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.

 

Richard Dawkins & Smash of Dinosaur / Human Footprints

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier
This may come as a shock but they aren't christians. They are a cult that picks and chooses the best parts until that part is later proved wrong, then chop n change and repeat.




posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier


I know this may come as a shock but the vast majority of Christians don't believe the creation story is fact. They believe it's allegory. The young earth folks are just the most sensational and say the most ridiculous news worthy things.


Christ refers to Adam and Eve multiple times (i.e. Mark 10:6). There is even a full lineage from Adam to Jesus in Luke 3, and from Abraham to Jesus in Matthew 1.

Despite these written records, people still believe our ancestors are fish. Despite Beowulf having a description of a T-Rex (along with many Other Historical Descriptions and Ancient Dinosaur Art), people still believe dinosaurs are millions of years old.
edit on 13-10-2015 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-10-2015 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What is more logical?

1. There was an extinction event a long time ago but some species of dinosaurs survived, which explains the stories and OOP fossils?

2. Or random people tell the exact same story all over the world without ever having seen such animals?

If the stories of dragons/dinosaurs were spefic to even one continent we could write them off as just stories. But on every continent we find stories of man walking with animals that can only be considered dinosaurs

The drawings are the same and the stories are the same, some have embellished the stories more than others but the similarities seem to logically suggest something more than coincidence.

Therefore I believe it is logical that globally some species of dragons/dinosaurs did actually survive unti the early days of man.

This would logically explain the stories, the OOP fossils and the soft tissue, without needing to make up lame non-scientific excuses.


edit on 13-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't know, Trolls were thick hided and seeing as we have stories with them in they must have existed


Yea apparently according to people like him humans didn't have imaginations back then and only wrote about the absolute truth.


Trolheim means Troll Home, there may be more truth to it than is accredited today, troll's may have been another tribe of humans, possibly cannibals for instance such as those portrayed in the ficticious movie the 13th warrior.

There are many tales of such for example in scotland the sawney bean legend which may or may not be based on a true story tells of a cannibal clan whom lived in a cave until they were hunted down by an alliance of other clans whom finally put an end to them after a battle and burned them to death in there cave where they had retreated too.

It is widely regarded that Troglodytes died out but that is not actually true as even today many modern humans live in caves throughout the world and cannabalistic practices still remain in many isolated region's of the planet included a supposed cannibal tribe still at large in the Amazon and possibly a tribe still practicing cannibalism in Papua new guinea as well as the central african republic.

Then back to the bible there are tales of the leviathon with a tale like a tree trunk and it makes the earth shake the largest of all creatures.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73
Every society talks of giants, floods and the gods of celestial body's and those gods attributed to human emotions. So logically they all exist right?

Sumerian influenced babylonian. ..who in turn influenced all stories from religious texts. But logically they must have seen it all cos they all say it...rather than adapting the terms/meanings to suit the societies own goals/agenda right? Cos that's ridiculous, who would do such a thing?

Back then story telling was one of the greatest gifts, 1 false prophet and a thousand of you is a very powerful thing indeed.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

The other side of the argument? What is that? Last I checked there are more than two sides to the evolution debate. There is evolution and then there is the creation accounts of EVERY OTHER religion in the world. And THEN there are any other accounts a human wants to dream up that you or I haven't thought about.

I certainly DO know the Christian account, and even the YEC account. I did use to be Catholic and I know how to read the bible literally to understand the YEC account. But those aren't the only other options and I don't feel like I should have to learn every possible alternative out there to evolution when none of them stack up in the evidence department to evolution.

Being open minded isn't about considering all possibilities absolutely equally. It means to consider all possibilities and discard the ones that are lacking in evidence. Your YEC account is just impossible from literally every scientific possibility. Like literally all of science would have to be wrong in order to believe that account. So until you can disprove all of science with valid evidence I'm not going to entertain that idea outside of fantasy.


