

Ever since the time of Darwin, part of the major press has been given the task of disseminating Darwinist indoctrination. The Darwinists of the time were well aware that the theory of evolution would never be corroborated by any scientific evidence, but produced a Darwinist dictatorship as the result of systematic and organized activities and charged part of the major press with spreading the fraud. The press in question is still at work today. The only difference is that the Darwinist fraud they perpetrate has now been exposed.

Darwinist Propaganda Techniques



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
6000, Its actually 6000,
where people get this far out story about 10, 12 000 years that should be relevant to THIS generation of species/human project?

Source, kind of, yahoo ...
au.answers.yahoo.com... (first answer even new for me)
creation.com... (if you really like to read a lot and join in to debate on their website..).


From here positive ironic post ends and will run some thoughts that are needed to send to the screens

So about the 12 000 years.. can forgive to Bill as he was traveling with nature in different times...
www.youtube.com... (remember that video?)
Okey, some might think that "hey what about galaxy 10.."42"+ billion Light Years in some where away... if the light view come Here by Slowness of light... its like many earth years" Well, what this have to do with us ?
You just gotta believe män!
this is the reason we was gifted with imagination of fantasy
(but not jet so sure about the ones who was behind an idea to put these four corner blocks all over human inhabited arias, was we all gifted...)


( ...Hey, what about Estonia calendar that is more then 10 000 years... ahh, whatever, there is reason why Est. code is ET ..)

Seriously, in here in Earth is more strange things around US possible (smoking useless, drinking poison, meat eating, family violence, parents rebel, hair cutting, competition, looking from Life other then Wife serving and forgetting to forgive and mind travel... choosing all that instead what we are ),
so
believing in to Bible to be best source of information is by far Normal and good
pretending like one would know more while having weak solution or will to solve the mentioned troubles - this is another mental strangeness we have experienced to be and would like to move on now

By starters, we Can forgive (lots) if we only few thousand (hundred) years of developed about Nature living...


(whatever is the seemingly five star Alien separation agenda here... needed!)
Parents, Wife, Kids - keep them in warm spot of heart, Hear, Learn as they would be source and our species WILL see more ( needed generations)
even all humans will agree with it?

Keep in mind good solutions, imaginations related to Everyones direction every day, when it comes to mind what is most important to remember.
Soon the thoughts that we are random pointless molecules will pass and will be replaced with roads where there is SO much to know about last few 100 years that 6000 seems to far to even imagine about with any true usefulness.
well, for me @ least. Well, if you are blessed with living in country side then you can even know how much there can be in one day...

When did we last time positively cry when hearing music ? Play with cat while keep in mind that one is smarter mystically? etc
Just hear birds in woods compared to "news" ?
Looking ants instead ads?
Making something new with kids instead entertaining ourself ?
Talking with strangers in real life instead with nicknames in nets?

(PS: Expose with care, everything who does seem to act like there is more important issues then being humble to Parents, Kids and Females who are most nearest door to what is called Heaven ) ...who are they and what is their personal reply we need to find out... one or other way their personal reply

did we mentioned mushrooms jet?
All that might explain time better then fossil or carbon foot print and latest findings from strangers.

Kodukoht: www.youtube.com...
She, when time is needed, can take You in to any time...



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: GetHyped

So your saying you have absolute certainty that there is no absolute certainty, right?

So would you say you have faiuth in that?



This might be the one true statement. I would be basing that on a lifetime of observation, so again no faith needed. Only reasonable expectation.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   
In my fifty plus years on earth, I've run into exactly one person, out of literally thousands, who believes anything even remotely this silly.

But, hey, never deny a chance to take shots at religion, eh? Or people who may disagree with your world view



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid
a reply to: Woodcarver


Evolution is undeniable when you do the work and study it for yourself. The real problem is convincing people that they need a solid education on a matter before they get on here and try to argue.


There is only one HUGE flaw with that premise...

It is impossible to understand propaganda by STUDYING propaganda.

