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.

 

55 thousand year old modern human from Manot cave in Israel

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   
They've carbon dated cave paintings to atleast 30,000 years old.. so were they wrong about that too? Lol


a reply to: BELIEVERpriest




posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Shiloh7

Because radioactive dating cannot prove dates, there are too many unknown factors. The bible teaches that human civilization is no older that 6123 years, and that the flood occured in the year 1656.


Notwithstanding the ridiculous translations of the Bible, and the many changes, and the fact they were written for various reasons of which almost NONE are to be "The Bible",

At what point ANYWHERE does it make such claims, even IF you have a good idea from SOME calendars and geneology of our "current paradigm".



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

Im sorry that you misunderstand. I have many threads that link the Biblical calendar to the hebrew and Greek meter of the OT and NT. Its not something that I can just explain in one paragraph, it involves years of research.

Its knowledge that you lack, and you do not have because you do not ask, or you ask with the wrong motives.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA


Your right. Lets just believe the bible and stop science all together because the gospels are so much more accurate.

Humans no older than 6,000 years? You have to be religious to believe something that ignorant.


You have to be non religious to believe carbon or any of the other dating systems we have are reliable...There are many obvious flaws in the system, and when someone says it is in between 40,000 and 60,000 years old, that doesn't wave a red flag to you? 20,000 year range there....20 effing thousand!! Not 20 years, 20 THOUSAND!!! People that believe this garbage are just trying to push off religion as being un-reliable, yet believe something such as this which is MORE un-reliable!



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: MALBOSIA


Your right. Lets just believe the bible and stop science all together because the gospels are so much more accurate.

Humans no older than 6,000 years? You have to be religious to believe something that ignorant.


You have to be non religious to believe carbon or any of the other dating systems we have are reliable...There are many obvious flaws in the system, and when someone says it is in between 40,000 and 60,000 years old, that doesn't wave a red flag to you? 20,000 year range there....20 effing thousand!! Not 20 years, 20 THOUSAND!!! People that believe this garbage are just trying to push off religion as being un-reliable, yet believe something such as this which is MORE un-reliable!


That is understandable. But to cut us off at 6000 years because of some nut job story book that isn't backed by anything but faith is not understandable. That is insanity and dangerous to the advancement of civilization. Lets keep the door open. Who knows what might walk in.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: MALBOSIA


Your right. Lets just believe the bible and stop science all together because the gospels are so much more accurate.

Humans no older than 6,000 years? You have to be religious to believe something that ignorant.


You have to be non religious to believe carbon or any of the other dating systems we have are reliable...There are many obvious flaws in the system, and when someone says it is in between 40,000 and 60,000 years old, that doesn't wave a red flag to you? 20,000 year range there....20 effing thousand!! Not 20 years, 20 THOUSAND!!! People that believe this garbage are just trying to push off religion as being un-reliable, yet believe something such as this which is MORE un-reliable!


That is understandable. But to cut us off at 6000 years because of some nut job story book that isn't backed by anything but faith is not understandable. That is insanity and dangerous to the advancement of civilization. Lets keep the door open. Who knows what might walk in.


Listen, I am religious but I don't know or have an opinion of how old the Earth/people are....But I will not by any means believe in a system that they have such huge guesses to the age...If someone told you without any scientific evidence of anything that a spear they have in their possession is in between 10,000 and 40,000 years old....What would you say to them? Stop just believing what they say because it is a "scientific" way of dating things and put what they are saying into perspective....Carbon dating techniques are an absolute joke and I feel bad for people who take that as anything other than that...



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA


That is understandable. But to cut us off at 6000 years because of some nut job story book that isn't backed by anything but faith is not understandable. That is insanity and dangerous to the advancement of civilization. Lets keep the door open. Who knows what might walk in.


That "nut job book" was written by some of the brightest intellectuals of the ancient world. Moses, who was trained by the Egyptians, wrote the first 5 books of the Torah, and he was able to meter his poems to keep them 'tamper resistant' while also explaining the flow of historical events.

