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: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Merkeva -- All the reports I read about these "Hobbits" is that they were very intelligent humans. The thing that's remarkable about them is that they are very small humans. That's all.

I never heard of differfent "species" of humans. I always thought "species" was a term reserved for the animals. Humans are not animals.

However, as we all know there are many different kinds of humans, and apparenatly they've discovered the remains of some miniaturized humans that lived on an island with some miniaturized animals, miniaturized elephants for example. That is very interesting, but it's not proof of a missing link. The miniature humans were still human. They weren't monkeys halfway turning into humans. And that is something that we will never, ever find because the GENETIC MATERIAL IS MISSING IN MONKEYS TO BECOME A HUMAN. IT'S MISSING. And the reason that genetic material is missing, is because the Creator did not put it there. And if the Creator did not put it there, it's never going to create itself through evolution or any other way. If we can't do it in the laboraory on purpose, it's surely not going to happen by accident. Plants don't accidentally turn into animals and accidentally turn into humans. Things are what they are.

This is a fact of nature, readily observable to anyone willing to accept the truth for what it is.

Now I wouldn't be surprised if NASA and the military are not trying to breed some kind of hybrid creature that they will attempt to pass off as who knows what, but all they are doing is tinkering with genes already made and trying to be Dr. Frankenstein so as to deceive the populace into believing they've come up with proof that there is no God.




posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Merkeva -- All the reports I read about these "Hobbits" is that they were very intelligent humans. The thing that's remarkable about them is that they are very small humans. That's all.


*Sigh...* No. This is incorrect. You are breaking the board rules by posting false information. Your last name wouldn't happen to be Hovind, would it?


Originally posted by resistance
I never heard of differfent "species" of humans. I always thought "species" was a term reserved for the animals. Humans are not animals.


You've "always thought" wrong. Who can blame you, though? You aren't exactly out on a mission to deny ignorance, obviously. To paraphrase Nygdan, your discomfort with the fact that we are animals is irrelevant. We are animals.

Do you think we're plants or something? By the way, in reference to your statement about the term "species" being used only to classify animals, I must inform you that plants are categorized into different species as well as animals.


Originally posted by resistance
However, as we all know there are many different kinds of humans,


No. There aren't. There is only one species of human roaming the planet - homo sapiens.


Originally posted by resistance
and apparenatly they've discovered the remains of some miniaturized humans that lived on an island with some miniaturized animals, miniaturized elephants for example.


You are misunderstanding the literature that you are reading. These creatures are not related to homo sapiens.


Originally posted by resistance
That is very interesting, but it's not proof of a missing link.


The find has never been offered as, as you say, "proof of a missing link."


Originally posted by resistance
The miniature humans were still human.


Your inability to understand the difference between species of creatures does not change the scientific classification of these animals.


Originally posted by resistance
They weren't monkeys halfway turning into humans.


Oh, I thought you had read the literature. You haven't. No one has made this claim, excepting you.


Originally posted by resistance
And that is something that we will never, ever find because the GENETIC MATERIAL IS MISSING IN MONKEYS TO BECOME A HUMAN. IT'S MISSING. And the reason that genetic material is missing, is because the Creator did not put it there. And if the Creator did not put it there, it's never going to create itself through evolution or any other way. If we can't do it in the laboraory on purpose, it's surely not going to happen by accident. Plants don't accidentally turn into animals and accidentally turn into humans. Things are what they are.


Yes, yes, we understand your thought process. You have provided us with your thoughtful opinions several times now, but they continue to be mere static and uninformed opinions.

To characterize the process of evolution as a series of "accidents" is absolute folly. Processes of evolutionary development would better be described as the OPPOSITE of "accidents--" these such processes explicitly exhibit purpose. Your refusal to understand this shows that you really don't care about learning anything about what you are unexplainably and blindly fighting against.


Originally posted by resistance
This is a fact of nature, readily observable to anyone willing to accept the truth for what it is.


I am more than "willing to accept the truth for what it is." You, on the other hand, seem to be consistently ignoring reality and "the truth."