I know this may come as a shock but the vast majority of Christians don't believe the creation story is fact. They believe it's allegory. The young earth folks are just the most sensational and say the most ridiculous news worthy things.


Why would that come as a shock? I'm well aware of what the majority of Christians believe. I know that YEC belief is only a fraction of what the total population believes.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Christ refers to Adam and Eve multiple times (i.e. Mark 10:6). There is even a full lineage from Adam to Jesus in Luke 3, and from Abraham to Jesus in Matthew 1.

Despite these written records, people still believe our ancestors are fish. Despite Beowulf having a description of a T-Rex (along with many Other Historical Descriptions and Ancient Dinosaur Art), people still believe dinosaurs are millions of years old.


Hey, I am all for that 'we are all Adam and Eve's children, but only after you explain to me how did we get here in such a short spam of time...

Please don't tell me that there was lots of incest, as that would not make God very happy.

Also, how did we get people with so many different colors of skins, eyes... everything... and how come blue eye predates earth by no less them 9,000 years.

I have so many questions, but lets start with those... I really like to hear reasonable explanation.
edit on 13-10-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What is more logical?

1. There was an extinction event a long time ago but some species of dinosaurs survived, which explains the stories and OOP fossils?

2. Or random people tell the exact same story all over the world without ever having seen such animals?


Option 3. There was an extinction event a long time ago, some species of dinosaurs survived. And those dinosaurs later evolved into other creatures. As an aside, some cultures have written stories that are similar to each other because human imagination didn't have much to work with at the time.

You and I both know that those stories you are referring to aren't exactly the same. So neither of your options are correct.


If the stories of dragons/dinosaurs were spefic to even one continent we could write them off as just stories. But on every continent we find stories of man walking with animals that can only be considered dinosaurs


But we don't find any evidence that this is true.


The drawings are the same and the stories are the same, some have embellished the stories more than others but the similarities seem to logically suggest something more than coincidence.


No they aren't... They aren't the same at all.


Therefore I believe it is logical that globally some species of dragons/dinosaurs did actually survive unti the early days of man.

This would logically explain the stories, the OOP fossils and the soft tissue, without needing to make up lame non-scientific excuses.


There are no "lame non-scientific excuses" for any of it. There are "lame non-scientific excuses" for your reasoning, but science has VERY valid reasoning and evidence behind it to support its version of events. Like I said, the fossil evidence just isn't there. Beasts of those size would HAVE to have a large population to survive for a long time.

Just because stories exist, doesn't make them true. You clearly haven't even read the stories if you think they are exactly the same.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: rossacus

To equate spiritual stories of the God's with dinosaurs is a stretch. Saying "Bill gates is a giant", is a correct metaphorical way to speak about Bill Gates.

But most spiritual stories talk about angels, which some people believe are aliens, for the same reason I suggest it is logical to believe that men saw both angels or aliens and dinosaurs.
edit on 13-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

So? The existence of stories doesn't give them credibility. If that were true, then Stephen King or Dean Koontz being writers would mean that there are some VERY scary monsters out there.

A creature such as the leviathan cannot exist by itself. In order for a species to survive and propagate throughout the ages, it MUST maintain something called the minimum viable population. If the total species amount in a population drops below that number then it risks inbreeding and then dying out.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So it's more logical to believe science which changes every 15 minutes then it is to believe in historical stories.

Welcome to the religion of pseudo science.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So it's more logical to believe science which changes every 15 minutes then it is to believe in historical stories.

Welcome to the religion of pseudo science.


So because science has come to an answer that you don't like, it is wrong and "pseudo science"? Confirmation bias...

Minimum viable population


Minimum viable population (MVP) is a lower bound on the population of a species, such that it can survive in the wild. This term is used in the fields of biology, ecology, and conservation biology. More specifically, MVP is the smallest possible size at which a biological population can exist without facing extinction from natural disasters or demographic, environmental, or genetic stochasticity.[1] The term "population" rarely refers to an entire species. For example, the undomesticated dromedary camel is extinct in its natural wild habitat; but there is a domestic population in captivity and an additional feral population in Australia. Two groups of house cats in separate houses which are not allowed outdoors are also technically distinct populations. Typically, however, MVP is used to refer solely to a wild population, such as the red wolf.


