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: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

But... It says "Adam Lived".... X years. He wasn't dead then came to life after Eden. 'All the days' he lived. There is no separation. No room for speculation. It's very specific.




posted on Dec, 5 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck

My post is suggesting that the 6,000 year timeline did not start until after the Fall. The time spent dwelling in the Garden of Eden was not included. So Adam lived 930 years after they were kicked out of the Garden.



posted on Dec, 5 2018 @ 06:56 PM
link   

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

Maybe the "planet" was formed billions of years ago...
But what the bible talks about is when it was "prepared" for man... Just a thought.



Yes, we're of the same thought.

Gen 1:1 talks of the creation of the heavens and the earth (this can be in billions of years).

let me add this, then v2 of Gen 1 is the "preparation" of the formless earth - to be inhabited by living things. Gen 2 narrates the story of man and Gen 3 his fall.


edit on 5-12-2018 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2018 @ 07:12 PM
link   

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


What Bible™ are You referencing? I noticed that the King James Version II; 3rd-rewrite; 4th re-vision is a popular rule book currently.

Isn't a "Truth" something that will NEVER change? If "Yes" then why, oh why is there a 2nd version on it's 3rd re-write on the 4th re-vision? Wouldn't it have been the 'same' from when the Scribes first copied it from other religious™ works?

Your "Noah" seems an awful lot like "Gilgamesh".

But let Us begin at the start: "In the beginning was Adamu and Lilith created from the same dirt..." (EQUAL) turned into "In the beginning was Adam and Eve Eve NEEDing a bit of Adam to get going (subservient female)

********

Re: the 144,000 Did You know the JehovahWitnesses™ changed their spiel? (Remember TRUTH doesn't change) they went from 144k to 144k 'different groups' (probably right after enrolling member #144,001.


Yes, you're correct. The Truth doesn't change, but our understanding does.

So it's important to keep up with the latest research.



posted on Dec, 5 2018 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

Yes, you're correct. The Truth doesn't change, but our understanding does.

So it's important to keep up with the latest research.


Stick to the empirical evidence. Scrutinize the evidence as an atheist would scrutinize God. You will find that there is no conclusive evidence that demonstrates the super-super-old earth fairy tale besides vast assumptions. Be careful who you dispense the pearls to though.



posted on Dec, 5 2018 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: edmc^2

Yes, you're correct. The Truth doesn't change, but our understanding does.

So it's important to keep up with the latest research.


Stick to the empirical evidence. Scrutinize the evidence as an atheist would scrutinize God. You will find that there is no conclusive evidence that demonstrates the super-super-old earth fairy tale besides vast assumptions. Be careful who you dispense the pearls to though.


Noted. But how old is this "super-super-old earth fairy tale" are you referring to? Curious.



posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: edmc^2

Yes, you're correct. The Truth doesn't change, but our understanding does.

So it's important to keep up with the latest research.


Stick to the empirical evidence. Scrutinize the evidence as an atheist would scrutinize God. You will find that there is no conclusive evidence that demonstrates the super-super-old earth fairy tale besides vast assumptions. Be careful who you dispense the pearls to though.


As opposed to the conclusive and overwhelming evidence that a cosmic wizard made the planet by hand in a mere few moments. Go ahead and show your math so we can compare it with geological record and radiometric dating. The scientific method can be tested in a real world environment with real world materials. What can you do?



posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 10:58 AM
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?


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


I guess it’s a really good thing that archaeologists don’t need have anything to do with things like this. Wouldn’t it behoove you to know which discipline studies what before engaging in your own condescending diatribes?

Just a hint, archaeologists study the physical remains of human cultures and civilizations. Anthropologists study human remains and culture and paleontologists study all non human fossilized life. It must be hard to keep any facts in your mind when you’re too busy preparing responses that jive with your own confirmation biases.



posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

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.


This really is a treat. Thanks for the compilation of evidence that the evidence of transition fossils is entirely lacking.

Here is Lucy. You may know her from computer renditions that speculate what her anatomy may have been like. This is actually the extent of the fossil remains of her (this is actually one of the more complete "missing links")



Despite being one of the most complete "missing links" available to archaeology, it is missing a majority of its skull and other key anatomical features. It's a travesty to the collective awareness of humanity that we are lead to believe there is overwhelming evidence for transition fossils, yet this incomplete data is what we presume to be a transitional fossil. The problem with evolutionary theorists is that they assume it is true, and calibrate measurements and assumptions based off that faulty premise.

