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.

 

We Stopped Beleiving In Witches, When's The Bibles Turn?

page: 20
0
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
No, geology class in HS teaches you that while water can erode rock, but the grand canyone took longer then the flood, about a million or so longer.


The power of hydrologic action is pretty strong. I am by no means an expert on the subject, but it seems illogical to me to require millions of years for great geologic change to occur. In 1980 a mud flow carved a 100 foot deep canyon in one day as the result of the Mt. St Helens erruption. Here is link to an anti-creationist website regarding the erosion www.durangobill.com...

Dr John Baumgardner, working at the Los Alamos National Laboratories has done some fascinating computer modeling work regarding catastrophic plate tectonics. His theory is that under certain conditions the plates forming the Earths crust can move rapidly causing major geologic change in a relatively short period of time.



Also, it isn't gibberish, Doctor Gish lead a crusade through states trying to get creation, stan fossil thing, and grand canyon thing taught in PUBLIC schools as science. He finally won in a Georgia county, but later was over turned by the higher court. The ICR is lead by nuts and fruit cakes, anything from them is tainted with ignorance.


I have never heard of Dr. Gish until today so I can't really comment on what he has said. His resume ( www.icr.org... ) is impressive for whatever that's worth. I have heard of ICR and have read of few of their articles in the past and don't recall seeing anything about Satan and fossils being connected. Out of curiosity I did take a look at their website today and ran across this article on fossils that seems pretty sound to me: icr.org...


Man, I like this topic, have real people like you to argue with, hell of alot better then some topics where everyone just agrees with me and nothing new is done. Of course, get some who taint this topic with religous ignorance, but hey, as long as you are here it will stay a good topic.


I generally like to be agreed with but that doesn't seem to happen very often since I became a Christian about 3 months ago.



Sntx has just been voted for WATS for actually giving a good arguement, not religous ignorance or throwing a fit when proven wrong/given things that show a statement is wrong.(Well, you were right with piltdown, but most know that was a fake)


Thank you. I thought I was the only one that voted for people that I disagree with.

Ramapithecus
"
Related: Pre History

(rämepethē´kes, -pĬth´e-) , an extinct group of primates that lived from about 12 to 14 million years ago, for a time regarded as a possible ancestor of Australopithecus and, therefore, of modern humans. Fossils of Ramapithecus were discovered in N India and in E Africa, beginning in 1932. Although it was generally an apelike creature, Ramapithecus was considered a possible human ancestor on the basis of the reconstructed jaw and dental characteristics of fragmentary fossils. A complete jaw discovered in 1976 was clearly nonhominid, however, and Ramapithecus is now regarded by many as a member of Sivapithecus, a genus considered to be an ancestor of the orangutan . See also human evolution .
source: www.encyclopedia.com...

Australopithecines
"The australopithecine mode of locomotion has been a point of controversy, usually centered around the shape of australopithecine pelvis and knee bones. Early studies believed the australopithecine pelvis was a clear-cut precursor to Homo with human-like bipedality, while later studies of australopithecine locomotion found it to be different from modern apes, but also very different from humans--a distinct mode of locomotion. The most common consensus is that forms of australopithecines were adapted for both tree-climbing and at least semi-upright, if not fully upright walking, having a mode of locomotion different from all extant primates, including humans and modern apes." source: www.iscid.org...

Peking Man
The evidence for Peking Man dissapeared during WWII. One person involved with the discovery of Peking man was Teilhard De Chardin who just happens to be one of the peopleresponsible for the Piltdown Man hoax. Missing eveidence and involvement of De Chardin among other things make the reliabilty of Peking Man questionable. en.wikipedia.org...

Java Man
"It is interesting to note that the find was not a complete specimen, as many are led to believe, but consisted merely of a skullcap, a femur, and three teeth. A 342 page report written shortly after the finding has thrown much doubt upon the validity of this particular specimen. Despite this, the "Java man" is still found in many textbooks today." source: en.wikipedia.org...

