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.

 

How does creationism explain....

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merkeva
Ok resistance for once I agree with you, while homo florensis is a member of the homo family they are not human beings the way you regard them. They are a seperate sub-genus and our most recent common ancestor was millions of years in the past.

I probably should have made the distinction of 'modern human' rather than just human but I'm sure homo sapien must've been what Resistence meant as we were the only species of human [so far discovered] around that fit the time frame of the Adam and Eve and ark myths.. unless of course he/she meant kind in which case.. hey I tried.


[edit on 6-10-2005 by riley]




posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   
resistance:

... The "entire scientific community" does NOT believe in evolution. Not by a long shot. Perhaps the entire well-funded establishment community does, but people who are being paid to agree are not credible. Obviously their jobs and prestige are on the line. There are plenty of scientists who disagree with these other what I call pseudoscientists, who advocate what the Bible calls "science so-called."


95% of the scientific community accepts evolution as fact. I really don't care that you deny it, because you deny everything, and you never once offer any proof of your assertions, you just continually nay-say. Scientists who deny evolution are putting their jobs and prestige on the line because it makes them look like fools to deny something that is scientific fact.




My reference to the lack of any proof of ANY transitional life form referred to finding anything in nature today living or any fossile that would show a transitional life form of any kind, of one kind changing into another, so that we have for example a reptilian scale morphing into a feather, a half-formed eye, or half-formed brain, or halfa-formed leg or foot or toes or fingers. Everything we see shows a completed organism, which is proof for Creation science, not evolution. OVERWHELMING proof literally.


Again, you use no facts. It is a FACT that homo sapiens sapiens EVOLVED from lesser primates. Deny what you want, it only underscores your own ignorance and close-mindedness.

www.becominghuman.org...

A documentary showing what you seem to deny.

A lot of evidence is found at the following museums. Are they somehow godless freaks, or are they being "pressured" by the scientific community, haha.

Centre National de Préhistoire, France
American Museum of Natural History
Field Museum of Natural History
The Institute of Human Origins
National Museum of Ethiopia
National Museum of Kenya



And since you yourself claim that God is everywhere, why do you think what we see around us came about by accident? Where do you think the atoms came from? Did God make them? Or do you believe as a purist evolutionist that the atoms are self-existant, not created? If that's your belief, then you are in fact ascribing god-like qualities to the atom.


See, where your whole theory kind of breaks down is when you LOOK UP IN THE SKY. The universe is filled with BILLIONS of stars, and countless hundreds of billions of planets. Tens of thousands of meteors impact the surface of the earth every year. Some of these retain some bacteria or biological matter.

If .000001% of all meteors that hit the earth had a chance of planting biological material, it would have happened every few thousand years.

So there you go. Who created the original atom? Er, who knows. Maybe God, maybe life has been around forever. Nobody knows, and you saying that it was God who did it is FAITH, not SCIENCE.


And if you believe that God created the atom but that the atom then went on to form everything we see around us with no help from God, then you are STILL ascribing godlike qualities to that thing God created, the atom. And the Bible says that's called idolatry, worshipping the creature more than the Creator.


No, actually, if God created the atom and then the atom evolved independantly, then everything that resulted from that is actually due to the original work of God. Because he created everything else, right? The heavens, the oceans, the sun.... Things that life on earth ADAPTS to. Try to think things through.



I've not discussed whether it was one one-celled creature or many one-celled creatures that started the evolutionary "process." The idea of one or many to me is just plain ridiculous. A creation needs a creator. A building needs a builder. It's simple.

So you tell me.


No, I am tired of telling you. Go learn it for yourself...

tolweb.org...

www.wwnorton.com...



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   
resistance:

... The "entire scientific community" does NOT believe in evolution. Not by a long shot. Perhaps the entire well-funded establishment community does, but people who are being paid to agree are not credible. Obviously their jobs and prestige are on the line. There are plenty of scientists who disagree with these other what I call pseudoscientists, who advocate what the Bible calls "science so-called."