The ancient world was able to accomplish with their hands, what we struggle to build with machines. Ill trust their witness over that of modern science and the "Darwinian Creed". We like to point and laugh at our past, but perhaps it is us who have become too big for our britches.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: MALBOSIA


Your right. Lets just believe the bible and stop science all together because the gospels are so much more accurate.

Humans no older than 6,000 years? You have to be religious to believe something that ignorant.


You have to be non religious to believe carbon or any of the other dating systems we have are reliable...There are many obvious flaws in the system, and when someone says it is in between 40,000 and 60,000 years old, that doesn't wave a red flag to you? 20,000 year range there....20 effing thousand!! Not 20 years, 20 THOUSAND!!! People that believe this garbage are just trying to push off religion as being un-reliable, yet believe something such as this which is MORE un-reliable!


That is understandable. But to cut us off at 6000 years because of some nut job story book that isn't backed by anything but faith is not understandable. That is insanity and dangerous to the advancement of civilization. Lets keep the door open. Who knows what might walk in.


Listen, I am religious but I don't know or have an opinion of how old the Earth/people are....But I will not by any means believe in a system that they have such huge guesses to the age...If someone told you without any scientific evidence of anything that a spear they have in their possession is in between 10,000 and 40,000 years old....What would you say to them? Stop just believing what they say because it is a "scientific" way of dating things and put what they are saying into perspective....Carbon dating techniques are an absolute joke and I feel bad for people who take that as anything other than that...


Evolution would take much longer than 6000 years to get to this stage. I am jot backing any carbon dating. As far as I am concerned our history was infinite since there is nothing to mark a beginning. No fossil or book has pin pointed the start of it all.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: MALBOSIA


That is understandable. But to cut us off at 6000 years because of some nut job story book that isn't backed by anything but faith is not understandable. That is insanity and dangerous to the advancement of civilization. Lets keep the door open. Who knows what might walk in.


That "nut job book" was written by some of the brightest intellectuals of the ancient world. Moses, who was trained by the Egyptians, wrote the first 5 books of the Torah, and he was able to meter his poems to keep them 'tamper resistant' while also explaining the flow of historical events.

The ancient world was able to accomplish with their hands, what we struggle to build with machines. Ill trust their witness over that of modern science and the "Darwinian Creed". We like to point and laugh at our past, but perhaps it is us who have become too big for our britches.


Now I am pretty sure you are just trolling me.

How did they build that stuff you mentioned? God willed it?

Listen, this thread had nothing to do with religion. You injected your gospel and dictated boundaries that science must stay with in. Your wrong. You have nothing to prove your stance. Nothing. Neither do I, however I am not closing the door and dictating boundaries. Beliefs are beliefs but yours is strangling everyone else.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA


Your wrong. You have nothing to prove your stance. Nothing. Neither do I, however I am not closing the door and dictating boundaries. Beliefs are beliefs but yours is strangling everyone else.


Im not trolling nor am I witnessing, I am simply establishing an alternative theory which you seem to have a problem with. Science is just as much of a religion as Islam or Catholicism. It requires faith in the limited observations of man. Clearly it is you who is intolerant of anything out side of your field of scientific vision.

Here are the facts:
1)Radioactive decay is not a consistent or objective way of dating anything, when there are unknown environmental factors involved.

2)Evolution between species has yet to be proven, and is largely based on hoaxed findings. It is also shoved down the throats of school children.

3)Evolution within as species does not take thousands of years to produce change.

4)The bible is indeed older than modern science, therefore making equally plausible.

Scientists have research grants to maintain, therefore it is in their interest to produce results that glorify the opinions of their sponsors.

Im not turning this into a religious thread, Im just encouraging others to think out side of the box.

Why are you so up tight?



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Im still waiting for Randyvs to pop by and make me feel terrible for my intolerant posts. I might have dodged a bullet here.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
4)The bible is indeed older than modern science, therefore making equally plausible.

We have human documents thousands of years older than the bible.

Should we assume then, that God is not real, and we have forgotten our actual Pantheons?

I mean no insult to any other religions that predate Christianity by millenia, but I do not know the correct terminology for your deities.