The physical differences between Neanderthals and "modern" humans are superficial and appear to be adaptation that occurred due to the cold environment and poor diet. I have seen nothing to suggest that they were "subhuman" Source: Me



Steve




posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Nice double post.

Anyways, superficial, but still a sign of evolution. More hair, less hair, when a whole type of species does this it is for a reason, survival, and requires them to evolve. So like the Neans, they get into colder areas, they grow more hair/thicker hair to help with cold tempatures. Of course, it may be why fossils in Africa and fossils in Europe look pretty much the same, but with a few small differences leading to the hypothosis that they were of the same species, but like how asians are "different" from blacks, same species, homo sapien sapien, but different types of it.

Anyways, keep up the good posts!



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   


I went to public schools all my life with the exception of first, second, and third grade, and that is what I was tought in school, and as well as in Church.

maybe next year you can remain awake. you might want to look at the original
constitution for the colony of S.C.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by sntx

Originally posted by riley
Could you please provide a source on these many hoaxes?


I will give you a list of what I am referring to. I will leave it to you to research so that you don't have to question my sources.
All have been shown to be either outright hoaxes or fully human (Nanderthal) or fully ape (Ramapithecus).

I asked for sources that proved hoaxes.. not a school assignment. I did look into a couple.. and they concluded that some were from sidebranches.. I saw nothing about a deliberate hoaxes.
And as for Neandethal being modern human. No.. they do not have exactly the same dna as we do.. I don't think we were even able to interbreed with them.

By using a technque known as polymerase chain reaction, they were able to find fragments derived from a specific portion of the mitochondrian DNA, and then to compare the DNA sequences of those fragments to similar regions of modern human DNA. The results, which they carefully controlled to rule out contamination with foreign or modern DNA, were conclusive. Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA was, just as you might expect, much closer to modern human DNA than any other living species, including the chimpanzee. However, the differences between Neanderthal and modern DNA falls well outside the range of variation within the modern human species.

These results show that Neanderthals split off from the line that gave rise to modern humans well before any of the different geographic groups of modern humans (asian, african, or european) were established. In plain language, this means that Neanderthals were NOT the direct ancestors of any modern humans. In fact, the degree of DNA sequence difference led the investigators to suggest that Neanderthals divirged from modern humans sometime between 550,000 and 690,000 years ago.

biocrs.biomed.brown.edu...
They are officially a distinct species. This has been proven.


FYI there are plenty of real and credible scientists who are creationists. Science is not the exclusive realm of evolutionist thought.

But creationalist 'scientists' twist and alter facts until it fits in the bible. Creationalist sites are notorious for it. They change facts.. omit others and sometimes outright lie. A real scientist will not try manipulate the evidence to suit a preffered conclusion.. he/she would try find REAL answers without bias tainting them.

I would think it a negative thing as it would relegate all human thought to fixed meaningless chemical processes.

That is your own perception. This does not minumalise my existance.. it actually enhances it. There is nothing but life for me.. I savour it knowing that there is nothing else.. and if there were it isn't relevant to me anyway.

That's right, I do want my granddaddy to be pond scum. I don't want you to be related to it either.

It's not a matter of want. I personally have no complex about something that happened over a billion years ago.

Neanderthals were fully human and our genetic superiors.

If they were genetically superior they would have wiped us out not the other way around.

Do you believe that the any of the different "races" of man alive today are subspecies?

No.. race is the result of adaption to a climate.. why would they be subhuman? Do they seem that different to you?

At least you are not completely blinded.

Because I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old because a fable says it is?


Science will never disprove the Bible because true science is in perfect harmony with creation. The earliest parts of the Bible are from a time when humans were far for intelligent than modern man in it's degraded state.

The bible is definently NOT a scientific resource.

[edit on 7-2-2005 by riley]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
I asked for sources that proved hoaxes.. not a school assignment. I did look into a couple.. and they concluded that some were from sidebranches.. I saw nothing about a deliberate hoaxes.