By Jakomo:

95% of the scientific community accepts evolution as fact. I really don't care that you deny it, because you deny everything, and you never once offer any proof of your assertions, you just continually nay-say. Scientists who deny evolution are putting their jobs and prestige on the line because it makes them look like fools to deny something that is scientific fact.


I agree that "scientists" who deny evolution put their jobs and prestige on the line. So who really cares what they say if the only reason they're saying it is because they're trying to preserve their jobs and prestige?

FYI, the Illuminati controls the military, the government, the media, finance, even the church. The Illuminati are devil worshippers. They have agreed to lie and exploit to keep their jobs. Some of them may even have talked themselves into believing all this nonsense. These are the ones who "for money and prestige" advocate "Science so-called" as Scripture refers to it.

Guess what? They lie. These are not nice people. They do lie, and do so without compunction.

So since when does the opinion of someone whose status and livelihood depend on toeing the line trump the opinion of someone equally well trained and smart who is willing to forego that money and prestige in orde to stay true to himself and to the facts as they are?

Scripture is always right about these things. There's one scripture that says that what man highly esteems God considers to be an abomination.

If you really want to listen to the ones with the power and prestige, what are you doing on a site like this? Why don't you just tune in CNN or go read Time Magazine or check out NASA's fakey website or go read what the pope has to say or some other "Highly esteemed" entity with lots of money and prestige? Go for it.



[edit on 7-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   

.... "scientists" who deny evolution put their jobs and prestige on the line... they're trying to preserve their jobs and prestige... Illuminati controls the military, the government, the media, finance, even the church. The Illuminati are devil worshippers... "for money and prestige" ...They lie. These are not nice people... just tune in CNN or go read Time Magazine or check out NASA's fakey website or go read what the pope has to say or some other "Highly esteemed" entity with lots of money and prestige


This is hilarious! The poster forgot to include aliens, UFOs, Men in Black, the WTO, Big Foot, the Chinese and North Vietnamese, and probably few others - probably just in too big a rush to get back "Dr. Dino".

That settles the argument, though. Now that we know it's just a conspiracy by the Rothchilds, we can just accept that there's nothing we can do about it because we're all just doomed! I'm going out for more tin foil.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Al Davison


That settles the argument, though. Now that we know it's just a conspiracy by the Rothchilds, we can just accept that there's nothing we can do about it because we're all just doomed! I'm going out for more tin foil.


We're not doomed if we don't listen. If we continue to listen and give them respect just because they have all the money and power and worldly respect, then we ARE doomed. It's called, get out of the lemming parade.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
We're not doomed if we don't listen. If we continue to listen and give them respect just because they have all the money and power and worldly respect, then we ARE doomed. It's called, get out of the lemming parade.

Resistence,
The universe does not revolve around the earth.. this has been proven. The world is much older than.. six thousand years
. This has been proven as well. Neandathals and hobbits are not homo sapiens. This has been proven. The was not a world wide flood five thousand years ago. This has been proven. Dinosaurs and humans NEVER co-existed... this has been PROVEN.
We have all been very patient and accomidating with you. You have not proved a thing you've said and are now being foolish by calling scientists devil worshipers.. of course you can not prove that either as it's just a another pathetic attempt to attack the charactor of scientists in general. They do not worship an archaic BOOK like you do.. this does not make them liars or evil.. it just means they are not afraid to look in more than one place for answers.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Resistance,

Did you know that many "scientists", in fact, have to survive off of grant money. Some get paid nicely from major corporations, but most have to teach at a university to help recieve the funding for their research. Most do not have this petnhouse lifestyle you seem to charaterize them in. Their research is their life. They start out with a question, a curiosity, and look to fulfill it.

I quote my ecology professor "Working in ecology, you probally won't get a chance to own a nice piece of property, but you get to see the most beautiful places in the world. Places that many people don't even know exist."