That would be the same thing as studying the NIST report in order to understand 9/11.

Or trying to understand a cult by joining the cult and reading their own writings.


"Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons."

Jonathan Tennenbaum: Toward a True Science of Life

"The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency." ~ Prof. J Agassiz, of Harvard in Methods of Study in Natural History

"...many elite controlled organizations are heavily involved in the spread of the evolution theory"

"The illuminati have a much deeper agenda than most people know, they promote and fund the teaching of evolution, while behind the curtains they worship Lucifer the devil as their own God.. they know the truth in the Bible and they know satan is real, its the sheep who are under the illusion" Source

Ever since the time of Darwin, part of the major press has been given the task of disseminating Darwinist indoctrination. The Darwinists of the time were well aware that the theory of evolution would never be corroborated by any scientific evidence, but produced a Darwinist dictatorship as the result of systematic and organized activities and charged part of the major press with spreading the fraud. The press in question is still at work today. The only difference is that the Darwinist fraud they perpetrate has now been exposed.

Darwinist Propaganda Techniques


Is it propaganda to teach math? You really don't like scientists do you? Were you picked on by a need in high school?

Just kidding


The point is that science is open to change. We realize that new info changes our models to make them better explain what we are observing. Real science IS mistake after mistake until you stop making that mistake anymore. Then you publish. It's included in the model. Most models speak in terms of percentages. The more accurate your model the higher the rate of predictability. Until that becomes 100%. That doesn't always happen. And it's understood. A lot of times it will show you where the gaps in knowledge are and direct your line of questioning. Thats what i call letting the data guide the experiment.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
In my fifty plus years on earth, I've run into exactly one person, out of literally thousands, who believes anything even remotely this silly.


No more silly than believing in a chosen invisible sky fairy, creationism and adam and eve etc which are "canon" to certain religious folk.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

You can find evidence to back any theory if you try. You might have to discount evidence that disproves your theory, but if you have enough clout in the world, the theory can become accepted by others in that science, then it becomes reality. Meanwhile, all the evidence you had could fit the real theory that is all together different. Meanwhile, your theory has been used to structure science and it is wrong, now what do you do. The whole science is messed up.

Now, I don't think knowing how long ago the dinosaurs roamed the earth is important. Neither do two thirds of the people on earth. My question is why people are trying to make this so important when we have better things to work on. Dinosaurs were impressive animals, but knowing that they lived here a very long time ago is about all that is important in reality. Fossils do make some pretty good amendments to soil also and the Chinese like dragon bone soup.

So what is wrong with my post, because I do not believe as you do because my research shows possible discrepancies in the dating and I do not think it matters in the first place, I am wrong. This sounds like a religion discussion, not a scientific discussion. I discussed a few things a few years back with a guy who owns a company that does this, he just said it is accepted and it is the best we have presently. He is the one who told me about the areas with anomalies and I researched that part of it after talking to him.



You are contradicting yourself. Because in truth, the age (or the supposed mistake in dating) is important for YOU. You tell us the age is not important..but then continue on saying "I researched that part of it". So obviously, you had quite a keen interest in uncovering the supposed "mystery" of the age of dinosaur bones.

Why did the guy tell you "it's the best we have presently"...because that's EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. Who knows, in 20 years another method might be found etc ...

Also...aside from the (to be expected) unreliability and margins of errors of whatever dating methods, I (and I guess most mainstream scientists as well) do (as far as I know) not make the age of dinosaur bone a major issue and don't (as you seem to imply) spend lots of time on "needing to really know what the exact age is" (because that is already established).....neither do I have a religious belief which would require me to ponder this constantly since it would go against my belief. For me it looks you spent a lot more time on this than others.

Also..this is not a "religion discussion" since I am not forced to uphold a *belief* against evidence. I have to-date not come across an indication that this belief is wrong. If there'd be significant problems in finding when dinosaurs lived I am pretty sure I would know about it.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: igor_ats

Umm, that's precisely what I said.