This is the crux of the Abrahamic religions...you are (literally) the John Come Lately's to the religious party.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: MALBOSIA


Your wrong. You have nothing to prove your stance. Nothing. Neither do I, however I am not closing the door and dictating boundaries. Beliefs are beliefs but yours is strangling everyone else.


Im not trolling nor am I witnessing, I am simply establishing an alternative theory which you seem to have a problem with. Science is just as much of a religion as Islam or Catholicism. It requires faith in the limited observations of man. Clearly it is you who is intolerant of anything out side of your field of scientific vision.

Here are the facts:
1)Radioactive decay is not a consistent or objective way of dating anything, when there are unknown environmental factors involved.

2)Evolution between species has yet to be proven, and is largely based on hoaxed findings. It is also shoved down the throats of school children.

3)Evolution within as species does not take thousands of years to produce change.

4)The bible is indeed older than modern science, therefore making equally plausible.

Scientists have research grants to maintain, therefore it is in their interest to produce results that glorify the opinions of their sponsors.

Im not turning this into a religious thread, Im just encouraging others to think out side of the box.

Why are you so up tight?


The bible is NOT outside the box. It IS the box. Anyway, to each their own I suppose.
edit on 29-1-2015 by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA


The bible is NOT outside the box. It IS the box. Anyway, to each their own I suppose.

See, that is what you call an 'opinion', which you are entitled to, but it is very different than a 'fact'. Check your dictionary at your local library.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: LongishLongo

How many times does it have to be said, there were two mankind created from the Bible. The first mankind was created on the 6th Yom/Aeon. All of these stone tools and paintings could have been created by the first mankind. Then, he created Adam, who had Noah, then he created the flood, which destroyed all of the first mankind, then Noah had 3 sons who populated the Earth. This would make it appear that the Earth is very old, and Noah's descendants are related to the first mankind, when they're not(well, if you were to go with the theory that our DNA is a computer program, and that only a few changes or manipulations to it are required to change our appearance/behavior, then I guess you could say we're related).

The word Yom is very very important. I think it's been shown before that the word day and aeon(both are yom in Hebrew) are actually very different.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Shiloh7

Because radioactive dating cannot prove dates, there are too many unknown factors. The bible teaches that human civilization is no older that 6123 years, and that the flood occured in the year 1656.

The " Flood" took place during the time of Oliver Cromwell??



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Shiloh7

Because radioactive dating cannot prove dates, there are too many unknown factors. The bible teaches that human civilization is no older that 6123 years, and that the flood occured in the year 1656.

The " Flood" took place during the time of Oliver Cromwell??


lol, That is funny... 1656

There are faults and potential faults to carbon dating none of which would change the record much in short periods of time as in thousands or even 10's of thousands of years...

Secondly if Priest wants to quote the Bible then at least read the old testament in it's original language, In the time frame the Torah is recorded to exist there weren't nearly as many words as there are today. The word day for example had as many as 27 meanings, including Period, Epoch, Span, Measure etc... Which means the word DAY could just as easilly be translated to mean ERA

So let's recreate the way too translated story shall we?

First Era: Moment of creation (Big Bang)
Second Era: There was light (first stars shined)


we all know the rest, planets form ( Land seas) Life develops (animals

Carl Sagan had a little calender that said the exact same thing... I have never doubted there is "something) to the bible... why people that don't study languages insist words mean things that make no effin sense then go about inventing crazy theories to back up a mistranslated word of 200 is the great mystery I doubt i'll ever solve



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 05:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dr1Akula

How about the Petralona cave in Greece?

Homo? Yes. Sapiens? No.

Harte



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

Thank you for posting

It think the Chauvet cave makes a lot sense if you believe in the fact that an extraterrestrial being intervened in the evolution of humankind.

I agree: Dating is difficult
www.newscientist.com...
and it is not possible to see the difference between Homo sapiens without consciousness and the one with consciousness. But it seems to me that consciousness came with a big bang some 32.000 years ago.

There is a missing link. Alfred Russel Wallace knew it. And some people (the real rulers I call them) know it too. I’ m pretty sure about that.
See also: www.evawaseerst.be...



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

No, 1,656 years after Adam's fall.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join