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.

 

Origin of Creationism

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you think I didn't see the date or something?

My point is that it still applys as far as the fossil record
after all this time.

Hence:




The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence.


The present gaps, sound familiar? They were hoping for results in a few years weren't they?
So did it happen?

Or maybe my question is irrelevant again?
edit on Ram72914v52201400000014 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

(Facepalm)
Ah, the Missing Link gambit. I was waiting for that. What missing link? We already have the fossils which can be used to trace our ancestry. We have Ardipithecus. We have Australopithecus. We have the evidence of our distant past. We came from Eastern Africa.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

So two people who have reading comprehension problems. If the universe has always existed, when exactly would this "Poof and the universe is here" moment have occurred?


It always existed? So one day out of nowhere with nothing or nobody intervening, POOF the universe is made? Yes that is what you are saying.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg




(Facepalm)
Ah, the Missing Link gambit. I was waiting for that. What missing link? We already have the fossils which can be used to trace our ancestry. We have Ardipithecus. We have Australopithecus. We have the evidence of our distant past. We came from Eastern Africa.


And the fairytale fantasy of a common ancestor. So much for evidence.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
To this date there isn't a single indication or example of evidence
for this "common ancestor" in the fossil record. So there couldn't have
been to many if they're that tough to find. And I'd say that ads up to
belief in a big ass zero. So find your material proof before you demand
proof of the spirit. Phff you can't even do that.




You do understand that every day we learn more, do you? Before you post something again that is 30+ years old and try to argue about 'missing links', let's read couple of articles, first:

www.nationalgeographic.com...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

humanorigins.si.edu...

What missing link are you talking about? Time to learn that today not only we are sure that process of Human Evolution is happening, it's not under question even by Vatican's scientist, but we also have a clear image of our ancestral tree as showed in last link, with all those extinct kinds of humans.

What does your 'all knowing' book tells you about them? Big flood flash them away?



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: tsingtao

originally posted by: tsingtao


no, it's the deniers that do that.

example; you said "sky man"

you cannot anthropomorphise God.
well, you can try to.

it's just ignorance, so don't worry about it.
christians don't.


You can anthropomorphise almost anything, and humans have been doing exactly that since the inception of god/s. The standard portrayal of the Christian god in art has been of an old man with a grey beard (or Morgan Freeman), which is an anthropomorphism of a deity, (other religions also do it; Greek mythology, Hinduism, even Islam states that Allah has hands, eyes and feet).

Then there's the whole "god made us in his image", which is a literary anthropomorphism that tries to turn it around by placing the onus on god creating us rather than us creating it. Beyond that, we call god “Father”, or “Him”, which is a very chauvinistic anthropomorphism, yet further enforces the concept of “God” looking like us.

There's nothing wrong with that... it's what humans do... always relating our environment to ourselves, yet it does beg the question of; Were we god's creation?... or did we create god to justify our own form factor in a seemingly random universe?

The evidence points to the latter.


yes, certain people do anthropomorphise God and gods.

the gods all had human traits and different super powers. they were born and they died or faded away.
the christian God is not like that.
but you probably guessed that already.

if you want to think God sits in the clouds with a beard, that's fine with me.
a little juvenile but if it makes you feel superior, go for it.

the universe is far from random. if it were, there would not be all those nice laws the scientists like to come up with and none of us would be here.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: adnanmuf

No, creationism began when people announced that they think that a book of Bronze and Iron Age myths is factually correct and that science is a lie.



i keep hearing that bronze age thing but the "science is a lie" is new to me.

those "bronze age" people were pretty smart, i'd say. didn't they build the great pyramids?
ya think they used magic?

even jk rowling falls way behind.



Oh come off it. Creationists deny the following sciences: Biology, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry and Anthropology. And I know that it's not a science, but they also deny History.


oh, you mean the whacky young earthers?

maybe some of them do. i don't really know.

hell, you deny God. big deal on both of ya.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: adnanmuf

Howdy,

I didn't want to seem like I was ignoring your post, but someone else has already answered you about the most recent common ancestor... It wasn't based on genetics, it was based on modelling, with different models suggesting mostly on the magnitude of a few hundred thousand years ago, and only one suggesting a few thousand years ago (less than 6000).
en.wikipedia.org...

Please do not confuse the concept of most recent common ancestor with coming from one ancestor, either (although of course, we all did. It just wasn't the beginning). You must admit based even on the model that is closest to your belief system (I assume), that human ancestry extends further back the the most RECENT common ancestor. Also, did you know these same models can be used to estimate the time in which animals branched from other animals (speciated)? Neat stuff.

--
Now, as a geology student (and an avid fossil collector) I've been seeing a lot of naysayers about the fossil record... I've also seen some confusion about it's completeness. Please allow me to share what I know.