The MVP for humans is around 500 WITH inbreeding.


There is a marked trend for insularity, surviving genetic bottlenecks and r-strategy to allow far lower MVPs than average. Conversely, taxa easily affected by inbreeding depression – having high MVPs – are often decidedly K-strategists, with low population densities while occurring over a wide range. An MVP of 500 to 1,000 has often been given as an average for terrestrial vertebrates when inbreeding or genetic variability is ignored.[3][4] When inbreeding effects are included, estimates of MVP for many species are in the thousands. Based on a meta-analysis of reported values in the literature for many species, Traill et al. reported a median MVP of 4,169 individuals.[5]


In other words, in order for your dragons to exist, there needs to a be a DISTINCT population trail of fossils in the fossil record. We may not know EXACTLY when the population died out, but we'd be able to see their existence WELL into the time period that humans existed. That isn't the case ANYWHERE in the world.
edit on 13-10-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So it's more logical to believe science which changes every 15 minutes then it is to believe in historical stories.

Welcome to the religion of pseudo science.


You owe me cloth to clean my monitor.


That is funny....

BTW, it seems that your book did not come with required disclaimer...





posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


So because science has come to an answer that you don't like, it is wrong and "pseudo science"? Confirmation bias...


No, claiming unproven theories as the only possible answer is pseudo science. Dinosaur extinction happening millions of years ago is a theory that started well before it could be proven. Since that time everything that doesn't fit the original story is discredited with weak assumptions.

Maybe it's better to say we don't know, when we don't know.
edit on 13-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Krazysh0t


So because science has come to an answer that you don't like, it is wrong and "pseudo science"? Confirmation bias...


No claiming unproven theories as the only possible answer is pseudo science. Dinosaur extinction happening millions of years ago is a theory that started well before it could be proven. Since that time everything that doesn't fit the original story is discredited with weak assumptions.

Maybe it's better to say we don't know, when we,don't know.


Unproven theory? That is an oxymoron. A scientific idea doesn't reach "theory" level with it being unproven. This whole post is a load of nonsense.

PS: Just because theories change as new evidence is found doesn't mean they are unproven... All theories do that and no theory on the books doesn't change as we add evidence to it.
edit on 13-10-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Krazysh0t


So because science has come to an answer that you don't like, it is wrong and "pseudo science"? Confirmation bias...


No, claiming unproven theories as the only possible answer is pseudo science. Dinosaur extinction happening millions of years ago is a theory that started well before it could be proven. Since that time everything that doesn't fit the original story is discredited with weak assumptions.

Maybe it's better to say we don't know, when we don't know.


Friend, let's start with meaning of word theory in science:


A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Source: wiki

Now, that we established that, we can conclude that you are mixing hypothesis and theory. For example, until proven true and until we have experiment that can verify abiogenesis, it is just hypothesis. In order to be a theory, experiment should be repeatable and always give already predicted results.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: coopertonIt is a fact that contemporary science has never had the grace of directly studying a dinosaur skin sample.


Well, sure, but it is also a fact that predatory dinosaurs had regular, albeit very large, sharp teeth and strong jaws that allowed them to bite and penetrate the skin of other dinosaurs and kill them. Otherwise, how did they eat? Were they all scavengers and not predators?



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Dangit, you beat me to it. I should have read farther down the page before responding with the exact same logic--logic that seems to have escaped Cooperton.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

There is also the fact that predators tend to favor more offensive adaptations (you know to hunt better) versus defensive ones. There isn't much need for a predator to have super tough skin because it likely would be an encumbrance to hunting prey.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

The problem is it would goes against Darwin's theory of evolution, or what's basically written in nearly every science/biology text book.

Interesting Hitler quote..

"Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state."




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join