Originally posted by resistance
Now I wouldn't be surprised if NASA and the military are not trying to breed some kind of hybrid creature that they will attempt to pass off as who knows what, but all they are doing is tinkering with genes already made and trying to be Dr. Frankenstein so as to deceive the populace into believing they've come up with proof that there is no God.


This is utterly bizarre. I cannot understand how you could believe in such absolute rubbish as this and disbelieve in simple and scientifically backed theories such as that of the process of evolution.

NASA and "the military" are not in the business of theological investigation. Period.

Atheists are not evangelical. This includes scientists, anthropologists, researchers, historians, lab technicians, geologists, mathematicians, astronomers - you name it. If a scientific discovery conflicts with the Bible, it is not because of some kind of grand scheme to disprove the existence of God.

I think it's safe to say that good scientists could give a damn if their findings conflict with the Bible or not. I use the qualifier "good" because I'm including all scientists - even theistic scientists. Any scientist who ignores information about a find so that it's easier for him to cope with his religion (or lack thereof) is not a "real" scientist - or at least not a very good one. This goes for atheistic scientists also, in consideration of some kind of theistic find (though I can't imagine one).

Real science is objective. To understand this fact is to understand the scientific process, and science itself.

Zip

(edited for typoes)

[edit on 10/13/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot

Originally posted by resistance
Merkeva -- All the reports I read about these "Hobbits" is that they were very intelligent humans. The thing that's remarkable about them is that they are very small humans. That's all.


*Sigh...* No. This is incorrect. You are breaking the board rules by posting false information. Your last name wouldn't happen to be Hovind, would it?

Dear Zip -- I will go surfing this afternoon when I have time and post some quotes of what the scientists are saying about these "hobbits." I think it's outrageous that you would accuse me of breaking the rules of the board, deliberately putting up false information. You are accusing me of being a deliberate liar.

This Hobbit thing was thrown in this discussion by someone else. It does not prove macro-evolution. And so-called "micro-evolution" is not evolution the way the evolutionists describe it because no new genetic material is formed. The different species that emerge were already contained within the genes of the kind from which they emerged. This is what you have here with the skeletal remains of these "Hobbit" people. Just like the miniature elephants on the island are still elephants, so are the little people still people. Duh!

Can you say that you've surfed the web and read what everyone has to say about these "hobbits?" I doubt you've done that or you would not be accusing me of deliberately putting up false information. Everything I've read says their small skull size in no way reflects a low intelligence at all.

Arrgghh.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Resistence,

Could you please post links to where you have been getting your information from?


[edit on 13-10-2005 by riley]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   
resistance: Whatever. I'm done here. You refuse to learn anything, you constantly harp about the same non-sensical things. PLANTS CAN'T BECOME HUMANS, and the like. You don't back up any of your wild statements, and your facts are, to say the least, highly dubious.



I submit to God and to His Word.


Fine, there's your whole argument. My argument is that I try to learn and use the REASONING that God gave me to figure things out on my own.

So I will use my brain to learn new things that challenge me and educate me. You can, you know, submit and hope for the best.

link


A 90 million-year-old dinosaur with striking bird-like features may force scientists to re-write part of the family tree of the extinct reptiles.


Cool for me. Proof of some kind of conspiracy for you, or something. Sad, really.


jako

ps. I've always found people who pretend to know so much about the Will of God actually know nothing about it.





[edit on 16-10-2005 by asala]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Here's what wikipedia says about homo floresiensis intelligence:


Indeed, the discoverers have associated H. floresiensis with advanced behaviors. There is evidence of the use of fire for cooking. The species has also been associated with stone tools of the sophisticated Upper Paleolithic tradition typically associated with modern humans, who at 1310–1475 cm³ (80–90 in³) nearly quadruple the brain volume of H. floresiensis (with body mass increased by a factor of 2.6). Some of these tools were apparently used in the necessarily cooperative hunting of local dwarf Stegodon by this small human species.


en.wikipedia.org...


I'm satisfied that these little people are just that -- little PEOPLE. They are referred to by everyone as people, not apes, not even primitive people. They are just little people.

This is somewhat interesting, but it's a red herring diversion from the topic, the main topic.

The remains of this small human do not prove evolution.