The fossil record is very incomplete. Fossilization is a selective process, and would be considered rare if not for the abundance of life on the Earth. In order for an organism to be fossilized, it must be buried rapidly by sediment, kept in a unique chemical condition (anoxia/extreme salinity) so that it is not decomposed or scavenged, and minerals in some way or another (there are actually many types of fossilization... replacement, permineralization, carbon films) must infilitrate the organism's tissues or form around/from them. Once the sedimentary rock holding the fossil is lithified, it must then be exposed back at the surface by tectonics and erosion. Great, a lecture, but do I have a point?

Yes, my point is that certain organisms would thus be favorably (disproportionately more likely to be) preserved as a fossil. Start with the sediment. Sediment accumulates almost entirely (with exception of ash and aeolian dunes) and by vast majority in watery systems. Think of a river cutting through a valley, carrying sediment down toward a delta. Sediment is deposited all along the way, with different sediments accumulating in different places based on the speed of the water. So, fossilization favors aqueous environments in general (marine being the most likely, as the vast majority of the Earth's watery systems has been ocean). Second, the tissues not decomposing or being eaten... Pretty self-explanatory. Hard parts, such as calcitic bivalve shells, can last a long time in the oceans after the original organism's death. (In fact, many fossil shells have been seen encrusted by a secondary lifeform...). So, fossilization favors hard shells/bones/plates/or other hard parts of the body.
en.wikipedia.org...

Now, to expect fossils of land organisms, one must be very lucky, as the conditions in most land areas would disfavor fossilization. Most land surfaces are erosional environments, not depositional. Most land surfaces have predators and are oxidizing, not isolated and anoxic... Is it any wonder that the fossil record of land organisms is so severely limited? This is why paleontologists have a field day when anything, a finger or partial skull, is found.

Now, I can also say with a great deal of certainty (from my personal fossil collecting, of which I have spent more of my time collecting fossils than many people, not just my formal education) that geology does not support the flood myth, so I warn anyone who'd like to use it to stick to the current topic of creationism, not geology, or to start a new thread for a discussion of geology.


That said, I remain open to evidence and remain neutral as to my stance on the existence of a deity of some sort. (Although, neutral isn't the right word... I don't see the evidence, but I am trying to be unbiased?)

Regards,
Hydeman



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: tsingtao

Do you deny paternity tests?


no one's ever asked me but i'd be open.

have you?



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: AngryCymraeg




(Facepalm)
Ah, the Missing Link gambit. I was waiting for that. What missing link? We already have the fossils which can be used to trace our ancestry. We have Ardipithecus. We have Australopithecus. We have the evidence of our distant past. We came from Eastern Africa.


And the fairytale fantasy of a common ancestor. So much for evidence.



I'm sorry, 'fairytale fantasy'??? I just listed two of our ancestors, one a hominid and one a pre-hominid. Did you google either of them?



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Evolutionists are bum.they ignore evidence that ruin their fantacy they worked so hard on but only for themselves to believe in that fantacy of theirs that humans came from monkeys.human haters.


and bananas.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: adnanmuf

No, creationism began when people announced that they think that a book of Bronze and Iron Age myths is factually correct and that science is a lie.



i keep hearing that bronze age thing but the "science is a lie" is new to me.

those "bronze age" people were pretty smart, i'd say. didn't they build the great pyramids?
ya think they used magic?

even jk rowling falls way behind.



Oh come off it. Creationists deny the following sciences: Biology, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry and Anthropology. And I know that it's not a science, but they also deny History.


oh, you mean the whacky young earthers?

maybe some of them do. i don't really know.

hell, you deny God. big deal on both of ya.


I've studied science. I also have a qualification in bible studies. The latter made me trust the former a lot more. And I don't 'deny god', I just don't think that he even exists in the first place.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

So two people who have reading comprehension problems. If the universe has always existed, when exactly would this "Poof and the universe is here" moment have occurred?


It always existed? So one day out of nowhere with nothing or nobody intervening, POOF the universe is made? Yes that is what you are saying.


Always existing means that it always existed. It doesn't mean that suddenly, POOF the universe is made one day. Always existing means that it was NEVER made or came into being it was always there. You just made the SAME reading comprehension error that I called you out for with the post you just responded to.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Evolutionists are bum.they ignore evidence that ruin their fantacy they worked so hard on but only for themselves to believe in that fantacy of theirs that humans came from monkeys.human haters.


This is a standard creationist attack, straight out of AiG's playbook. We did not come from monkeys per se, we share a common ancestor.


yeah, a banana!

so stop with the bearded man in the sky.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg




I'm sorry, 'fairytale fantasy'??? I just listed two of our ancestors, one a hominid and one a pre-hominid. Did you google either of them?