But I also have an issue with people who don't share someone else's beliefs mocking them. Invisible sky fairy? Really? ...and what, pray, do you think that accomplishes? Other than hard feelings, I mean...?



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Also a lot has happen genetically to Homo Sapiens in the last 30,000 years that really separates us from earlier man.

Also how did the poll define modern man? was it talking about the one and only 196,000 year old skull that showed a transition to homo sapiens, or the 80,000 year old Y-chromosomal Adam


You are over-complicating the entire discussion, needlessly.

This poll was about creationism, the idea that modern man was created by a deity max. 10.000 years ago. Anything else is needless over-complicating or diverting what this entire thread was about.

It is here relatively unimportant that there were whatever genetic changes and the obvious fact that earlier man, likely or possibly, differed in certain aspects to "modern man". It is as simple as to shorten this poll/debate to the idea that BEFORE 10.000 THERE WAS NO MAN, or he was so significant different from "modern man" that he cannot be considered our ancestor..so basically, in a nutshell, BEFORE 10.000 there was no being on this planet from which we (could have) evolved later. The *exact* definition of what is modern man is really not..relevant here.

Now..what I did was bring in the example with Blombos Cave where IT WAS SHOWN beyond any "reasonable" doubt that up to 140.000+ years there did indeed live HUMANS/HUMANOIDS/MAN/ANCESTORS however you want to define it. Those even "mass produced" stuff like beads, fishing hooks etc. PLUS they already used a form of writing/language and possibly math because they found engravings on those things.

So..what other evidence would someone need for that BEFORE 10.000 YEARS AGO man was on this planet?

It was not monkeys or whatever other species since no other species but man knows language or knows how to write for example. "Monkeys" would also not mass produce items like fishing hooks, color them, make beads from shells, whatever.

You are correct, 200.000 years ago or possibly longer ago even (?) there may have NOT been any man/man-like species, and "modern" man may have come at the scene right about that time..but this doesn't change the fact that 100.000 - 140.000 there was some very advanced MAN in that cave which obviously entirely contradict the idea as in the poll that man appeared here 10.000 years ago or younger even.

Also..please understand that I would never buy an abstruse theory such as that "quite man-like beings but still not complete man" lived here 140.000 years ago and they already did rather advanced things....but only a good time later, god came down from the heavens and made them into "real" (modern) man.....this would be an extremely far-fetched scenario...and WHY would he need to create man around 8.0000-10.000 BCE when they were obviously already rather smart 130.000 years earlier and showed typical characteristics up to and incl. language?

All I can say is: LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE it's right there WHICH theory is the correct one.
edit on 6/8/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Yeah, if we stick to the specifics we don't cloud the issue. Take a belief in God, evolution and everything else out of this thread.

Could the earth really be only 10,000 or less years old?

We should be talking about light years and ice ages, dinosaur fossils and carbon dating.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
I see no problem with any of those labels. Don't you think it's dangerous to allow false information to propagate? I mean to say that it is religious texts which propagate exclusion, racism, hate for gays, fear of punishment for not conforming to views not held by science. A general distrust of science.

I think that is very dangerous to society and the world as a whole.


If you have two unproven theories, then talking about one isn't any more "false information" than talking about the other. We do have two unproven theories here. Anyone with a real understanding of science knows this. Claiming one side is wrong because of religion is a lame excuse to insult them. It's also a very poor argument for your aide of the issue. No facts, just insults? Lame.

I think the attitude that anyone with any religious belief is somehow wrong is dangerous to society, and the world as a whole.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: igor_ats

originally posted by: seagull
In my fifty plus years on earth, I've run into exactly one person, out of literally thousands, who believes anything even remotely this silly.


No more silly than believing in a chosen invisible sky fairy, creationism and adam and eve etc which are "canon" to certain religious folk.


No more silly than believing that aliens are here , or 99.9% of all conspiracies....




top topics



 
19
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join