I can't help it if you are too lazy to do research. If you would rather be spoon fed information look at the textbooks that still site embryonic recapitulation and peppered moths. You would of course be believing in deliberate frauds, but at least you would have a source.


And as for Neandethal being modern human. No.. they do not have exactly the same dna as we do.. I don't think we were even able to interbreed with them.


They don't have exactly the same DNA as we do because the human genome has degraded over the generations.



But creationalist 'scientists' twist and alter facts until it fits in the bible. Creationalist sites are notorious for it. They change facts.. omit others and sometimes outright lie. A real scientist will not try manipulate the evidence to suit a preffered conclusion.. he/she would try find REAL answers without bias tainting them.


So are you saying that all creation scientists twist and alter the facts? Are you saying that all evolutionist scientists are honest and have no prior commitment to atheism?



That is your own perception. This does not minumalise my existance.. it actually enhances it. There is nothing but life for me.. I savour it knowing that there is nothing else.. and if there were it isn't relevant to me anyway.


So you know there is nothing else. So much for keeping an open mind for science.



It's not a matter of want. I personally have no complex about something that happened over a billion years ago.



You also have no way of knowing something that happened over a billion years ago because you were not there and what happened then is not observable or repeatable.




If they were genetically superior they would have wiped us out not the other way around.


I say Neanderthals were genetically superior due to the degradation of the human genome over the generations. They did not wipe us out because they survived. They were our ancestors.



No.. race is the result of adaption to a climate.. why would they be subhuman? Do they seem that different to you?


Of course not. The physical characteristics displayed by different groups of people are superficial. We are all one blood.




The bible is definently NOT a scientific resource.


Right, it is not a scientific resource. It is a scientific basis. It contains information that is not obtainable by science, and without it science as we know it today would not exist. Here's another school assignment for you. Look into the history of the scientific method and who developed it.

Steve



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Nice double post.

Anyways, superficial, but still a sign of evolution. More hair, less hair, when a whole type of species does this it is for a reason, survival, and requires them to evolve. So like the Neans, they get into colder areas, they grow more hair/thicker hair to help with cold tempatures. Of course, it may be why fossils in Africa and fossils in Europe look pretty much the same, but with a few small differences leading to the hypothosis that they were of the same species, but like how asians are "different" from blacks, same species, homo sapien sapien, but different types of it.

Anyways, keep up the good posts!



Differences in populations are evidence of natural selection. Natural selection is not disputed as it is an observable occurrence. Natural selection does not equal evolution as defined by one kind of organism changing over time into another kind. In other words there are no changes that could possibly occur whereby for example a population of reptiles could give rise to birds. In other words birds have always been birds, humans have always been humans. This is what we observe in populations today and is reasonable to predict will always be the case (and always has been).



Steve



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by sntx
You would of course be believing in deliberate frauds, but at least you would have a source.

Since I have found nothing of proven frauds I will assume you do not have a source.

They don't have exactly the same DNA as we do because the human genome has degraded over the generations.

You are suggesting here that they preceded us.. sorry but they existed AT THE SAME TIME as us.. so we are not decended from them.

So are you saying that all creation scientists twist and alter the facts? Are you saying that all evolutionist scientists are honest and have no prior commitment to atheism?

Only about 1% of the population are athiests. Most scientists are agnostic so bias for or against would not be relevant [or professional].



That is your own perception. This does not minumalise my existance.. it actually enhances it. There is nothing but life for me.. I savour it knowing that there is nothing else.. and if there were it isn't relevant to me anyway.


So you know there is nothing else. So much for keeping an open mind for science.

..and I said "if there were" it is not relevant to me- I guess you missed that part. If there is an after life I'll get to study and explore it after life.. for the moment I'll marvel everything that is a part of it.

You also have no way of knowing something that happened over a billion years ago because you were not there and what happened then is not observable or repeatable.

