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.

 

Young Earth VS Old Earth and a Third point of view - the Creation Truth?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: edmc^2

Let us merely agree to disagree on the fact that transitional fossils exist. The science is very clear, you just refuse to admit its validity. You are also showing that you do not understand certain terminology.
If you wish dispute any of my points about the bible and the lack of archaeological evidence for large parts of it, then have at it.


Sure we can agree to disagree but at least give some explanation as to the use of speculative words/phrases like:

'likely, probably, must have been, possibly...*"can be considered transitional", "makes sense evolutionarily", "indicating it may have been able to", "species likely represents the transitional form of"* if the evidence is certain.



(Weary sigh)
No, because there's nothing I can say that will change your mind.
Let's get back to the archaeology shall we?


Ok, no answer. On with geology then.

The earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Change my mind that it's not.







posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: edmc^2

Let us merely agree to disagree on the fact that transitional fossils exist. The science is very clear, you just refuse to admit its validity. You are also showing that you do not understand certain terminology.
If you wish dispute any of my points about the bible and the lack of archaeological evidence for large parts of it, then have at it.


Sure we can agree to disagree but at least give some explanation as to the use of speculative words/phrases like:

'likely, probably, must have been, possibly...*"can be considered transitional", "makes sense evolutionarily", "indicating it may have been able to", "species likely represents the transitional form of"* if the evidence is certain.



(Weary sigh)
No, because there's nothing I can say that will change your mind.
Let's get back to the archaeology shall we?


Ok, no answer. On with geology then.

The earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Change my mind that it's not.





I dunno...evidence for that statement is approximately as scarce as the evidence for evolution and global warming. You sure you got your facts straight?



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: edmc^2

Let us merely agree to disagree on the fact that transitional fossils exist. The science is very clear, you just refuse to admit its validity. You are also showing that you do not understand certain terminology.
If you wish dispute any of my points about the bible and the lack of archaeological evidence for large parts of it, then have at it.


Sure we can agree to disagree but at least give some explanation as to the use of speculative words/phrases like:

'likely, probably, must have been, possibly...*"can be considered transitional", "makes sense evolutionarily", "indicating it may have been able to", "species likely represents the transitional form of"* if the evidence is certain.



(Weary sigh)
No, because there's nothing I can say that will change your mind.
Let's get back to the archaeology shall we?


Ok, no answer. On with geology then.

The earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Change my mind that it's not.





Erm, it is 4.5 billion years old. Why would I want to change your mind about a fact?
Why are you ignoring the archaeology?



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
4.5 billion years old. Why would I want to change your mind about a fact?


You are certain to the degree of two decimal places that it is 4.5 billion years old? What is the evidence that surely indicates it is 4.5 and not 4.6 or 4.4? Or even in that ball park for that matter? Please no science blogs for your sources.


originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

A nice little list of transitional fossilS - note that there are a lot of them and this barely scratches the surface.


Lol here's one of the "transition fossils" from that list



They felt this small alotment of bones justified it as a "transition fossil". As we can see this missing link is missing most of its bones. I'll go through more of them later, but this is just pathetic that they call this a transition fossil. Yet your giving condescending diatribes to people who are simply asking questions and analyzing empirical evidence.

This "transition fossil" is an example of how desperately archaeology is grasping for straws to try to fit their out-dated baseless theory.
edit on 21-11-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Ok - make that ACCORDING to estimates, per radiometric dating (not C-14 dating) - the earth is 4.5byo.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

That is according to the estimate which is based on an assumption of stable universal law's.
But ever heard of brane theory, the concept that our universe is simply one of perhaps an infinite number of membrane universes floating around in superspace - probably called membrane universe because the model boil's it down to a two dimensional sheet, sometime's these branes intereact with one another and it may even posit a plausible explanation for why Gravity seems' to be a non local (to our universe) force and why it is millions of time's weaker than other forces such as magnetism for example.
The theory is that our brane may even itself simply be the result of a collision between two or more membrane universe floating around in superspace, such collision's can change and alter the very nature of our universe and it's law's.

Also remember when the time space continuum was forming in those first instant's after the so called big bang the universe actually expanded at a rate many magnitudes faster than what the speed of light is today.

The law's of the TSC may not be fixed but subject to superspacial and other quantum interaction's which may very well affect such mediocre thing's as the rate of radioactive decay for example.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
4.5 billion years old. Why would I want to change your mind about a fact?


You are certain to the degree of two decimal places that it is 4.5 billion years old? What is the evidence that surely indicates it is 4.5 and not 4.6 or 4.4? Or even in that ball park for that matter? Please no science blogs for your sources.


originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

A nice little list of transitional fossilS - note that there are a lot of them and this barely scratches the surface.