Funny thing is many of those, but not all, of the people pushing creationism force square facts and evidence to fit in round questions. (especially young earthers) They believe they already have the answer so there is no need to question.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Riley -- You are the one who's supposed to be proving that Hobbits aren't human. I'm still waiting. I've offered proofs to things I've said. You can't just keep demanding more proof and not putting up any rational arguments to support your position, just emoticons laughing, and taunting and jeering.

I'm going to ignore your posts if you continue to do this.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
SilentLoneWolf -- I'm not saying researchers have a penthouse lifestyle. But fact is all the universities support only one point of view, a point of view that's wrong. So if you want to make a living, you will go along with that point of view.

The researchers who don't agree will have to make their livings by being much more resourceful and they will have a lot less "job security" -- but they WILL have more personal integrity and true joy in their profession.



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Riley -- You are the one who's supposed to be proving that Hobbits aren't human.

Suppose to?
..I already did. They are not homo sapiens.. neither are neanderthals.

I've offered proofs to things I've said.

WHERE?

I've got a hot tip for you.. when you claim you've said something when you haven't.. try remember this message board has a search function! You have offered NO evidence to back your claims and haven't even had respect enough to acnowledge all the evidence you've been given.. you've just deemed it bs without REASON and demanded more.

You can't just keep demanding more proof and not putting up any rational arguments to support your position,

Now you are just parroting exactly what I've been saying for the last four pages. Haven't you got any origional thoughts of your own? Rational thoughts.. opposed to your assertion that the illumati millatry are cross breeding humans and demons in secret underground bases? ..or that humans killed the dinos off? Yeah okay.. can you prove any of this or are you just typing whatever delusions come to mind at the time?

I'm going to ignore your posts if you continue to do this.

Please do.. you can start with me.. and when you get sick of other people presenting provable arguments you cannot refute.. you can ignore them as well. Eventually you will get sick of this forum and go to a creationalist site instead where people will tell you exactly what you want to hear and science will no longer be the evil boogie man frightening you all with demonic tricks like.. facts.

[edit on 9-10-2005 by riley]



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Riley -- Just post a quote from one scientist in one article of the many that are floating around where the scientist gives the opoinion that the skeletons of the so-called Hobbit people ARE NOT HUMAN. Simple. You have been screaming they're not human. But you are just Riley. I would like to see you bring me a quote that shows that one other person besides "Riley" thinks this.

I've surfed all over on this question and I've not found one scientist who thinks the "hobbit" skeletons are not of 100 percent fully human beings.

If you know something I don't, then please show me the link or produce a name and a quote. And stop ranting and arguing. I think the moderator should put you in check on this one. You are totally out of line.

Where's the link? Where's the quote?



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   
The fact that most people forget is that religion adn science are two sides of the same coin, if one dominates another then it loses its shape. Just as religion and science should not intercept each other. The main focus of religion is on how to be a good person(reach GOD), irrespective of any religion, its intentions were never to proclaim the designs of the universe but to show humanity the path to wellness in mind and in spirit.
By believing that GOD did or didnt create life doesnt neccessarily have to influnece our devotion or sway us from the path of righteousness. This debate is essentially futile. One deals with science the other with faith, they are two sides of man both of which are as essential as the other.

Creationism is the result of insecurity, insecurity that GOD's devotion will wane as people will no longer see him as the creator, that is nonsense. We arent savages and we dont need fear to secure our devotion. If God truly did create life then he would also know that Darwin would present his theory and it would be widely accepted. It is GOD's will that we leave the Science to the scientists and leave the faith to the pastors for they are two sides of the same coin, they both lead to the same place.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 05:09 AM
link   


Homo floresiensis was not an ape--it had the signature traits of a homind, such as a bipedal anatomy and small canine teeth. But it wasn't a pygmy human, either. Pygmy brains are in the normal range of variation for our own species. What's more, the floresiensis brain wasn't just small but had a drastically different shape than ours--a shape more like the brain of Homo erectus. This and other anatomical details have led the researchers to conclude that Homo floresiensis branched off from Homo erectus and evolved into a dwarf form.


