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.

 

Along with the Creationist, Chimps have entered the Stone Age.

page: 6
29
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: artistpoet






"Can you show evidence that Human beings who believe in creationism have regressed to the "Stone Age"


Yes, most definitely. Creationists have rejected the tools of modern science in favor of an era when physical phenomena were attributed to the supernatural i.e. thunder and lightening.

The primates in the YouTube video below accept new technology as they discover it. They use the most modern tools available to achieve their goals. That puts them in a position of moving forward in evolutionary time. Creationists, on the other hand, are moving backwards in technological time to a point where any new technology presented to them which contradicts their cultist views is rejected out of hand.

And that's why the OP is correct. The title isn't an insult and it isn't provocative. It just happens to be the truth.


edit on 27-8-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Technically humans are animals. The whole humans are apes thing is debatable....we are technically not apes, even if we descended from primates. Even Wikipedia refers to homo sapiens as a "distinct species". Aye there's the rub...


and the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species of the hominids (or "great apes")—


en.wikipedia.org...

We are not fish or amphibians are we?

It was another 30 million years before those prehistoric fish crawled out of the water and began the evolutionary lineage we sit atop today.

blogs.scientificamerican.com... Perhaps this is splitting hairs. I also do not accept the 6000 year old earth either....I'm of the mind that one day in the life of Brahma equals about 4,320,000,000 years
en.wikipedia.org...

and that universes are created and destroyed...this is Hindu cosmology I'm speaking about. Humans are more highly evolved than the other species...and the biblical account speaks for that. Man has a soul and has evolved differently than animals in that regard.
But I am more of a metaphysical type...

edit: note I find it patently ridiculous for secular humanists to continually degrade human existence by not only comparing us to animals, but declaring humans to be lower than animals. By the way, it was Lucifer, an Archangel of great attainment in the heaven world who declared he would not serve humans, hence it was pride which caused him and his band of angels to fall to earth(incarnate). The story of this is described in the Book of Enoch. Nephilim are the offspring of the fallen angels and the daughters of men. in Genesis it says that there were giants "in those days" and that they came unto the daughters of men(breeded with them).
The Annunaki are described in the Sumerian tablets of which Zecharia Sitchin wrote his book, "The Twelfth Planet". Jim Marrs suggests that humans of today are descendents of the aliens the Annunaki described in the Sumerian tablets. I do not believe all humans are... a product of alien and ... the humans of earth...Sitchin suggests that the agricultural revolution began when the Annunaki taught the humans...


Until c. 10,000 years ago, humans lived as hunter-gatherers. They generally lived in small nomadic groups known as band societies. The advent of agriculture prompted the Neolithic Revolution, when access to food surplus led to the formation of permanent human settlements, the domestication of animals and the use of metal tools for the first time in history.
en.wikipedia.org...
Sitchin suggests this accounts for the sudden leap in agricultural practices.
I also find it amusing if not a little disturbing that seculars and the Agenda 21/environmental radicals seem to want us to revert back to some kind of earlier type of society where there are not large single family homes....ironically it is these people who want us to go back to the stone age and not have so much manufacturing and industrialization. You can try to discount this if you like, but it's in the Agenda 21/Millenium Declaration documents and statements of those who espouse it...

edit on 27-8-2015 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Barcs

Technically humans are animals. The whole humans are apes thing is debatable....we are technically not apes, even if we descended from primates. Even Wikipedia refers to homo sapiens as a "distinct species". Aye there's the rub...




How is that the rub? All apes are, by definition, 'distinct species'. Orang Utans are a 'distinct species', gorillas are a 'distinct species', humans are a 'distinct species'.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

There's still no proof that we are of the "ape species". We are not of the fish species as I just told you, yet everything supposedly descended from this sea life....and chimps banging rocks around does not prove it either. By the way Charles Darwin was related to Thomas Malthus. It was Malthus who influenced Darwin...Malthus had ideas that only the wealthy and the healthy should be allowed to survive and that natural selection would cause them to die off....Malthusian and Darwinian theories are inextricably connected.