Lol here's one of the "transition fossils" from that list



They felt this small alotment of bones justified it as a "transition fossil". As we can see this missing link is missing most of its bones. I'll go through more of them later, but this is just pathetic that they call this a transition fossil. Yet your giving condescending diatribes to people who are simply asking questions and analyzing empirical evidence.

This "transition fossil" is an example of how desperately archaeology is grasping for straws to try to fit their out-dated baseless theory.


Cool bones. But I didn't see the part where you applied archaeological expertise to demonstrate that this missing link doesn't qualify as evidence. You just made fun of it. That isn't science.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I always thought that most paleontology and anthropology when they are working with bones and bone fragments and not complete skeleton's was a bit like using pieces from different jigsaw's and then claiming the resultant image was what used to be there, linking bone's from separate period of time and then claiming they were related is even more sketchy at best.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Perhaps we are in a quantum hologram that just got switched on.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: troubleshooter

"It's entirely possible",.......



...that we're all Boltzmann brains.




posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 10:51 PM
link   
I think. Therefore I am.

I think not.


*poof*



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: TzarChasm

I always thought that most paleontology and anthropology when they are working with bones and bone fragments and not complete skeleton's was a bit like using pieces from different jigsaw's and then claiming the resultant image was what used to be there, linking bone's from separate period of time and then claiming they were related is even more sketchy at best.


Then clearly you're not actually a lab tech, at least not on that field. A good forensic anthropologist can derive a surprising amount of information. Put your clicker to work on some of these helpful resources. Modern technology has really helped the deductive process as well as making methods and materials available for public study.

www.sfu.museum...

www.pnas.org...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 01:53 AM
link   
If we say the earth - is 1 billion to 6 billion years old, it doesn't really change the Genesis account covered through Gen. 1:1.
On this one I will go with the latest scientific censuses, which could still be wrong. All we know for sure is that this planet was not built in 24 of our human hours, nor did it need to be, to think that is just silly. And all fossil records indicate creatures like dinosaurs just didn't appear and disappear within 24 hours, how crazy is that, fossils indicate they were around for millions of years too.

Do people really think Adam was sharing paradise with T-Rexs ?
They were long gone, when God created Adam.
edit on 22-11-2018 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 03:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: TzarChasm

I always thought that most paleontology and anthropology when they are working with bones and bone fragments and not complete skeleton's was a bit like using pieces from different jigsaw's and then claiming the resultant image was what used to be there, linking bone's from separate period of time and then claiming they were related is even more sketchy at best.


Then clearly you're not actually a lab tech, at least not on that field. A good forensic anthropologist can derive a surprising amount of information. Put your clicker to work on some of these helpful resources. Modern technology has really helped the deductive process as well as making methods and materials available for public study.

www.sfu.museum...

www.pnas.org...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Right Aptly named individual, I am actually a qualified laboratory technician to HND level, over here though in the UK degree's are more apt these day's.

I actually though NEVER worked as a laboratory technician despite training to be one since I found I had quite an aptitude for Electronic's dry though the subject is and set out to pursue that to degree level but had a mixed run of very ill fortune, I was slipped a drug of some kind when I left my meal with some classmates since I had to use the water closet (I was not and never have been a Drug taking idiot and always spoke out against it - have had my fair share of trouble with drug dealers having to move them on etc to protect property and keep them from using it as a selling site - seldom had to get the police involved - show fear to a dog and it becomes emboldened but don't show fear and it is more cautious), this caused hallucination's both auditory and optical and mood swings', since I had never imbibed narcotic substances of any kind this was a shock to my system and sent me over the edge into what can be called a mild break down, then about 5 month's after I dropped from my degree to try to cope with this trauma I was set upon by six thug's in random attack, surreal since I was more worried that I might hurt them as they attacked me so did not defend myself adequately, I ended up with skull fracture, damage to my neck, memory loss, inability to concentrate and even looking at a simple page of equations may as well have been hieroglyphic's to me so that what would have taken me second's to solve I simply could then not even attempt to.
I still have slurred speech to this day and for about four or five years after would walk into thing's, trip over small obstacles etc so had severe delayed concussion as well (I worked myself to health taking the first job that came along).

Despite going back a year later to try to recommence my degree I still could not concentrate and so called it a day and opted to take a job below my qualification's - I could not have functioned anyway - and ended up working in industry simple manual operation's at first but worked from the bottom up to middle management level.

Took several business trip's abroad for the multinational I was working for.

I hated that job though so and never liked sacking anyone though I had to do it on a number of occasion's so ended up simply walking out one day and trying something entirely different I ended up with what was left of my brain dribbling out of my ear's performing closed circuit security monitoring and front ling retail security over here in the UK - bloody awful job and even with brain damage it was literally brain numbing to say the least.

That was my civilian experience.