Is this the quote your looking for resistance?

Clicky

From Carl Zimmer Phd

Credentials as follows, just in case you need futher confirmation.



His honors include the American Association for the Advancement of Science's 2004 Science Journalism Award. Zimmer has also won the Pan-American Health Organization Award for Excellence in International Health Reporting, the American Institute Biological Sciences Media Award, and the Everett Clark Award for science writing. His work has appeared in The Best American Science and Nature Writing series. In 2002 he was named a John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellow. He is also an associate fellow at Morse College, Yale University.


Homo Florensis was not a human.

Edit: Spelling



[edit on 10-10-2005 by Merkeva]



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Riley -- Just post a quote from one scientist in one article of the many that are floating around where the scientist gives the opoinion that the skeletons of the so-called Hobbit people ARE NOT HUMAN. Simple.

I did. They are not homo sapiens.. homosapien [modern human] would be your definition of human as you believe everyone came from Noahs ark or adam and eve. 5/6 thousand years ago there were ONLY homo sapiens. Is this not what you believe? I did not specify homo sapien earlier as you seemed incapable of making that intellectual distinction between 'human' variations. Humans, neanderthals, hobbits and chimps are also part of the primate family.. human is what we are. Get it now?

I've surfed all over on this question and I've not found one scientist who thinks the "hobbit" skeletons are not of 100 percent fully human beings.

100% human [your definition] would be homo sapien.. please show me proof that they are indeed homo sapiens. There is a big difference physically and would be like comparing a cockatoo with a canary.. yeah they're both parrots but they aren't the same thing.
This is the last time I'm explaining this to you. Please try understand it.

I think the moderator should put you in check on this one. You are totally out of line.

You're hinting for a lifeline now? :shk:
By all means make a formal complaint.. I have however at least backed my statements with facts and sources and not hearsay.. all you have done is reject them without reason and spread creationalist propaganda [what this forum is against]. I'm hoping [unless you start using some rationale] that this will be my last reply to you regarding the hobbit as we keep going over the same ground and I'm getting sick of repeating the same answers. You want to believe they're [modern] humans? Fine.. just don't expect everyone to agree with you and ignore what the scientists have concluded.
Disproving evolution would not prove creation.. you've been making demands on other people here.. calling them liars or trying to discredit facts by calling the scientists devil worshipers yet you have offered NO proof of creation. How does creation explain where neanderthals came from? How can the universe be 6000 years old when we can see stars that are 10 billion years old? What was a day when there was no sun to define it? How was there light before our sun existed? How did dinosaurs exist millions of years before us if they were created only a literal day before Adam and Eve? This is my point. You won't answer these questions and you are clearly not interested in explaining to us why it would be logical to ignore logic and believe in mythology instead.

[edit on 10-10-2005 by riley]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
resistance:

So who really cares what they say if the only reason they're saying it is because they're trying to preserve their jobs and prestige?


I did NOT say the only reason they would do it is preserve their jobs. I said that might be ONE of the reasons.

The main reason scientists support evolution is because they are EDUCATED and they know it to be true.


FYI, the Illuminati controls the military, the government, the media, finance, even the church. The Illuminati are devil worshippers.


Um, where did that come from? Now scientists are all a part of a massive worldwide cabal of devil worshippers? Lay off the crackpipe.


So since when does the opinion of someone whose status and livelihood depend on toeing the line trump the opinion of someone equally well trained and smart who is willing to forego that money and prestige in orde to stay true to himself and to the facts as they are?


Okay, again, nobody said scientists are members of some secret society except YOU.

I may point out to you that you are 100% "toeing the line" of your own religious beliefs (note the word BELIEF, not FACT). You are arguing your point with people who are well trained and smart enough to know that evolution is valid.