Here's another one. Tiktaalik is apparently one of the transition fossils that helped make the gap between water and land. Hilariously enough, and maybe I just couldn't find it, but there are not even complete fossilized remains of Tikaalik's fin/hand/feet bones. Please, please someone find a fossil of tiktaalik's extremities full intact, otherwise this is just laughable that this was deemed a transition fossil



Seriously look at that^. How can you speculate that it is responsible for the transition from sea to land when you can't even analyze a complete fin??? It is absurd. I am being flippant about this because you guys have to see the absurdity of this speculation.


As is typical in your responses, it’s your understanding of the evidence that is lacking, not the evidence. You cite Lucy as if it’s the only example Of Australopithecus Afarensis and that just isn’t the case. You frame your arguments either ingeniously To make Yourself look smarter or you’re really just a clueless hack who doesn’t bother with anymore due diligence than is necessary to pay yourself on the back as the one true master of all science. Why are your credentials again? You claim to know everything about multiple fields so why exactly is on your CV that qualifies you to dispute the evidence? We both know the answer so don’t worry about replying. But any first year anthropology student knows that you don’t base your conclusions on one single set of remains.

I don’t know what an evolutionary theorist is in your world, but I’m Paleoanthropology, things don’t work the way you insist they do. Unlike you, I can say this matter of factly because I’ve been studying it for nearly 25 years. In the classroom and in the field. Not just Wikipedia and YouTube as you seem to limit yourself to.



posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Phantom423

My point was that the missing links are missing a majority of their bones. It is a faith-based assumption that these are transition fossils because there is not enough of the skull to properly identify the organism. Even the complete organisms of fish and birds that they claim are transition fossils cannot be verified as transition fossils, they are simply left to the assumption that they must be transition fossils because evolution must be true. It is a religion based on circuitous logic



They gave this one it's own species name Homo Naledi, despite the minimal amount of recoverable skeletal remains. If you believe this is a demonstration of a transition fossil then you have great faith in your beliefs, because it is not based in verifiable data.


originally posted by: Phantom423





Not too far from a reality considering the soft tissue found in dinosaur remains. All the concrete, verifiable, observable evidence points to the faultiness of the theory of evolution.


I’ve told you previously how to contact Lee Berger at the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa. Have you written to him with your concerns and complaints? I’d love to see his response to your inquiry. Dr. Berger is the lead on the Rising Star Cave expeditions that uncovered the H. Naledi remains that you’re so offended by and he is a very personable guy and will gladly reply to you so I have to assume that you haven’t bothered to follow through with due diligence on H. NaIedi. John Hawkes at U.of Wisconsin also worked that dig and is also good about personally replying. I’m sure they can answer Any of your criticisms so instead Of whining on ATS, send some emails and let us know what their responses are.



posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

I guess it’s a really good thing that archaeologists don’t need have anything to do with things like this. Wouldn’t it behoove you to know which discipline studies what before engaging in your own condescending diatribes?

Just a hint, archaeologists study the physical remains of human cultures and civilizations. Anthropologists study human remains and culture and paleontologists study all non human fossilized life. It must be hard to keep any facts in your mind when you’re too busy preparing responses that jive with your own confirmation biases.


Lol I see you've started to stalk me. People make mistakes bud, but few people admit them. The comment still remains regardless of the semantic error... the transition fossils are lacking conclusive evidence. It is a rash form of science to declare a new species when the majority of its skull is missing.


originally posted by: peter vlar


I’ve told you previously how to contact Lee Berger at the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa


I'm only interested if he has more empirical evidence to offer, which I'm sure he doesn't, because if he did, it would be public with his name all over it. Send me pictures if there are some, but otherwise this miniscule remnant of bones which was deemed its own species "Homo Naledi" is another example of how scientists are desperately trying to find transition fossils to fit the narrative. Just like Lucy missing most of her skull, yet still being designated its own species.


originally posted by: peter vlar
You cite Lucy as if it’s the only example Of Australopithecus Afarensis and that just isn’t the case.


Never said it was the only example, just the must complete sample (to my knowledge). Since it is the most complete sample, and its skull is mostly missing, I believe that scientists have jumped to conclusions regarding the interpretation of the data.

They assume evolution is true, and interpret the data based upon this assumption. It's backwards science.
edit on 6-12-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

I guess it’s a really good thing that archaeologists don’t need have anything to do with things like this. Wouldn’t it behoove you to know which discipline studies what before engaging in your own condescending diatribes?

Just a hint, archaeologists study the physical remains of human cultures and civilizations. Anthropologists study human remains and culture and paleontologists study all non human fossilized life. It must be hard to keep any facts in your mind when you’re too busy preparing responses that jive with your own confirmation biases.