Evolution claims:

Matter is self-existant, not created.
Matter forms itself into all the elements.
The elements group together to form one cell.
Let's stop here. We already discussed the atom or matter being given god-like qualities by the evolutionists (i.e. self existant, eternal). Now we are at the lowest form of life, a one-celled organism. Do you know how complex a cell is?

If you think a cell is a simple thing, read the link below and then explain to me how this happened by accident. Merkeva says the atoms have a propensity to create life. Are they so brilliant as to be able to create this one cell? Can our brilliant scientists create this one cell in the laboratory ON PURPOSE? No, they cannot. Yet you expect rational people to accept that this could happen by accident?


web.jjay.cuny.edu...




[edit on 13-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Evolution claims:


This is false. Evolution does not "claim" these things that you have listed. You are confusing evolutionary theory with abiogenetic hypotheses.


Originally posted by resistance
If you think a cell is a simple thing, read the link below and then explain to me how this happened by accident.


I responded to your claim that these things happen "by accident" above. Please re-read what I posted and respond if you'd like.


Originally posted by resistance
Can our brilliant scientists create this one cell in the laboratory ON PURPOSE?


In the extremely short period of time that we have been experimenting with abiogenetic experiments, we have enjoyed many successes.


Originally posted by resistance
Yet you expect rational people to accept that this could happen by accident?


You keep claiming that the complex and explicit processes of evolution are "accidental," and I find this to be absolutely ridiculous. I ask you again to please re-read the post that I directed to you earlier about "accidents" and respond if you'd like.

Also, if you'd like to discuss abiogenetic hypotheses, please visit my thread here about abiogenesis and the hypothetical origins of life. This other thread includes an elaborate discussion of abiogenetic experiments and their successes and failures.

Zip

EDIT: Oh, before I forget, this is from your own link:



Homo floresiensis is so different in form from other members of genus Homo that it forces the recognition of a new, undreamt-of variability in the genus.


[edit on 10/13/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Zip -- You said:

EDIT: Oh, before I forget, this is from your own link:

quote:
Homo floresiensis is so different in form from other members of genus Homo that it forces the recognition of a new, undreamt-of variability in the genus.


Yeah, it's from my own link. So what? Did you notice the words GENUS and HOMO? There already is a huge variability in the genus homo that we can see walking around every day. So what else is new? This is not a proof of evolution as we are discussing here. It is an example of speciation or micro evolution, and nobody disputes the existence of speciation or micro evolution.

You accused me of deliberately saying false things. There are numerous articles on the web written by or quoting noted scientists discussing the "hobbit" -- and how they were intelligent. You never read anything yourself and just accused me of deliberately lying. Now you're starting a new thread so you can go throw rocks at people who don't believe in the ludicrous claims of evolution, say that we're a conspiracy trying to take over, that we're well-organized. Ha! What a joke. The well-organized ones are the atheist evolutionist Illuminati who control everything. EVERYTHING. The media, education, finance, the military. They are the ones who forced the teaching of Creationism out of the schools to be replaced by their ludicrous atheistic, pseudoscientific belief in the atom and its miraculous powers to self-exist and form life.

The Intelligent Design people are trying to get back in the schools. I say, let the schools rot. I say, just rescue your own kids out of those schools because there is no hope for these awful schools. My solution is just to try to get people to take their kids out before they turn into semiliterate, atheist believers in UFOs and practitioners of witchcraft, and crystal gazing, potsmoking, ritalin popping total wastes that don't know if they're male or a female, and the only thing they do know is they hate Christians and Christianity and the Bible.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Zip -- You said:

EDIT: Oh, before I forget, this is from your own link:

quote:
Homo floresiensis is so different in form from other members of genus Homo that it forces the recognition of a new, undreamt-of variability in the genus.


Yeah, it's from my own link. So what? Did you notice the words GENUS and HOMO? There already is a huge variability in the genus homo that we can see walking around every day. So what else is new?




Whats special about this, is that Homo Floresiensis is so far genetically different for a species within our genus that it was its own species (its genetic material was too diverse to spread) AND it was alive during the time of Homo Sapiens. In laymans terms that means that TWO completely different human species co-existed and lived during the same timeline. They were genetically different lines of a human species (like the neanderthal.)



