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.

 

Scientist fired from university after discovering dinosaur bones believed to be only 4,000 Years Old

page: 2
44
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

I am not offended lol. Notice that I said "they"? As in them and not me


As a ex-christian growing up with my father as a pastor I have heard everything. And yes I know about special relativity and general relativity.

The point being is that they DO have many rebuttals.




posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 02:33 AM
link   
LOL, so the creation debate raises an interesting philosophical argument: If God planted dinosaur bones in the earth and made starlight look like it was coming from light-years away to trick us into thinking the earth was much older than it says in the bible as a way to test out faith, and we fall for it, does that mean we burn in hell for being tricked by God? Or, if we don't fall for these tricks, does that mean God is an incompetent trickster? God is supposed to be infallible right? So if he plants fake million-year old dinosaur bones in the earth and makes stars look like they're trillions of miles away, then we pretty much have to fall for it and be condemned to hell. That's effed up man.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Howdy,

Ah, I see. Well, as a rebuttal, that is perhaps one of the poorer of the choices. I've always favored the "made with age" rebuttal, to be honest. It doesn't have to break any known laws of physics, and it's relatively unfalsifiable. A win-win for most people.
(Of course, I don't subscribe to that belief system...) You make a fair point that "they" have rebuttals, though, so I can't argue with that.

Regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

Oh. Sorry I'm kinda drunk but I meant that the speed of light is not constant argument is one of my favorites because of how ridiculous it is. That's like pi and e not being constant over time.

But yeah you are right. "made with age" theory is unfalsifiable. But as you know (as per Ken Ham argument with Bill Nye) we weren't there. If we (non-christians) weren't there, then neither were they.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: BiffTurkenton
LOL, so the creation debate raises an interesting philosophical argument: If God planted dinosaur bones in the earth and made starlight look like it was coming from light-years away to trick us into thinking the earth was much older than it says in the bible as a way to test out faith, and we fall for it, does that mean we burn in hell for being tricked by God? Or, if we don't fall for these tricks, does that mean God is an incompetent trickster? God is supposed to be infallible right? So if he plants fake million-year old dinosaur bones in the earth and makes stars look like they're trillions of miles away, then we pretty much have to fall for it and be condemned to hell. That's effed up man.

That's not the argument at all, it's not a trick to test faith, logical falacy.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: Deaf Alien



Howdy,



Ah, I see. Well, as a rebuttal, that is perhaps one of the poorer of the choices. I've always favored the "made with age" rebuttal, to be honest. It doesn't have to break any known laws of physics, and it's relatively unfalsifiable. A win-win for most people.
(Of course, I don't subscribe to that belief system...) You make a fair point that "they" have rebuttals, though, so I can't argue with that.



Regards,

Hydeman

The made with age was the easy rebuttal I listed as well.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
oy. just read Genesis in Hebrew and with a good concordance and the young earth theory is destroyed by a single word; which is mistranslated in the English version. you cannot really be a fundamentalist if you cannot read the fundamentals properly in the first place. The Bible does not say the earth is any specific age and supports a vast geological age easier than a young age once you take that mistranslated word into account and correlate it to verses elsewhere in the bible such as in Isaiah and 2nd Peter; etc.




Which word? What verse?


the line in the KJV and most english translations reads "And the earth was without form, and void;." in the Hebrew it reads "and the earth became without form, and void;" Strong's concordance word #

www.godrules.net...

incidently isaiah has a verse discussing how God created the world that say God created the world perfect and fit to be inhabited he did not create it without form and void using the same words for that that were used in gen 1 verse 2.
[ex]V2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The word 'was' is Strong's number 1961 and means hayah (haw-yaw); a primitive root [compare 1933]; to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary).

The words 'without form' is Strong's 8414 and means tohuw (to'-hoo); from an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain.

The word 'void' is Strong's 922 and means bohuw (bo'-hoo); from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin.

God did not create the earth without form and void but it became that way.

there are many verses in the bible that look back at the time between gen 1;1 and 1.

isiaih being just one.

another good place is:


Jer4:22 For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.
Jer4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
without form same as Gen 1:2

Jer4:24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
Jer4:25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

Jer4:26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.
Jer4:27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
Jer4:28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black; because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.



this is not the noah flood. but the catabol. (mean overthrow) and what happened was men in spiritual bodies had followed satan and rebelled in heaven against God. (see the king of Tyrus for one witness) and it's also in revalation and elsewhere.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Oh my. A scientist that is fired when it turns out he is Christian and dares to claim things that threatens the political establishment and their holy evolution theory.