Let me guess.. Satan put dinosaur bones in the ground.. all carbon dating is flawed [despite it having been near perfected in recent years] and the universe was created just for us. Am I right?

I say Neanderthals were genetically superior due to the degradation of the human genome over the generations. They did not wipe us out because they survived. They were our ancestors.

I answered this already.

Right, it is not a scientific resource. It is a scientific basis.

It insists that the we are the centre of the universe. :shk: On that basis alone it is guarenteed to always be in the rhelm of fiction not fact.

[edit on 7-2-2005 by riley]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Since I have found nothing of proven frauds I will assume you do not have a source.


Making assumptions based on what you haven’t found is not very scientific.



You are suggesting here that they preceded us.. sorry but they existed AT THE SAME TIME as us.. so we are not decended from them.


They did not exist in my time. You must be much older than I realized.



Only about 1% of the population are athiests. Most scientists are agnostic so bias for or against would not be relevant [or professional].


Do most scientists know that you are their spokesman?



..and I said "if there were" it is not relevant to me- I guess you missed that part. If there is an after life I'll get to study and explore it after life.. for the moment I'll marvel everything that is a part of it.


I didn’t miss any part of your statement. I do admit to being somewhat befuddled by it though. I am not sure what “there is nothing but life” means. Are you saying that if there were some supernatural component to our existence it wouldn’t be relevant to you? If that is the case I am surprised that you have any interest in origins at all.



Let me guess.. Satan put dinosaur bones in the ground.. all carbon dating is flawed [despite it having been near perfected in recent years] and the universe was created just for us.


Since most of the fossil record appears to be the result of rapid sedimentation some type of catastrophe would be a better explanation. Radiocarbon dating has been all but abandoned, but based on what I have read carbon-14 dating is fairly accurate for things that are less than 10,000 years old.. I would have to do a lot more research do come to a conclusion on dating methods. I do know that they are based on assumptions about decay rates being constant that could lead to inaccuracy.


Am I right?


Based on what I have seen so far, mostly no.




It insists that the we are the centre of the universe. :shk:


That is news to me.


On that basis alone it is guarenteed to always be in the rhelm of fiction not fact.


It seems that you like to jump to quick conclusions. I hope you are not a scientist!

Steve



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by sntx
Making assumptions based on what you haven’t found is not very scientific.

You made a claim. I asked you to back it and you refused.

They did not exist in my time. You must be much older than I realized.


What a clever remark.. how skillfully you avoded adressing the major contradiction in your theory!
What.. your parents were not modern humans? Modern humans and neadethals existed at the same time.. neither is decended from the other so it is impossible for them to be our ancestors. I explained this adequatley before- but instead of coming up with an rational explanation as to how this could be possible you chose to duck it by being a smart arse. If you want to remain ignorant of scientific facts thats fine but don't waste my time trying to perpetuate them.

[edit on 8-2-2005 by riley]



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Is there a MODERATOR in the house? Would those of you debating Creationism vs. Evolution PLEASE start your own thread instead of hijacking this one? Thank you!

To deesw:

You call me a biggot because my opinion is different than yours?

No, I called you a bigot because you are intolerant of others' opinions and lifestyles.


You need to read a Bible dude

I have read the Bible. And I'm not a dude, I'm a chick.


Our government cannot distinguish what is religion and what is not.

Uh, yes it can...and it has. The federal government may determine what practices constitute a religion for First Amendment purposes.


The country was founded on Christian principles and is slowly moving away from them.

Wrong again. Read your history. This country was founded on the principles of secular humanism. Read some Thomas Jefferson.


Our founding fathers wished to worship GOD without the persecution of the Roman Catholic Church.

Survey says? Wrong! The original settlers of the New World came from England, which was decidedly not Catholic. Recall your history. Henry split from the RC Church and formed the Anglican Church because the RC Church would not allow him to get divorced. As for our founding fathers, not all of them were Christian. Nor was our Constitution enacted to escape RC Church persecution. Read the First Amendment.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by LunaNik
Is there a MODERATOR in the house? Would those of you debating Creationism vs. Evolution PLEASE start your own thread instead of hijacking this one? Thank you!