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phantom Chatter
Ok, first, Carbon dating has been proven inacurate, in tests it dated a piece of shell at having died 11,000,000 years ago.

Second, Dinosaurs (at least thats what people think is described there) are mentioned in the book of job.

Also, everything was created at the same time (some just on different days) Some just died out earlier then others. (triobite (cant spell it) fossils had been found next to fossilized footprints of humans wearing sandals. I have found out all this in books and of course the answers in genisis website.


(bangs head against wall and looks despairingly at the sky while muttering swear words) Okay, lets nail this series of idiotic beliefs. First things first: No human footprints have ever been discovered next to fossils. Anywhere. Let alone wearing sandals!
Secondly: If everything was created at the same time (with the dinosaurs presumably created early on) that doesn't give them much time to evolve over millions of years and then die, while a tiny fraction of them are lucky enough (so to speak) to survive as fossils. They are a part of the fossil record. They are strictly speaking still with us in the form of birds.
Thirdly: What's your beef about a piece of shell dating back 11m years?
Fourthly: The Answers In Genesis website is thoroughly recommended if you want a good laugh. It is one of the most absurd websites I have ever seen, filled with facts that have been manipulated to the point where they have been turned into lies. Seriously, it's a giggle. It's also read by morons who think that it's a non-biased serious site. Nope, it isn't.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Somebody needs to fix this thread. It's spread out so it can't be read. Moderator? Where ARRRE you?



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Actually I found something pretty interesting on the Answer In Genesis site.


Your dismissal of the dating methods is a prime example.

If you take one dating method on its own, it is quite easy to say it is based on assumptions. However, when you take several different dating methods and use them on one sample and find that each gives the same date, this makes their results irrefutable.

What you seem to ignore is the fact that there are many different fields of science involved in the theory of evolution. Arguing against one of these scientific fields in isolation is far easier than taking them on as a homogenous whole. For example, evolution and old Earth ‘theory’ are backed up by plate techtonics [sic], genetics, the fossil record, chemistry, physics, astronomy and pure logic/common sense. These all mesh together to form a very compelling argument.


The rebuttal is hilarious, of course, and all over the place, but THAT, resistance, is an excellent example of why evolution is REAL.



jako



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
www.biggercheese.com...

Today's Bigger Than Cheeses comic is a rant by the comic creator about intelligent design. Funny as usual.

Zip



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I know most of you on this thread don't agree with my opinions, but have I been arguing here that humans killed the dinosaurs and refused to back down on this? Riley is on another thread telling them that I have been over here arguing about the dinosaurs, saying that people killed them, and that all you guys have been trying to talk sense to me but that I just wouldn't listen.

Is this fair to jeer at me and tell lies and make fun of me just because you disagree with me?



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Riley is on another thread telling them that I have been over here arguing about the dinosaurs, saying that people killed them, and that all you guys have been trying to talk sense to me but that I just wouldn't listen.

Is this fair to jeer at me and tell lies and make fun of me just because you disagree with me?


It is unfair for you to have libellous material written about you, but if it's true, then what's the problem? Claiming that man killed dinosaurs is ignorant in every sense of the word. Your are incredulously throwing literal mountains of unquestionable evidenciary support straight out of the window. You are living in a fantasy world where your bizarre beliefs rule and reality has no sway.

This invites a certain amount of ridicule, and not the kind of ridicule that a pioneer in a new field sustains before he's proven to be correct - you face the kind of sad ridicule of a man who believes that man and dinosaur coexisted.


Originally posted by resistance
...just because you disagree with me?


It's not a matter to "disagree" about. This isn't an argument of opinion. You are "disagreeing" with cold, hard facts. FACTS. FACTS!!

Anyway, don't take my post too literally, I don't think you "should" be ridiculed, I just think that you should, in life, expect a certain amount of derision if you mean to perpetuate your crazy hypotheses that are easily and continually disproven.

Zip



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Zip -- Can you get somebody to fix this thread? It's spread out so you can't even read it.