That only adds to what I already has claimed all along. The evolution theory has a political agenda, and it was introduced solely to get rid of the Christian creation theory and ban it from schools.

If it wasn’t for the fact that the heading on my calendar sais 2014 , I would have taught that we still live in the middle ages and that inquisition still existed.

Surely we are living in dark ages once again.

edit on 7-8-2014 by helius because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: helius

The Evolution theory has a political agenda and Christianity doesn't?

That's a bit 2 faced isn't it?

If people want to believe a ridiculous thing like the world is only 6,000 years old and worship a celestial body then that's up to them.

But there are other theories out there that so far are just theories. Just like the Christian theory. I like the Annunaki theory that we were created by Aliens. Even the book of Genesis references the Aliens creating us!

The 6,000 year old world statement is just plain stupid especially when there are structures and ruins out there that have been dated to over 300,000 years.

Yikes!

I think the dinosaur man up there has been manipulating his figures slightly to conform to his belief system. He's gone a bit further than a foot in the door and a Watchtower magazine thrust in your face......lol



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:40 AM
link   
None of that has anything at all to do with how they date the Earth. It's mostly done through geneologies taken from the Bible.

Maybe I am missing something, what exactly does that word have to do with the topic? Also you did not specify the exact word and verse in Genesis. Can you please do so.
edit on 7-8-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 05:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation
I asked a creationist if he believed that scientists know the speed of light. He said sure. I said how can we see light from 200 million years ago if we've only been here 6,000?

He didn't have a rebuttal.

AAC.


Excellent point made and a HUGE FLAW in any Creationalist (numbskulls) thinking…..

PDUK



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 05:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: PurpleDog UK

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation

I asked a creationist if he believed that scientists know the speed of light. He said sure. I said how can we see light from 200 million years ago if we've only been here 6,000?



He didn't have a rebuttal.



AAC.




Excellent point made and a HUGE FLAW in any Creationalist (numbskulls) thinking…..



PDUK

The "flaw" has already been easily rebtted.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: helius

Dark ages indeed. Political agenda indeed. We live in a country where a group of people who truly believe things that others see as nonsense get to write their nonsense in public school text books...

We should teach science Monday through Friday, you can teach whatever you want on Sunday. And if science is taught properly, the scientific method will win out over folklore and legends.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: R_Clark

The link is from NaturalNews.

That is a known hoax/scam site, run for profit by someone who is currently under investigation for inciting violence with his persistent lies on the internet.

Choose your sources more carefully. A simple guideline is that if it's on NaturalNews, it's either totally untrue or being misrepresented. Mike Adams is a despicable excuse for a human being.
edit on 7-8-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48



someone who is currently under investigation for inciting violence


Oh wow, is there more information about that?

I swear the health wanker had at least one person here driving traffic to his site too..



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: Rob48



someone who is currently under investigation for inciting violence


Oh wow, is there more information about that?

I swear the health wanker had at least one person here driving traffic to his site too..


Long story short: he put up a story on his site saying "Imagine if somebody created a list of people who collaborated (as in "Nazi collaborators") with the evil Monsanto... they might just get what they deserve" *evil laugh*

By an astonishing coincidence, exactly such a list appeared in short order. By an even more astonishing coincidence, the URL had been registered BEFORE Adams put up his original article. And by a quite frankly astronomical coincidence, the two sites shared numerous coding similarities strongly suggesting they had been written by the same person.

Read the grisly details here. (Fairly randomly Googled link - there's lots on this story if you search.)
edit on 7-8-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
oy. just read Genesis in Hebrew and with a good concordance and the young earth theory is destroyed by a single word; which is mistranslated in the English version. you cannot really be a fundamentalist if you cannot read the fundamentals properly in the first place. The Bible does not say the earth is any specific age and supports a vast geological age easier than a young age once you take that mistranslated word into account and correlate it to verses elsewhere in the bible such as in Isaiah and 2nd Peter; etc.




And you know no one really wants to hear this either. Why? Well for one in shows that so called bible thumpers cant even get their own book right. So when someone speaks up and says hay the bible really doesn't teach a 6000 year old earth this makes the critics cringe a little more. You know if they don't have the dumbass bible banging stereotype to straw man then they lose a large portion of their exclusive position. But hay what can you say when bible experts look so dumb for their 6000 year old earth theory and have back themselves into a hole? Then again whose going to listen to the small group that claim the bible never said that?



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: R_Clark

Very good thread, this show's that the theory is at fault, Sadly for the gentleman involved who may not even be a creationist himself, sticking his neck on the line for the truth of his find has shown the level of conceited and unscientific bias in the establishment, he is far from the first to have his reputation and career ruined for having scruples in a discipline in which honesty is supposedly a tenet.