Lol I see you've started to stalk me. People make mistakes bud, but few people admit them. The comment still remains regardless of the semantic error... the transition fossils are lacking conclusive evidence. It is a rash form of science to declare a new species when the majority of its skull is missing.


originally posted by: peter vlar


I’ve told you previously how to contact Lee Berger at the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa


I'm only interested if he has more empirical evidence to offer, which I'm sure he doesn't, because if he did, it would be public with his name all over it. Send me pictures if there are some, but otherwise this miniscule remnant of bones which was deemed its own species "Homo Naledi" is another example of how scientists are desperately trying to find transition fossils to fit the narrative. Just like Lucy missing most of her skull, yet still being designated its own species.


originally posted by: peter vlar
You cite Lucy as if it’s the only example Of Australopithecus Afarensis and that just isn’t the case.


Never said it was the only example, just the must complete sample (to my knowledge). Since it is the most complete sample, and its skull is mostly missing, I believe that scientists have jumped to conclusions regarding the interpretation of the data.



Why are your credentials again?


basic grammar.


In other words, you're a coward and refuse to debate a published certified expert in public. To be clear here, I'm talking about any expert who can clarify any of the topics you have mangled in your colorful history on this forum. If we could arrange a Q&A with a credentialed professional to settle the age of the earth and validity of fossil dating and glacial erratics, would you be game?
edit on 6-12-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

In other words, you're a coward and refuse to debate a published certified expert in public. To be clear here, I'm talking about any expert who can clarify any of the topics you have mangled in your colorful history on this forum. If we could arrange a Q&A with a credentialed professional to settle the age of the earth and validity of fossil dating and glacial erratics, would you be game?


My debates with you all on these forums have been practice for such a thing. I have collected and found empirical data from all relevant subsets of the sciences that involve the question of origin. There is not one piece of conclusive empirical evidence that demonstrates the very old earth. Organic remains in dinosaurs, historical depictions of dinosaurs, WWII planes beneath supposedly 1000s of years of ice accumulation, written history, biological interdependence, etc, all show that the timeline is not as old as we are led to believe.



posted on Dec, 6 2018 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

I just wanted to correct your thread title so it makes grammatical sense.

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



posted on Dec, 7 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: djz3ro
a reply to: edmc^2

I just wanted to correct your thread title so it makes grammatical sense.

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


Hey DJ, thanks for the suggestion - I like it and you're correct. Unfortunately, the title is already locked. I wish there's a way to edit it so that I can use your suggestion.

Next time though I'll pay more attention - I was in a hurry to post the thread and didn't even titled it properly.



posted on Dec, 7 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




My debates with you all on these forums have been practice for such a thing. I have collected and found empirical data from all relevant subsets of the sciences that involve the question of origin. There is not one piece of conclusive empirical evidence that demonstrates the very old earth.Organic remains in dinosaurs, historical depictions of dinosaurs, WWII planes beneath supposedly 1000s of years of ice accumulation, written history, biological interdependence, etc, all show that the timeline is not as old as we are led to believe.



Really, Coop? And I thought you were a world-class expert in the field of quantum mechanics. I guess you'll need to go back to the drawing board.



The constancy of radioactive decay rates was regarded as an independent and questionable assumption because it was not known—and could not be known until the development of modern quantum mechanics—that these rates were fixed by the fundamental constants of physics.


www.scientificamerican.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2018 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: djz3ro
a reply to: edmc^2

I just wanted to correct your thread title so it makes grammatical sense.

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


Hey DJ, thanks for the suggestion - I like it and you're correct. Unfortunately, the title is already locked. I wish there's a way to edit it so that I can use your suggestion.

Next time though I'll pay more attention - I was in a hurry to post the thread and didn't even titled it properly.



You're welcome. I'm glad you took that as it was indended, as constructive criticism, I wrote it quite quickly and worries it seemed a bit short.

I also want to have a read properly, only had time to glance at it earlier.



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

I guess it’s a really good thing that archaeologists don’t need have anything to do with things like this. Wouldn’t it behoove you to know which discipline studies what before engaging in your own condescending diatribes?

Just a hint, archaeologists study the physical remains of human cultures and civilizations. Anthropologists study human remains and culture and paleontologists study all non human fossilized life. It must be hard to keep any facts in your mind when you’re too busy preparing responses that jive with your own confirmation biases.