I don't mind discussing the dinosaurs. I just wanted to confirm here that up to this point this subject has not been discussed and that just because Riley could't prove his point here that Hobbits weren't people -- as he tried to do -- now he's got to follow me around the board and post flat out whopping mistruths. I read back over the thread and seems like the only time the subject of dinosaurs was brought up was when he brought it up and we were in the middle of talking about Hobbits, so I'm not one to get distracted, and if I don't want to talk about something I just don't. I look over the threads that are up and if there's something I want to talk about I do. Why should anybody give a rip about what I want to talk about or don't want to talk about?

Whatever my opinion on the dinasaurs is or isn't, I don't like someone posting on another thread (Propaganda in the Schools Thread) things that aren't true, making up whoppers out of the blue sky, to try to make me look bad.

Hey, I'll debate until the cows come home -- I think you know that. I don't get mad at people who disagree with me, and I'm not trying to make anyone look bad. I don't like being accused of lying just because someone disagrees with my opinion. The word is "wrong," not "lying." You say, You are WRONG. Just because someone says something you don't agree with does not mean they are "deliberately saying false information" and need to be reported. Ha! If everybody did that there wouldn't be anybody to post on these boards, nobody but people who agree with Riley.

People who get angry with others who disagree with them on these boards are in the wrong place. There's way too many different opinions here for anybody to feel like the whole world is going to agree with just them.

I'm the one with the minority opinion here, so if anybody should be getting mad it's me. But I can defend my position and I will defend it and I don't mind how many people disagree with me or what reasons they have for doing so. All I ask is that the things I say be taken for what they are, and that I not be told I must not speak because I have a minority opinion or a different opinion and therefore it's false and therefore I'm breaking the rules about "deliberately saying false information." Riley followed me to another thread and put up the rule, saying it applied to this thread, told people on another thread I was deliberately posting false information here. I don't like that.

Maybe there could be some threads opened for evolutionists only or something if some people can't handle hearing a contrary opinion. But if the thread is open to both sides, then I should be able to have my say.



[edit on 16-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   


Zip -- Can you get somebody to fix this thread? It's spread out so you can't even read it.


Got it, A link was way to long, if this kind of thing happens again please use the gripe to alert a moderator,

[edit on 16-10-2005 by asala]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
You say, You are WRONG. Just because someone says something you don't agree with does not mean they are "deliberately saying false information" and need to be reported

Indeed.
Lets all try to discuss the topic, not make each other the topic.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot

Originally posted by resistance
Riley is on another thread telling them that I have been over here arguing about the dinosaurs, saying that people killed them, and that all you guys have been trying to talk sense to me but that I just wouldn't listen.

Is this fair to jeer at me and tell lies and make fun of me just because you disagree with me?


It is unfair for you to have libellous material written about you,


In my own defence, on the other thread I was accused of calling him/her "a liar" on this thread which I do not believe is accurate. I then clarified what it was in reference to ['humans and dinos'] as others would not of been aware it was taken out of context.

[edit on 17-10-2005 by riley]



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Meh, what's with this "teacher teacher" crap? I stand by what I said.

Back to the subject,


Also, what is the religious take on dinosaurs? One big hoax?


I have heard various solutions to this problem ranging from absolute denial that the dinosaurs predated us to the idea that fossils had been planted by either God or Satan in an attempt to test our faith or confuse us, respectively. There is, of course, the moderate approach, that says that the "days" in the Bible cannot be interpreted as being 24 hours and that the story of all pre-forbidden-fruit creatures being herbivores cannot be taken at face value either. So, people are all over the board on that issue, really.

Kind of off-topic, but related in a way; I heard a new (to me) explanation today for the similarities between certain elements of Christian tradition and older "paganistic" events - that Satan, foreseeing the birth of Jesus, had a hand in enacting earlier events (virgin births, sons of God, etc.) in an effort to throw us off guard and make us lose faith (I'm referring to Mithra, Osiris, Hercules, Buddha, etc. here). This was in the documentary, "The God Who Wasn't There," that I rented from Netflix. All in all, the documentary was extremely lacking, but some of the interviews were worth the while.

Zip




top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join