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.

 

A Question That Evolutionist Couldn't Answer

page: 14
6
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique
I suggest you guys read this page.
Source

Probably won't even read it. You'll probably see the website url and not even bother, yet still claim its bogus.


It is bogus because it doesn't prove a single thing.

Dragons have existed in mythology since at least the 13th century. The temple carving at your source is from the 12th century.

Most of the monster myths have been completely from someone's imagination OR they have been caused by interpretation of exposed bones/fossils. If a person living in the 12th century saw the skeleton of a dead rhino or, as is entirely possible, the fossilized skeleton of a dinosaur exposed by a wash-out or erosion, they would have filled in the gaps with their imagination. The same goes for the cave drawings.

You can't use a few drawings to support your belief that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. As you've already said, recorded history came about ~4000 BC. Don't you think they would have mentioned all the billions of dinosaurs running around? The earliest writings would have most likely been a manual on how to avoid being eaten.

Also, if all the current species have been around since the beginning... how did all the current species on Earth survive the dinosaur age? Or is it because Noah didn't let dinosaurs on the ark because he was a jerk? But wait, if dinosaurs weren't on the ark, how were they around in the 12th century to be carved into a temple in Cambodia? AHHHHH!!!! My brain hurts!
edit on 2/9/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique
a reply to: Answer

Dating techniques are based on assumptions. The main assumption is the constancy of process rates used to calculate ages. Seeing as that assumption is used in all the dating techniques of geology, then if the assumption is wrong, then so are all the dates.

You guys are going on a whim with the dating thing, you have faith that your dates are correct when they could be(and are in fact) completely out of sync.


The constancy of radioactive decay is not an assumption, but is supported by evidence:

The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable, at least within limits of accuracy. This is despite experiments that attempt to change decay rates (Emery 1972). Extreme pressure can cause electron-capture decay rates to increase slightly (less than 0.2 percent), but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.

Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes (Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b; Thielemann et al. 1998). These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away (Knödlseder 2000). Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away (Prantzos 1999), and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away (Perlmutter et al. 1998).

The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).

The above and much more can be found at talkorigins.com as well as other resources. Applicable researchers and publication dates are provided for verification purposes.



Historical records of any human civilization before 4000 B.C. are completely absent. You could say that 'We hadn't evolved yet enough to write history', sure you could say that.


But there is still an archaeological record going much farther back than that. You just choose to ignore it.


But evidence points not only towards us having a creator, but towards a flood wiping everything out and towards supernatural influence on earth and its civilizations.


No... Theres no evidence of Either happeening. The entire planet has not been covered in water for hundreds of millions of years. Your ignorance to the geological timescale womt change that.


When you get into it the Bible makes a lot of sense and matches up historically with what we know for sure.


Not in the slightest does it do that. I think its ludicrous that the nature of the demigod you worship was decided at the Council of Nicea by a consemsus vote. The cannonixafion of the books you believe so strongly in as the gospel truth was decided around 40 years later at tge Council of Laodicea, again by a vote. Its not like someone went around collecting books written about Christ during or shortly after his death, cannonized the, and the bible has been the same for nearly 2 millennia, it was voted on by roman, greek an Alexandrian bishops oushing an agenda. Yet we are supposed to believe it is the express word of an omniscient deity and you think Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is kooky? ... oK



Your dating methods are FAR from a certainty. They require faith to believe that they are correct.


As shown above, your displays of ignorance are rather flamboyent.


I'm sure you will disagree though.


I will disagree with anyone who attempts to argue against science without having the slightest grasp on the basics of the principles they are attacking.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Ok...I have a serious question. Was it just earth that young earth creationists say was made 6000 or so years ago, or was it the entire universe?


The entire universe....

In six days...




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Ok...I have a serious question. Was it just earth that young earth creationists say was made 6000 or so years ago, or was it the entire universe?


The entire universe....

In six days...



Ok, so based on that premise, lets take the Andromeda Galaxy which is 2.5 Million light years away from us and can be seen in the sky, sometimes unaided and sometimes aide is needed. A light year is the distance light travels in a year....this one is 2.5 million light years away. How can we see it if we are only 6000 years old? Wouldn't it take us 2.5 million years to be able to see that galaxy once it was created?

Does the OP suggest that the science behind measurement and light is incorrect as well?



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: amurphy245
"evolved from monkeys" and "missing link" The two schoolboy errors creationists make


So the 'school boy errors' that were taught to me in school as fact are no longer true. Yet I'm to trust that evolution should still be taught in school even though there is no general consensus and still no proof.

No thanks.