As I said earlier, Malthus mentioned in his Essay on the Principle of Population that all populations suffer because they produce more offspring than there are resources.

ckj887.blogspot.com...
A look at the ideas put forth in Agenda 21/Millenium Declaration show that the entire thing is wrought of Darwin/Malthus ideas and the depopulation agenda is part and parcel of that. Just look at all the references to "sustainable development" It has Malthus fingerprints all over it. www.lewrockwell.com...
www.judgingpbs.com...

edit on 27-8-2015 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

There's still no proof that we are of the "ape species". We are not of the fish species as I just told you,


Sorry, but this just shows you do not understand what a species is. It is a taxonomic classification at a much higher resolution than genera or family. "Ape" is at the Family level. It goes like this -

Kingdom
|
Phylum
|
Class
|
Order
|
(Sub-order(s))
|
Family
|
Genera
|
Species


Each time you go down the tree branches - under the Kingdom of Animals, for example, you have different types of Phylum, pick one of those then at the next level you have several different classes and so on. Here is an image which shows what I mean -



So as I was saying, 'Ape' is a family designation, hominidae or the great apes, which includes under it's taxonomic umbrella all of the different genera of great apes - gorillas, chimpanzees, orang utans, humans and our humanoid ancestors.

To further drill down, each genus can often (and usually would) contain different species. Species are the basic 'type' definition of an animal. So under the single genus Gorilla, for example, you have 2 distinct species, the Western Gorilla (called gorilla) and the Eastern Gorilla (called beringei). Taxonomic names are given in the form [Genus] [Species], so the 2 distinct species are Gorilla gorilla (western gorilla) and Gorilla beringei (eastern gorilla).

You can drill down even further - the next level are called sub-species, notated as ssp.. So under the Eastern Gorilla (Gorilla beringei or G. beringei as it would normally be shortened), for example, there are 2 distinct sub-species - G. beringei ssp. beringei (The Mountain Gorilla) and G. beringei ssp. grauen (The Eastern Lowland Gorilla)

Sometimes biologists (and especially botanists) will go a level of definition further and define varieties, so within a sub-species you can even have different varieties.

Hope this helps clear up your confusion. You can read more about Linnaean Taxonomy at wikipedia.

edit on 27/8/2015 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: I just like to see the edit message at the end of every post



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423






Creationists, on the other hand, are moving backwards in technological time to a point where any new technology presented to them which contradicts their cultist views is rejected out of hand.


This is one of the most patently ridiculous assertions I've ever seen.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

And the proof that we simply spun off of apes is where? I dunno....this looks pretty interesting to me
www.darwinconspiracy.com...

edit on 27-8-2015 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

We didn't simply spin off of them, we are apes.

Edit to address your edit -


originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
I dunno....this looks pretty interesting to me
www.darwinconspiracy.com...


It's only interesting to you because of confirmation bias - it agrees with your pre-conceived religion based worldview, so you like it.

It's also flat out wrong in the very first sentence of the title - as I discussed above humans are classified as apes, so to say 'human dna very different from ape dna' is fundamentally wrong and missing the point, since 'ape' is a family designation which humans and great apes all belong to.

Open up your mind to other possibilities. Just because some things in life are contradictory to the BS worldview presented in the bible does not mean you should ignore them or rationalize them away to fit with that worldview. A truly open mind will re-examine their preconceptions in light of contradictory evidence.
edit on 27/8/2015 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: Because MOAR!



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Encode Project

www.darwinconspiracy.com...

oh do enjoy your evening emulating the ape


edit on 27-8-2015 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Sure, yeah. Great. Don't offer any kind of logical argument - just keep posting the link to the same creationist propaganda website written by folk who clearly have a poor understanding of science. Isn't that just a freaking awesome mode of rationalized debate?



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Oh right, and the argument here in the OP and in people like you who support it is that chimps enter the stone age, and somehow your hatred of Christians makes the idea of them going back to the stone age a scientific theory. It is preposterous on the face of it. However, it is truly the proponents of Agenda 21 and radical environmentalism who hate everything technological and want us all to go back to some kind of primitive existence. The argument that humans are lower than other animals is even in the Darwinian theory preposterous.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Phantom423






Creationists, on the other hand, are moving backwards in technological time to a point where any new technology presented to them which contradicts their cultist views is rejected out of hand.


This is one of the most patently ridiculous assertions I've ever seen.


But not as ridiculous has having your own pet dinosaur in your backyard:








Men and Dinosaurs Coexisted

Men and Dinosaurs Coexisted

Evidence for Creation › Evidence from Science › Evidence from the Earth Sciences › Fossils Reflect Life's Original Diversity» Up One Level

Dinosaurs are often portrayed as having lived in a time before man. However, the available evidence shows that man and dinosaur coexisted.