I have no agenda here. I believe in God and I believe in evolution. Whatever you believe is not my concern. I am no missionary.

What I will try to do is point out the obvious inconsistences in your Creationism argument because you are COMPARING it to a SCIENCE.

You are using your faith in something unknowable to combat the RESEARCHED and DOCUMENTED studies by well-educated members of the scientific community all over the world.

And frankly, you're starting to sound a little desperate. Where did all this godless Illumanita crap come from?


Scripture is always right about these things.


... Your opinion, not based whatsoever in fact, unless you wish to prove that Scripture is always right. When I want to learn about the history of life on earth, I go to Science.

Science grows and learns and adapts. It learns new things and changes people's perceptions sometimes.

Believing 100% in everything the Scripture tells you about SCIENCE damns you to a life of stagnation and servitude, close-mindedness and narrow perspective.

If there is an archaeological discovery that is earth-shattering, and tends to discount some things that were assumed as FACT, then I can adapt it to my personal views. If they discover that, no, Homo Sapiens Sapiens have actually been around for 160,000 years instead of 80,000 years, I CAN ADAPT MY VIEWPOINT based on the new data.

Your source material has no new material for 2000 years, and none is expected anytime soon.

But hey, nice try.

jako

ps. Hobbits are imaginary.










[edit on 12-10-2005 by Jakomo]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merkeva


Homo floresiensis was not an ape--it had the signature traits of a homind, such as a bipedal anatomy and small canine teeth. But it wasn't a pygmy human, either. Pygmy brains are in the normal range of variation for our own species. What's more, the floresiensis brain wasn't just small but had a drastically different shape than ours--a shape more like the brain of Homo erectus. This and other anatomical details have led the researchers to conclude that Homo floresiensis branched off from Homo erectus and evolved into a dwarf form.


Is this the quote your looking for resistance?

Clicky


Homo Florensis was not a human.




Merkeva -- The way I read your quote, they are saying homo florensis was not a pygmy. They are not saying it's not a humanThe word "homo" is Latin for "man" -- not monkey. And monkeys don't wear clothes or carve tools or make dishes out of clay or live in fashioned dwellings. Come on, guys.

[edit on 12-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
The main focus of religion is on how to be a good person(reach GOD), irrespective of any religion, its intentions were never to proclaim the designs of the universe but to show humanity the path to wellness in mind and in spirit.
By believing that GOD did or didnt create life doesnt neccessarily have to influnece our devotion or sway us from the path of righteousness. This debate is essentially futile. One deals with science the other with faith, they are two sides of man both of which are as essential as the other.



The Bible describes the Creator God and tells us how he created everything. It makes it clear that the God we worship is at the top of the heap. In fact, there is NO OTHER GOD beside Him. I'm not going to believe in just any god. There are lots and lots of little gods out there. I want the real one.

Another thing the Bible describes about God is that He is Truth. He is Truth incarnate. It is impossible for God to lie.

The Bible is a supernatural book that God wrote using "holy men of old," many of them. God was able to speak through them all and to preserve His own words Himself in the KJB.

I submit to God and to His Word. I don't go looking to make up my own religion or to believe in some phony writing by some kook who went into a cave or who put his head in his hat and decided to write some Koran or Book of Mormon or Bahagavad Gita. No. I want a miraculous awesome Book that is truly written by God, which proves itself by what it is. How could 40 different men over the course of 1500 years write different parts of the puzzle which put together make the Bible -- and have it all come out right if there was not ONE AUTHOR behind the whole thing? Answer: It couldn't. The Bible is a supernatural, awesome book, and it has all the answers to all the important questions, scientific or otherwise. There are prophecies within Scripture that came true within Scripture. There are prophecies about the Messiah written a thousand years before he appeared on the earth, and the prophecies were fulfilled.