As for what you claim let's get something perfectly strait/(MORE CORRECTLY STREIGHT) shall we.
Forensic Anthropology in the criminologist sense is dealing with recent deceased victim's often less than a century old, there is ample DNA and other evidence and often living witness and other sources of information by which such an investigation can construct a case.
Also dealing with anthropology in the usual sense when dealing with MODERN human remains is perfectly fine.

But you can't tell me that finding pieces of bone's in a cave that are scattered around that sometime's those SPECULATIVE anthropologists do not get it wrong because I would warrant most certainly that they do and quite a lot of the time for that matter.
However when there are in situ remain's that are from a single body that is another matter as is when they have a very high number of similar remain's so can then identify a distinct genus such as the neanderthal's, homo erectus and even our good old fashioned probably alive a lot longer than the orthodox view of it since the Indian's have description's of them in there religious text's being used to build a bridge Gigantopithecus.

And today's FORENSIC scientist also has DNA at there disposal, how many people convicted and even executed for crime's have been found to be innocent and that is only a few test cases since opening up the miscarriages based on earlier flawed science would be like opening up a very large rotten can of worm's now would it not.

There are quite a few bookish sort's on here that really need to have more respect for there fellow members and stop insulting but hey I am not there dad am I.

edit on 22-11-2018 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
I think. Therefore I am.

I think not.


*poof*


Trying to argue yourself out of existence? lol



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: edmc^2

Personally I see no conflict, those that need the earth to be 6000 years old to believe in God need more faith, those that use the geological aging data to deny creationism need to look at the fact the whole universe is a mystery and that the whole point of science is to try to understand that - in essence to MEET GOD so in effect they are morally corrupt in claiming there is no God and trying to use science to prove that for themselves which is like using a road to prove there is no destination?.

Ecclesiastes 1:9

All things are wearisome, more than one can describe; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear content with hearing. What has been is what will be, and what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a case where one can say, “Look, this is new”? It has already existed in the ages before us.

So in essence the PLANET may actually be home to MANY earths, earths before our own and earths after our own were our earth - our world is therefore bordered by time.

But even if there were not then you have to ask yourself since you are like a fly in amber within TIME and God is outside of TIME so what is a day to God, if a thousand years are as a day then how long is a year to God?.

But this is about two faith's, those that believe in God and those that believe in the opinion's and observations of men we creatures whom are so blind to the real universe that we have to construct convoluted theory's to try to see what is beyond our ability to see.


Wow!!! What a beautiful post, just beautiful.

Thanks also to the OP for putting together a great Thread.



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Sorry, but you are mixing several things into one pot:

If a modern day forensist does make a wrong person a suspect because of DNA traces wrongfully associated with said person - this is completely different to analyzing the potential genus of a bone.

"this was john d. doe, I am 99.9999% sure!" != "this was a neanderthal and not a homo erectus"

Next: DNA is not very stable. Anthropologists are using the shape of bones, and if there are only small fragments they can guess but with a risk.

Next: you feel, no, you "would warrant" about failures to happen. That is a feeling.

Next: even if that feeling is true, and I personally would admit that I kind of feel the same, because humans being humans, wanting fame and fortune and so on, nevertheless there is science involved, and science first and basic rule is that everything is a theory and open for discussion until proven wrong (Falsifiability).

If proven wrong, it is wrong, and everyone insisting on still using that outdated theory (which is proven wrong) does make an error.

It is in the human nature having problems re-structuring the own narrative, the own conviction. It hurts. But a proof is a proof. Unless proven wrong.. ;-)



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

There are several non-radiometric methods of estimating the age of the Earth. Below is an interesting article about the age of the Moon. I'll post a few others later on - if I remember correctly, using the rotations of the moon around the Earth and gravitational calculations is another method. I have to look it up. In the meantime, read this research article from National Geographic:



news.nationalgeographic.com...

As to the radiometric methods, if the calculations were grossly incorrect, then the entire science of isotopic decay would be incorrect. And we know it is correct because the same method is used in medicine and other related fields. There is always a standard deviation associated with these calculations, but to the extent that we use them every day, they are sufficient to estimate the age of the Earth. The 6,000 years cited in the Bible is ridiculous, always has been, always will be.


edit on 22-11-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

Seems to me its human nature to pose questions that require answers and understanding. Said answers generally leading to even more questions.

It's kind of an exponential thing, but it's definitely our bag, and i pitty a universe where anything else is the case as i imagine it to be rather boring.

Science is just humanities best guess really, but a guess based on repeatable information and results, which over time become more refined and accurate, leading to new and more interesting questions being posed.
edit on 22-11-2018 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
I think. Therefore I am.

I think not.


*poof*


A small correction:

"I think therefore I am.

I think not
*adopts popular theories unbased in actual observable evidence*"



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join