Legends of dragons are found among most people groups. For example, there are the stories of Bel and the dragon, the Kulta of Australian aborigines, St. George and the dragon, and of course many Chinese legends. Often, the anatomical descriptions given are consistent, even though they come from separate continents and various times. These depictions match what we know from the fossil evidence of certain dinosaurs. Thus, dinosaurs are known directly from their fossils, and indirectly from cave drawings, tapestries, textiles, figurines, carvings, bas reliefs, and many oral and written eyewitness accounts, most of which are quite old.

The Bible states that “every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind” was created by God on Day Six of the creation week (Genesis 1:25)—including dinosaurs. On this same day, the first man and woman were also created (Genesis 1:26-27). Over 1,600 years later, Genesis 8:15 records that a pair of each land-dwelling animal “wherein is the breath of life”—again including dinosaurs—were taken aboard an ark that would have held over 101,000 square feet of floor space. This ensured that a remnant would be preserved through the worldwide watery destruction that fossilized many pre-Flood dinosaurs.

The book of Job refers to a creature called behemoth. With a massive size and a tail like a cedar tree, its description matches that of a sauropod dinosaur. God calls it to Job’s attention with the words “Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee” (Job 40:15). Thus, this statement affirms that both behemoth and man were made on the same day. Ezekiel, James, and Paul refer to the book of Job, authenticating its reliably historical testimony.

The fact that dinosaur femur soft tissues have been described as “still squishy” and contain recognizable blood cells also confirms the recency of dinosaur fossil deposition. Science continues to demonstrate that dinosaurs did not predate humans, and that dinosaur kinds did not go extinct (if they all have) until after the Flood, which occurred only thousands of years ago.


www.icr.org...


edit on 27-8-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)





The fact that dinosaur femur soft tissues have been described as “still squishy” and contain recognizable blood cells also confirms the recency of dinosaur fossil deposition


Wow, this is real scientific evidence!! It's still squishy. How in the hell did we miss that???


edit on 27-8-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Oh right, and the argument here in the OP and in people like you who support it is that chimps enter the stone age, and somehow your hatred of Christians makes the idea of them going back to the stone age a scientific theory.


No, I don't believe that is what the OP is presenting at all - the OP's post is two-pronged; first it presents the conclusions of scientists on three continents that chimpanzees are independently showing more and more complex tool use to the point where it is analogous with that of proto-human ancestors, and second, the OP rather flippantly (though not altogether without basis) quips that while this is happening, creationists are trying to take us in the opposite direction - back into our stone age.

Point one is a scientific idea, backed up by evidence, whether you like it or not. Point two is just the OP's opinion and is not made scientific by point one.

And by the way I do not 'hate' christians. I don't 'hate' anyone really (well maybe people who park in handicapped zones who aren't handicapped). Most christians by the way accept evolution anyway, so don't conflate christian or religious with creationist. What I do despise though, are ignorant philosophies which hold back humanity from developing as a society and as a species - this includes religious doctrine and almost any dogma as well as pseudoscience and ignorance.


It is preposterous on the face of it. However, it is truly the proponents of Agenda 21 and radical environmentalism who hate everything technological and want us all to go back to some kind of primitive existence.


You keep banging on about this Agenda 21 BS. It's conspiracy mindset garbage. For me to do a long winded refutation here would drag this thread woefully off topic, but the significance of this document on world politics is ridiculously overstated and overegged (as always) by conspiracy nuts everywhere. See www.metabunk.org... or skeptoid.com... for a decent summary of my position on this weak-minded nonsense.


The argument that humans are lower than other animals is even in the Darwinian theory preposterous.


Of course it is - I know of virtually no one who thinks this way. However, the religious fundamentalists who wish to separate and elevate man above all the other animals are equally misguided.
edit on 27/8/2015 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: Because MOAR!



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
No technically man is not ape


Yes they are. Humans are in the great ape family called Hominidae. Look it up. Ape is not a species.


It is a mere Darwinian theory that man descended from ape.

No, it's modern evolutionary synthesis, a process that has been proven. Scientific theories are based on fact. "It's just a theory" is pretty much the oldest argument in the book and it holds no water. All that shows is you really don't understand much about science. Gravity is only a theory, too, but does that mean you can jump off a cliff and be fine? Of course not, it's based on a a tangible verifiable fact.


It is very nice that chimps have developed some rudimentary skills but that still does not point to the evolutionary chain of man evolving from ape.