I don't think you were taught that at school. i think you have a faulty memory...However if you can produce the teacher that taught you these "facts" and get them to repeat it it. I will believe that your teacher taught you man came from monkeys.

BTW, you will also need to provide observable evidence that any individual you produce was your teacher, a photograph of you both standing next to a chalk board with clear text stating that man came from monkeys should do it.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Ok...I have a serious question. Was it just earth that young earth creationists say was made 6000 or so years ago, or was it the entire universe?


The entire universe....

In six days...



*Typical creationist rebuttal:*

"But the Bible doesn't say how long those 6 days were so they could have actually been like... a billion years each or something. Or or or maybe god just made the universe already fully formed with light in its current place and with valleys already carved by moving water and stuff."



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe


Does the OP suggest that the science behind measurement and light is incorrect as well?


I'm fairly certain the OP will suggest that the science behind anything that discredits his world view is incorrect.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Yes those are nice, but the rebuttal you are looking for that TechUnique will likely supply (if he bothers supplying one at all) is that light has slowed down over time. Then he would probably supply a link to gravitational lensing like that is evidence enough to warrant his claims.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Ok...I have a serious question. Was it just earth that young earth creationists say was made 6000 or so years ago, or was it the entire universe?


The entire universe....

In six days...



Ok, so based on that premise, lets take the Andromeda Galaxy which is 2.5 Million light years away from us and can be seen in the sky, sometimes unaided and sometimes aide is needed. A light year is the distance light travels in a year....this one is 2.5 million light years away. How can we see it if we are only 6000 years old? Wouldn't it take us 2.5 million years to be able to see that galaxy once it was created?

Does the OP suggest that the science behind measurement and light is incorrect as well?



interestingly enough... I made that exact same argument in a thread I wrote a little over a year ago....

Doesn't light speed theory debunk young earth theory?




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Ha....that's funny. I would think that would put an end to any young earth creation argument pretty quickly.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Ok...I have a serious question.


As apposed to what, Mocking questions?
Second line.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Ok...I have a serious question. Was it just earth that young earth creationists say was made 6000 or so years ago, or was it the entire universe?


The entire universe....

In six days...



*Typical creationist rebuttal:*

"But the Bible doesn't say how long those 6 days were so they could have actually been like... a billion years each or something. Or or or maybe god just made the universe already fully formed with light in its current place and with valleys already carved by moving water and stuff."


actually they believe the days in which genesis is speaking of are actually 24 hour days...

though that time is based on the rotation of the earth, and the time the sun's light hits the earth... even though the sun wasn't created until the fourth day




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: Akragon

Ha....that's funny. I would think that would put an end to any young earth creation argument pretty quickly.



One can not end an argument when the opposing side is not listening to what is being argued




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: Akragon

Ha....that's funny. I would think that would put an end to any young earth creation argument pretty quickly.


Actually, tree dating puts an end to that nonsense as well since we have tree systems like Pando which its roots system is dated to be about 80,000 years old. A tree system like that would drown under an ocean of water like that which covered the planet.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

There are also two types of light in Genesis. Light from the moon and light from the sun.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Ok...I have a serious question.


As apposed to what, Mocking questions?
Second line.
Could have used your second line to actually address something that people are saying to you.

I always envision creationist/evolutionist arguments on the internet as looking like this behind the scenes:

creationist: "Evolution is false because of ____"
rational person: "Well no, (mountain of evidence)"

**long pause, consults creationism talking point list**

creationist: "Ah, but evolution is false because of ____!"
rational person: "Wait, that doesn't even make sense, because (mountain of evidence)."
creationist: "Whatever, not reading that, it's not the word of God."

**long pause, consults creationism talking point list**

creationist: "Evolution falls apart when you look at ____"
rational person: *sigh* "Not really. (mountain of evidence)"

Repeat ad nauseum.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Akragon

There are also two types of light in Genesis. Light from the moon and light from the sun.


yup I know...

and genesis considers the light from the moon to actually be produced from the moon as opposed to it being a reflection from the sun's light




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Ok...I have a serious question.


As apposed to what, Mocking questions?
Second line.


I guess.....is that really your response?

So can you tell me why we can see these galaxies that are so far away when light has been timed and we know how fast it travels, yet you seem to think that we are under 10000 years old?

Your response just leads me to believe as I always have...there is no real education in faith or the bible...you just have to believe if you follow it with no questions asked.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Oh yeah and the earth was created without form and void. Then the land was put on the oceans. Except there is a HUGE disconnect here. For one, how do you create something that is void and without form? And two, where did the oceans come from?
edit on 9-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Maybe someone decided to keep it alive, who is that someone, like he kept a lot of things alive, was you there.
You dontknow what happened just like no one else knows.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join