How may inconveniant find's have been destroyed, conveniently lost or locked away where the public and even most who think the science is irrefutable can not see the opposing evidence, it is like they keep moving the chess pieces of there opponent when his back is turned so that they can win a game but it is not a game and they are litterally manipulating the fact's to fit an erroneous agenda which twists the truth to there own end's, they indoctrinate kid's in school so that they think they are more intelligent than there parents, they control faculty's at major educational establishments and like the old addage the victor writes the history which sadly in this case sometimes mean's the actual truth is the victim.

While this would not necessarily disprove standing ideological concepts about the history of the earth or even the theory of evolution it does possible suggest a species may have lived until the near present that was supposedly extinct over sixty five million years ago and therefore may rock the paleantological community if accepted as fact, it may however merely demonstrate a very unique condition that allowed preservation of material that should have decayed long ago with the former being far more likely.

It is also dynamite for the creationist side of the argument (of course every one is really a creationist regardless of religious opinion with there argument only really being time, cause and the nature of existance, of course they tend to avoid the word creation and use the world formation or coming into being).

There are two immovable camp's here on ATS and a silent third camp of watchers, the first are the Creationists given seniority not by there numbers but by there traditional faith based approach which by the way has nothing wrong with it but is often inflexible, the second is the devout faith based group whose firm beilef is in what they call established fact's, these fact's are actually theory's with fitting evidence that is interpreted in line with further theory's and established actually mean's unchallenged by the majority of that school of thought and accepted as is.

Science such as physics may have flaw's but works as you can see by the computer you are using, disciplines of engineering work perfectly, chemistry, biology (they are still learning day by day) but paleantology and archeology are not true science and are often more grounded in the disciplince (Indoctrinated or educated to a accepted framework) of interpretation, this interpretation is based on the interpretation of previous experts in these field's and there established criteria are heavily influenced by anti religious bias though often that is so hidden in the depth's of there discipline that they are actually not that aware of it in the way it has been introduced and integrated into there conscious perspective which actually schew's there perspective every bit as much as religion does and they are convinced they alone are correct.

The third camp are often content to watch an immovable force collide with an immovable object and often laugh at how right both camp's believe themselve's to be, could often pick apart both side's arguements and they include some genuine very intelligent and unbiased people of all profession's and disciplines.

As a christian myselt though perhaps not the best example of one I can say the only persion who know's is God, unless the atheists are correct (which I believe they are not) and then nobody know's.

This is a fine example of a man whom pull's the card out from under the wonky leg of a table that is not properly balanced and everything on top of that table including the houses of card's based on previous assumptions now called accepted fact's is shaken to the point it may partially or completely collapse so the crowd turn there back on that man for fear he may knock there houses of card's over and they would have to start again, actually willing to accept error over the work of remaking there discipline, rewriting there text book's and re educating the population that they were wrong after all.

edit on 7-8-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: R_Clark

Nope, Armitage is being intellectually dishonest..


Mark wasn’t fired because he discovered something that was challenging evolution.

He was fired because he showed a completely lack of intellectual honesty and was misrepresenting discoveries in order to make a personal profit as a speaker of creationism. And in this law suit? Mark has won no matter what.

Either Mark wins and so allows the usage of real science to make fallacious claims by protecting it as freedom of religion. Or Mark loses the cases and becomes a poster child for the expelled trope of creationists where he profits from travelling about claiming that he is the creationist science tried to silence.


freethoughtblogs.com...



This is just the standard line they use when they need to smear alternative anything. Just in it for the money, trying to twist facts to conform to personal beliefs and dishonest. And it gets all stared up like ATS is full of yeas men and empty skulls.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hilux1996
a reply to: helius

The Evolution theory has a political agenda and Christianity doesn't?

That's a bit 2 faced isn't it?

If people want to believe a ridiculous thing like the world is only 6,000 years old and worship a celestial body then that's up to them.

But there are other theories out there that so far are just theories. Just like the Christian theory. I like the Annunaki theory that we were created by Aliens. Even the book of Genesis references the Aliens creating us!

The 6,000 year old world statement is just plain stupid especially when there are structures and ruins out there that have been dated to over 300,000 years.

Yikes!

I think the dinosaur man up there has been manipulating his figures slightly to conform to his belief system. He's gone a bit further than a foot in the door and a Watchtower magazine thrust in your face......lol



Please don't assume all Christians follow the ridiculous young Earth belief, it's a fringe theory followed by fringe people.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join