But I'm looking for proof of that common ancestor you keep pointing too.
Is one of those it?



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you think I didn't see the date or something?

My point is that it still applys as far as the fossil record
after all this time.

Hence:




The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence.


The present gaps, sound familiar? They were hoping for results in a few years weren't they?
So did it happen?

Or maybe my question is irrelevant again?


This tired rebuttal again... Sigh... Do you guys ever actually READ what you type or try to understand what you are talking about? Because if you did you'd realize that you are throwing around buzzwords that scientists have already moved pass (if they even worried about them in the first place).

Read this article if you TRULY want to learn and not just repeat dumb soundbytes:
The Missing Link Fallacy


We are not out of the woods yet, though. The likelyhood of finding a fossil that represents an ancestor of any sort of other organism, a member of one of those queues of organisms between known organisms on a cladogram, is astronomically low. The chance is even lower when we look very deep into the fossil record - so much so, that we have almost certainly never found one.

Surprising? It shouldn't be - think about it. Groups of organisms are continually evolving, groups migrating, changing, constantly splitting from one another in a fractal way. Are we really likely to accidentally stumble across one particular animal that is a member of a group that is a direct ancestor of another group we know about? No, of course not.

We have to image the lines on a cladogram as being a zoomed out line of our ancestors, a long queue stretching back towards our common ancestor with the next twig. Its along these lines that we slowly change. If the organism bears a resemblance to another or seems to be transitional, it could well be on a myriad of small offshoots from our line of ancestors, and could even be close to our line, but the chances of it actually being on our line is tiny. Walking through an old graveyard, are any of the gravestones likely to be an ancestor of yours? How about a skull in an African cave? Or a fossil monkey in a swamp? Even taking into account pedigree collapse, its still highly unlikely.

Transitional fossils do exist. Its just that they aren't necessarily the precise ancestors of organisms that we see; rather, are members of a cloud of organisms treading along some of the same evolutionary ideas, being as they are closely related to one another. Out of this maelstrom of different lineages there may be just one thread that gives rise to another important lineage. The fossils in this cloud still give us a chance to test our hypotheses about how the trends may have occurred in the lineages we're interested in. But they may not necessarily a true link in the chain.

That's the true art of paleontology, you see: using examples from the fossil record to infer trends and to test hypotheses about the nature of evolution. To assume that it is simply trying to make a sort of flip-book of evolution through time is incredibly ignorant.


This is a little shorter if you don't have the time to read the previous article (in full):
18 creationist arguments debunked

1. “Where is the missing link/ transitional fossils?”

First of all, it should be noted that fossils are not easily found. They are rare, as general conditions do not always favor the formation of fossils. This being said, we actually have a HUGE number of transitional fossils and links between species. While it’s true that we won’t be able to find every single fossil for every single species that has ever existed, we have more than enough to accept the fossil record as extremely important evidence. An analogy would be this: ABCD_FGHIJK_MNO_QRST_VW_YZ. We have some blanks, but we can pretty much figure out which letters (or in evolution’s case, species containing certain traits) fit into these holes. Keep in mind that not having a perfectly complete fossil record is NOT evidence against evolution. It simply implies that there’s still room for improvement, and we still continue to fill in the blanks with new fossil finds. Here is a great reference with an enormous listing of different fossils and links: www.talkorigins.org...

and here’s another: darwiniana.org...

and ::gasp:: here’s ANOTHER: www.holysmoke.org...

edit on 29-7-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: adnanmuf
If you multiply your post million times, it still does not offer any evidence for your 'claim'. What single male, when that is not what DNA tells us. There is no chicken and egg, and we are not offspring of a single male.
That is not what DNA and evidence tells us, and that is not how evolution works.



originally posted by: randyvs
That's why there' s a book.

He is our Father in Heaven.


Book written by whom? How come large parts of that 'book' were plagiarized from Mesopotamia - from same folks whose religion now we call mythology. How is your religion any different then their mythology?

I will answer that - it's not.


You believe in something without any evidence, and you follow book that we have EVIDENCE that not only is wrong, but is plagiarizing some earlier religions that we today call mythology.


meh, you people call everything mythology.

it's like the boy who cried wolf.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: tsingtao

Can you prove that it isn't mythology?



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You got it, I read 'em. And I wasn't the one who brought up
" A Common ancestor" to begin with, just for the record.
And it seems a little like convenient flim flam if you ask me.
Now we can keep our common ancestor and we don't even
have to ever find proof of one. Don't you see how one might
see it that way?



edit on Ram72914v422014u20 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Evolutionists are bum.they ignore evidence that ruin their fantacy they worked so hard on but only for themselves to believe in that fantacy of theirs that humans came from monkeys.human haters.


and bananas.



Why are bananas confusing you?




new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join