Lol I see you've started to stalk me. People make mistakes bud, but few people admit them. The comment still remains regardless of the semantic error... the transition fossils are lacking conclusive evidence. It is a rash form of science to declare a new species when the majority of its skull is missing.


originally posted by: peter vlar


I’ve told you previously how to contact Lee Berger at the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa


I'm only interested if he has more empirical evidence to offer, which I'm sure he doesn't, because if he did, it would be public with his name all over it. Send me pictures if there are some, but otherwise this miniscule remnant of bones which was deemed its own species "Homo Naledi" is another example of how scientists are desperately trying to find transition fossils to fit the narrative. Just like Lucy missing most of her skull, yet still being designated its own species.


originally posted by: peter vlar
You cite Lucy as if it’s the only example Of Australopithecus Afarensis and that just isn’t the case.


Never said it was the only example, just the must complete sample (to my knowledge). Since it is the most complete sample, and its skull is mostly missing, I believe that scientists have jumped to conclusions regarding the interpretation of the data.

They assume evolution is true, and interpret the data based upon this assumption. It's backwards science.



1. Your “semantic” error isn’t semantic. It’s a glaring lack of understanding of science that you believe yourself to be an expert in. It’s yet another example of how someone can’t expect to be taken seriously discussing the finer points of the topic when you don’t have a grasp on the most basic aspects. It’s the consistency of your errors that make your arguments laughable.

Furthermore, you keep insisting that Lucy is the most Complete example of A. Afarensis and as such one cant take any analysis of the morphology seriously because Lucy has an incomplete cranium. Again, there are multiple examples of A. Afarensis. Little foot is more complete than Lucy and has a nearly intact cranium. Care to try again?

2. You’re a child an a coward and know that Dr. Nerger would eat you alive because you are clueless. He doesn’t hold onto all Of the data and publish years after the find. He publishes as they go through the material and everything. Is available online. You simply refuse To put yourself out there and question the people directly involved in the find. It’s the smartest thing I’ve seen from you yet.

3. You Are, as usual, wrong on every point. Littlefoot is more complete than Lucy and there are others with all
Of the missing pieces from Lucy’s Cranium. It’s call comparative anatomy. It’s not QM. Though I don’t expect you to know the difference at this point since you fancy yourself an expert in all scientific disciplines.

You don’t need to have a complete cranium on Lucy if other A. Afarensis do have nearly complete cranium. Between all
Of the examples, it’s really quite simple To extrapolate morphological averages and account for sexual Dimorphism. You try
To make it sound like someone decided unilaterally 160 years ago that evolution was a fact and ever since then, there’s been an internal coverup of the truth while people like me perpetuate a myth of evolution. It just isn’t so. You read just enough to make Your confirmation biases feel all warm and fuzzy and think that you’ve got everyone in a “gotcha moment”. It isn’t so. No matter how often you repeat it.

The science behind biological Evolution is solid. I’ve yet to see you falsify it within the tenets of the scientific method. You simply bandy about your naive interpretation of the facts and wave your hands as if there’s nothing to truly be seen. You only decide yourself.



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

As a Christian and a scientist, I have always believed that science and religious dogma are entirely compatible -- they simply speak about similar phenomena in different languages. Science uses a language that is mostly measurable. Theology does not. Do not try to characterise me as a Christian Scientist. I do not subscribe to their foggy teachings.

Some religious proponents attempt to cubbyhole scientific study into their own measure, and this is a fraud; to attempt to 'prove' that the Earth and planets are a mere 6,000 or even 60,000 years old is a path fraught with peril. A plethora of vetted evidence exists to support the notion of a much, much older Earth.

Even on a human level, a person can look at rough, craggy mountains and understand that they are newer in age than those rounded and smoothed by time and the elements.

The Bible is not compatible with scientific study; it is not a document of measurement, but of culture and beliefs that shaped a portion of the emerging civilisation of humanity. The Holy Bible is more a historic document, to be place alongside The Qur'an, The Pavitra Baaibil, The Dao De Jing, The Tanakh, and all other global writings that I am unaware of, including those of indigenous peoples. All of those are documents of people, written by people, meant to shape and influence people. They are not to be placed alongside the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.

There have been those throughout history that have embraced both studies........ Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, etc.

The Chinese word "wu li" can be loosely translated to "beauty", and "worship". It can also be traslated to "patters of organic energy", at least according to the Gary Zukav, the author of The Dancing Wu Li Masters.

Not everything has to be compatible, nor diametrically opposed. As with culture and myth, and legend, human interactions influence information. It's like quantum physics -- just the mere act of looking at a particle changes it.
edit on 8/12/18 by argentus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: argentus

That last part needs correcting - measurement affects particles the same way a thermometer affects a drop of water. It's not magic.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join