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.

 

The Creationist Myth - 500,000-Year-Old Stone Tools, Butchered Elephant Bones Found in Israel

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   
One day scientists may well discover an accurate way to date rocks, tools and other items

Only a ardent evolutionist sticks their fingers in their years and says we have accurate dating methods and we know everything

Those tools could be 1000 years old, what would you know.

Its just a guess at best

and why the baiting with the stupid image, you think you are so much better than all those who believe in creation


and NOT ONE single drop of evidence, elephant bones, modern elephants?

edit on b2015Sat, 21 Mar 2015 20:59:23 -050033120156pm312015-03-21T20:59:23-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: eisegesis

www.adherents.com...


I agree, except for their views on creation. While I don't claim to have the answer, I do know they are wrong.

You BELIEVE they are wrong, you don't KNOW anything.
Your not God



And most if not all were not Creationists.


Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of God during a relatively short period, between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. Its primary adherents are those Christians and Jews who, using a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative as a basis, believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days.

Your telling me that all those people took the Bible literally?

If great minds like that took the bible literally, science would still be in the stone age. Look at what it did for stem cell research. Religious beliefs trump science for fear of proving itself wrong and losing control. Not in every case, but some significant ones.

And for the record, I don't dismiss the possibility of a creator. The focus of the OP was on Creationism. If you don't think everything in existence was created in six days or humans were created only less than 10,000 years ago, then you shouldn't have gotten offended in the first place. I think your accusing me of not differentiating the literal definition compared to people's own definition of creation.


edit on 21-3-2015 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis


MINDSHIFT: In the REAL Beginning
www.youtube.com...

Start at the 1 minute mark to bypass the intro and go right into it.

In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (In the beginning whenever that was nobody knows)

The Earth then Became Wasted, Void, and Dark

The 6 days follow



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch


and why the baiting with the stupid image, you think you are so much better than all those who believe in creation.

Thank you, but I believe I am using by brain constructively instead of believing stories that have even lees proof than you claim the archeological discovery provided. Creationism is stupid and those who would argue it's validity while using the Bible as their reference deserve to see how silly they are.

The least they could do is stay open minded to all possibilities such as myself. But, if a person still clings to creationistic views after being presented with archeological evidence that we were here half a million years prior to what the Bible puts forth, they be nuts in my book.

I'm sorry you don't believe in Science and by your logic every bible in existence could be as old as yesterday because who can believe radiocarbon and paleomagnetism dating techniques. Even at minimum, dating estimates blow everything out of the water.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I have a qusetion for you all.
With so much symbollic expression WHY do you think of a day or a year without having the idea of "metaphor" screaming at you?
edit on 21-3-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I just want to chime in to say that I went to a Catholic school growing up, and while I personally am agnostic, I don't know anyone who believes that earth is only 6000 years old. In school we learned that the bible was metaphoric, and we still learned about ancient civilizations, dinosaurs, and evolution.

We learned that God is an entity that we cannot comprehend yet, and that God isn't just an old man in the sky.

I see creationists getting attacked on this point time and time again, and I see debates including people with that viewpoint, but my understanding is that it is a fringe minority. Nowhere in these arguments have I heard any points relevant to creationism as I have learned it. I think the real myth is that this is what creationists believe, or that evolution goes against what creationists believe.

Then again, maybe my school taught what is really the minority view of creationists.
edit on 21-3-2015 by sine.nomine because: typo



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis

Thank you, but I believe I am using by brain constructively instead of believing stories that have even lees proof than you claim the archeological discovery provided. Creationism is stupid and those who would argue it's validity while using the Bible as their reference deserve to see how silly they are.

The least they could do is stay open minded to all possibilities such as myself. But, if a person still clings to creationistic views after being presented with archeological evidence that we were here half a million years prior to what the Bible puts forth, they be nuts in my book.

I'm sorry you don't believe in Science and by your logic every bible in existence could be as old as yesterday because who can believe radiocarbon and paleomagnetism dating techniques. Even at minimum, dating estimates blow everything out of the water.


I think stupidity in this context is when someone posts a thread about historical rocks and tools and offers no evidence to support the story.

Prove those tools are 500,0000 years old

Prove the elephant bones are 5000,000 years old
What dating method would some one of your intellect suggest science uses, you know what science is right.
Looking for a date stamp wont work genius

I believe in science, thats a strawman argument and the patronising attitude is an ad hominem.
That means you have already lost the argument because you lack any ability to justify your content, the content and science behind it is stupid

Nah nah nah

This is just so pathetic



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Or that a day or a year, is different on each planet. Why couldn't it be the same for a deity.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
How exactly do we know that the artifact is indeed 500,000 years old?



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

By measuring the half-life of the carbon 14 within the tools and bones. It's not the most accurate measurement but it gives a good estimate of how old something is.

Do you believe the Earth is less than 500,000 years old?



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Not posting to be argumentative.... I believe as a Christian that man has been on this form of earth for approx. 6000 years.

I also believe, as a growing number of Christians do, that there was an old, previous version of earth before Adam and Eve came 'round. There are hintS in the bible. One is where God says to Adam/Eve: REplenish the earth. The "RE" alludes to a repopulation plan.

Also see for more info...

edit on 21/3/2015 by MarkJS because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Hell is real it's just duality if you believe in a positive place you there must be a negative to balance it



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Lol, no, Im sorry but carbon dating is not nearly as accurate as you like to think.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: MarkJS

I starred your post even though I disagree with it because you were the first one to disagree and respond politely. I hope you can respect other peoples views on creation no matter what you or I believe, even though I was a tad crass in my OP.

Thanks for your contribution.




posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Good stuff, good stuff.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: MarkJS

I starred your post even though I disagree with it because you were the first one to disagree and respond politely. I hope you can respect other peoples views on creation no matter what you or I believe, even though I was a tad crass in my OP.

Thanks for your contribution.



Is that some sort of joke?
Your whole OP is a rant against creationists and you give a star for being polite?

Seriously you respect politeness yet write that post, a rude nasty antagonising thread?

With no solid evidence.........

Anyway my rant aside I do appreciate you admit you were a tad crass and I responded in kind.

This place and some residual issues mount up so, as I was rude as well, my apologies.

Still love to see some evidence a little more reliable than C14



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Well, call me an A-typical 'christian', but I think that if you look at the bible without any bias, it is quite obvious that at the time that 'Adam' and 'Eve' were created, there were already many 'people' on the earth. Whole cities, to be exact. I do NOT believe in evolution. I think it's a total cop-out. WAY too many holes and it is NOT scientifically correct. But I digress.

To say that there were human-like species on the earth for hundreds of thousands of years in NO way disproves nor tarnishes creationism. Not in the grand scope of the definition, anyways. The whole young earth thing is stupid, too. Another cop-out.

We are always trying to define things that we simply don't have the knowledge to explain.

In more direct respect to the OP, it is a super cool find.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch
I don't think C14 dating will go back 500,000 years so they must have used another method/isotope.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch


Your post is hilarious!!!

I'm feeling now like our beliefs don't matter.

Humility and forgiveness lets everyone see eye to eye.

The OP was designed to provoke for better or worse and I'm sorry if you were offended.

I would have formed my thoughts differently if I was responding in someone else's thread, but felt compelled to let loose while creating my own.




edit on 21-3-2015 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I never said it was 100% accurate, all I said is that it gives us a good estimate on the age of things. The dating is not going to be hundreds of thousands of years off, it's not as inaccurate as you seem to think.

I think the biggest difference is that those who use radiocarbon dating admit it isn't 100% accurate, creationists do not admit to the same thing. There's a level of integrity and honesty that isn't mutual.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join