You're right. Chimps developing tools is merely icing on the cake. Humans and chimps share a common ancestor, and it's proven via DNA plus the fossil record. Sorry you don't like being associated with apes, but you are one and that fact won't change just because you don't like it.


Agenda 21 is a plan of action by the elites and environmentalists in collusion with the club of Rome to have a centralized control over all the resources of the world.


How does promoting evolution help them control world resources? I just don't see the connection. Science denial is completely separate from some uber secret group trying to control everything. Religion is a far greater control tool than evolutionary science, and most of the world is religious, so I don't see any purpose in this so called agenda to promote evolution. It makes no sense. If anything, this group would be responsible for all the disinformation about evolution out there that creationists and science deniers promote.

Also, based on your post you don't seem to understand what a creationist is either. By creationist, we aren't referring to all religious folk or all folk that believe the universe was created. Creationist generally means folks that believe the book of Genesis and the rest of the bible as literal 100% truth. Basically it describes religious fundamentalists, and yes, those people are living in the stone age because their religion (which is a complete guess), overrides logic and science. It's not just that too, it's the hypocrisy of utilizing products of science like cell phones and computers, while at the same time blindly rejecting any science that conflicts with their holy book.

Yeah science is great as long as it doesn't conflict with religion. But to cherry pick it and act like certain scientific studies are accurate and certain ones are false is silly.
edit on 28-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423



Creationists have rejected the tools of modern science in favor of an era when physical phenomena were attributed to the supernatural i.e. thunder and lightening.


Your argument is flawed ...

Creationist's use the same technology you do
The Vatican has it's own telescope and astronomer for example

Creationist's versus Evolutionist's on ATS use the same modern technology of communication



And that's why the OP is correct. The title isn't an insult and it isn't provocative. It just happens to be the truth.


Not true ... and OPs intention is easy to see through but lie yourself if you wish




edit on 28-8-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: artistpoet

Uh, the Vatican? You mean like that place run by the Catholic Religion and the Pope guy one of whom declared evolution true? Yeah you won't find any creationist nonsense from there. Sorry, most of Christianity doesn't buy into this nonsense, just a few American weirdos.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: Phantom423



Creationists have rejected the tools of modern science in favor of an era when physical phenomena were attributed to the supernatural i.e. thunder and lightening.


Your argument is flawed ...

Creationist's use the same technology you do
The Vatican has it's own telescope and astronomer for example

Creationist's versus Evolutionist's on ATS use the same modern technology of communication



And that's why the OP is correct. The title isn't an insult and it isn't provocative. It just happens to be the truth.


Not true ... and OPs intention is easy to see through but lie yourself if you wish





First of all, Catholics are not Creationists. The Vatican Observatory is a legitimate astronomical observatory reporting real data.

Creationists do not use the same tools. In fact they don't use any tools. They simply criticize peer-reviewed research and insert their own interpretation of someone else's data. Here is a classic example:

Giant Galaxy Ring Shouldn't Exist

by Jake Hebert, Ph.D. *

www.icr.org...



While it might be possible for secular scientists to construct another version of the Big Bang model which does not require these assumptions, doing so would force them to abandon decades of work, and it would be a tacit admission that the Big Bang model, as it now stands, is an utter failure.
g/article/8955

Without any hard evidence whatsoever, "Dr" (and I use the term lightly) Hebert has taken some else's work, turned it upside down and inside out and came to the conclusion that "it's an utter failure". That, of course, without ever collecting any data, designing and conducting an experiment or repeating the work he's commenting on to verify results (this by the way is SOP (standard operating procedure) for scientists who seriously challenge the work of another scientist.

This same strategy is rampant throughout the "science" at their website. No one has ever gone into a lab to challenge or repeat the results. No one publishes in a recognized journal.

It's a complete and total fraud. None of their "science" has any hard evidence (that's real data!!) to back up their claims


edit on 28-8-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

I assumed the basic premise of believing in a creator god was to be creationist
And that this god intelligently designed the Universe and all it contains
Evolution / mutability being a tool of his/her's/it's.

However my point was that creationists being human beings are not living the stone age
They use the same technology as you and I
Though they challenge the widely accepted theory of evolution

Perhaps a creationist on this thread might like to elucidate further on what the difference is regarding the views of the Pope and their own



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Just seen your post after posting my last reply to Puppylove
Am reading now



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: artistpoet

And just so you can compare how a real scientist publishes his/her work, here's a link to the paper that the idiot at ICR is criticizing:
mnras.oxfordjournals.org...




top topics



 
29
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join