You should re-read the first post.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Lunanik, I think you should read first post.. Anyways, good points though.

Anyways, I have learned to just laugh at deesw, don't use ignore, that is for the weak, but if someone is like this you can get a good laugh when they post.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
What a clever remark.. how skillfully you avoded adressing the major contradiction in your theory!
What.. your parents were not modern humans? Modern humans and neadethals existed at the same time.. neither is decended from the other so it is impossible for them to be our ancestors. I explained this adequatley before- but instead of coming up with an rational explanation as to how this could be possible you chose to duck it by being a smart arse. If you want to remain ignorant of scientific facts thats fine but don't waste my time trying to perpetuate them.



I didn't avoid anything because there is no contradiction in what I said.

I don't have or want the power to waste your time. That is up to you.

.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Sorry, guys, if I'm off base about deviating from the topic. I've tried time and time again to access the initial post to no avail. It keeps sticking me somewhere in the middle. I know this because I've seen people quote posts I have not read. I was basing my plea on the general drift of the thread, and on its title.

I would only use the ignore function for someone who was truly being offensive. Ignorance can be countered with fact.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by sntx
there is no contradiction in what I said.

For something to preceed something it also has to predate it.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   


No, I called you a bigot because you are intolerant of others' opinions and lifestyles.


I do not have to accept your opinion, just as you do not have to accept mine, but calling me names that's not right. I could care less if you are a dude or dudette. In my opinion you have lost sight of any moral fiber at all by practicing witchcraft or defending those that do. I think you need to go back to school and retake American History again. Your thoughts have been corrupted by your sinful ways.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   
'bigot?'

He (deesw) is no bigot- I am a bigot.

deesw is just convinced.

Here is 'bigot'-
Where you do you get off? Are you swallowing all that drivel spouted out by people with pet theories? It certainly seems so. Quit chocking one one scientific agenda after another and admit that NO ONE knows!

I just love anti-bible fanatics that quote scripture and the Bible. Fanatics? Yes, anything to further a viewpoint until it becomes an agenda.

What 'clearly does the Bible say? Don't know do you, well here's a little help:
    Gen 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
    Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

That is really clear. The land of Nod and every one that findeth . . . There were others. No mystery. They just were not people of God descended from Adam.

A little further:
    Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

O.K.- got it? Lot's of things were different then. Almighty science has stumbled across huge people and sought every manner of explanation. Why are some people huge and others diminutive?

The modern refrain is 'it's genetic' This is a shallow out for someone that could better admit that the answer is unknown. Is it so difficult to admit modern man doesn't know? Apparently.

People believe what makes them comfortable- why denigrate someone that doesn't believe in evolution? Is evolution so insecure in its grasp that it needs to be believed without disagreement lest it fall upon its own foundation of sand?

So, what does all this have to do wwith witches?



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Your saying that man now adays has a hard time saying "i dont know". T

he bible / religion was created because man along time ago, had a hard time saying "i dont know". It's the same thing. Man didn't / doesn't know why or what, so they go with the best fit. And I guess the best fit for creator of the universe is still god. .... .

It's fun beleiving in a 98710391831273232 year old scienticfic paper on how and why everything is what it is.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   
deesw, yet again i read a potentially interesting thread and find out that you have taken part and decided to troll it. If you have nothing better to do than to refuse to follow links, answer valid questions, and comment on research that contradicts what you say, then why bother posting here at all other than to troll the thread? I have no problem with any beliefs, be they christian, hinduism, paganism... but as soon as ANYBODY forces it down my throat the way you have done to others on this thread i take great offence. Contribute or save some bandwidth and let the real conversation take place.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Paranoia,

What possible research can you bring before me that will prove that witchcraft is not evil? If you have a problem with my opinion, sorry Charlie. I don't think I'll lose any sleep over it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join