And as I said before, if God did not create the universe, then that means the atom is self-existant, not created, and the atom is itself God. If you are willing to ascribe god-like qualities to the atom, that's your choice to make and your god to worship. I understand why people would prefer a god who is similar to electricity, one who won't know or care what they do, right or wrong, a god you won't have to answer to some day. So there's lots of books you can read that will describe these gods for you -- and all these religions were written by one man who went into a cave and came out with his "holy book."



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance

Originally posted by Merkeva


Homo floresiensis was not an ape--it had the signature traits of a homind, such as a bipedal anatomy and small canine teeth. But it wasn't a pygmy human, either. Pygmy brains are in the normal range of variation for our own species. What's more, the floresiensis brain wasn't just small but had a drastically different shape than ours--a shape more like the brain of Homo erectus. This and other anatomical details have led the researchers to conclude that Homo floresiensis branched off from Homo erectus and evolved into a dwarf form.


Is this the quote your looking for resistance?

Clicky


Homo Florensis was not a human.




Merkeva -- The way I read your quote, they are saying homo florensis was not a pygmy. They are not saying it's not a humanThe word "homo" is Latin for "man" -- not monkey. And monkeys don't wear clothes or carve tools or make dishes out of clay or live in fashioned dwellings. Come on, guys.

[edit on 12-10-2005 by resistance]


Homo may mean man but it doesn't mean any species that has homo in there name are homo sapians,anyways who said these guys are monkeys I didnt say it so you must have, you really have putting words into peoples mouth down to an art. You insist on balwking at evidence that right infront of your face,so i will try to make this easy for you, I think you may have your lines blurred as to what is a human and by human I mean homo sapian.

Here is another quote from a more recent artical:




The researchers say they are now more convinced than ever that Homo floresiensis represents a distinct species and not some diseased individual of modern human (Homo sapiens)as some sceptics have suggested.



news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Merkeva -- I don't know what you mean by a "species" of man or what the author means. Do they mean a race, a type, or what? Monkeys and man cannot breed together. This homo florensis or whatever is fully human and could breed with any other human of whatever "species."

What the heck do these people mean by a different "species" anyway? Humans are humans.

You don't measure people by the size of their brain or the size of their body. Neanderthal man had a very large brain and head. So what?

All this story about the "hobbit" skeletons show is that man comes in all sizes and shapes and colors and appearances -- but he's still man. There is absolutely no reason whatever to say the "hobbit" skeleton is of a sub-human creature like a monkey or whatever you want to say. Just like we have dogs that come in all kinds of shapes and sizes, so does man. So what?
The point is, a monkey is never going to become a human because it doesn't have the genetic material required. But within a species of monkey there IS genetic material already there that can produce other species of monkeys. This is because when God created each KIND of creature, he put within the genetic structure the genetic structures for many variations or species within that one KIND.

That's why Noah was able to take all the animals on the arc. One "kind" of animal was able to carry the potential to produce all the varieties of species within that "kind."

Within Adam and Eve's genes were the genes for all the races -- red, yellow, black and white and brown, for pygmies and aborigenes, eskimos, straight haired people, blue-eyed people, people with big hooked noses, people with turned up flat noses, all were contained in the genes of the first humans.

That's why kinds can't change to other kinds. The genetic material to do so IS MISSING.

And life comes from life, and like produces like. This can be seen in nature by just looking around and believing what your eyes are telling you. Why try to change or alter what is evident to be seen?



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   
There lots of reasons to say homo florensis is a different species,for a start its brain structure is totally different than ours, these guys lived for 80'000 years or so and only ever used the same tools over that peroid. Now you'd think if they were humans like us they would have advanced beyond stone tools in 80'000 years but they didnt there tools did not change in desgin for over 80'000 years. That my friend is the difference between them and us and its also why we can consider them a different speices.Simple eh ?

Oh and if you dont know what species mean look up a dictonary in future




Species are "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups"


[edit on 12-10-2005 by Merkeva]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join