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.

 

Will answer almost all questions evolutionists have

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:27 AM
link   
what about other species that use tools? does this not show evolution...

there is a type of crow that finds a twig about 3 to 4 times the length of it's beak, it will then use it to dig out bugs from within fallen trees.

monkeys also are tool users, rocks to break open food etc. the only difference is that not all monkeys and chimpanzees are the same, hence not all use tools...and the same goes for the crow. this shows that in the cases of certain species, they have had to evolve and learn to use these tools to survive, this knowledge is then passed down to the next generation.




posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Jake:

I have already done the thread that shows the dating methods are not in compliance with the Scientific Method. I have already gone round and round the tree where we learn that the dating methods are based on ASSumptions. Whats worse, those results are plugged into other ideas that are based on ASSumptions. There are ASSumptions all over the evolution and billions of years ideas, and far to few facts that lead to any real conclusions.
When it comes down to it, evolution is the result of a bunch of assumptions.


Wrong! Evolution is BACKED UP by other different sciences. GEOLOGISTS don't use carbon dating to determine the age of various strata of the earth's crust.

Duh
No one said they did. Only you mentioned that.


ASTRONOMERS don't use carbon dating to figure out a red dwarf star that they see is 3 billion years old.

Is this your version of the straw man? Very weak


You don't need carbon dating to determine how old a piece of radioactive rock is when you know what the half-life and decay rate of the isotope is.

You should read my post and the thread about the dating methods. Then you wouldnt keep thinking about carbon dating. You should study up on this. It will change your world



Evolution does NOT rely on assumptions to prove its' veracity. Scientific discoveries made AFTER Darwin proposed it have backed it up rather than challenged it.

No. Ideas and theories that prop up other ideas and a fantasy or two back it up. Do two things.
Find out what the Scientific Method is
Apply it to radiometric dating.
Then one of the pillars of evolution will come crashing down, and everything else with it.



Though I wonder why I'm arguing, the fact that you seem to like to say the word ASS so much points to my assumption that you're probably about 13.
That would suck for you because it would mean a 13 y/o is smarter then you and this obviously would upset you



I mean, do you HONESTLY believe that the planet and the cosmos and the firmament were ALL created in 7 days? Why 7? Why not instantly, if the Lord is omnipotent? Why slack off? Does it take longer to create a rhinoceros than a fieldmouse?


The short answer is, to set an example for us as explained in Exodus 20.
The tongue in cheek answer is, 7 days is an 'instant' in your context of billions of years
The long philisophical answer would be....Before a day was made...how long was a day? Why 7 days? To an eternal being, is 7 days forever, or an instant?
In the end....
Why not?



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
That would suck for you because it would mean a 13 y/o is smarter then you and this obviously would upset you


why within most topics of conversation are people always talking about being more clever than someone, more intelligent than him, better than her??
we only know each other from over the internet and from a few posts people feel the need to proclaim they are more intelligent than so and so...lets stick to the topic of discussion please. it's a rather childish approach within any topic to target people's intelligence.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   
jake1997:

Find out what the Scientific Method is
Apply it to radiometric dating.
Then one of the pillars of evolution will come crashing down, and everything else with it.


Ok, let me try and make this CLEARER.

Carbon dating and radiometric dating were NOT used by Darwin to back up evolution. They weren't even conceived yet. What WAS used to back up Darwin's theory of evolution was SCIENCE that told us that the world had been around for billions of years.

Look, I'm not going to sit here and argue using the entire scientific community as my proof, while you sit there and use one single ancient book of symbols.

For you it's a question of faith, for me it's a question of knowledge. Having been to university and taken many anthropology, philosophy and ancient history courses, I KNOW that evolution is a truth. I need so suspension of disbelief. It's there and I can see it and read it.

So I'll just ask you a few questions for YOU to answer, since you tend to dismiss mine out of hand by saying "it's been disproven" without backing that up with scientific fact.

Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology?

What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (Oh, and also please try and explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark.)


Evolution is constantly being supported by new theories and facts (www.talkorigins.org... for a good article on how Molecular Genetics backs up Evolution).

But the bottom line comes down to :

Most people know it to be such an irrefutable and LOGICAL fact that they don't argue it. When they hear someone who is a 100% close-minded Creationist, they quietly chuckle to themselves and think of the person as a bit of a hick.


jako



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
A question creationists...

This site - www.unb.ca... - lists 174 of the earth's known impact craters. There may be more, I don't know, but this is a good listing of those that have been identified. Disregard the dates given for them if you like, however there is no denying that they ARE craters. There are 174 listed. Taking the proposed creationist earth age of approx 6000 years, that would give us an average of one major impact every 34.48 years. Now I'm not saying that they would happen like clockwork at that interval, but wouldn't you think that at least a few of them would have occurred during the past 2000 years? I think there would be some mention of such a catastrophic event in the annals of history, don't you? Some of those craters are quite large and the effects on the environment would be impossible to ignore. I'm curious to see how creationists would account for them.

[edit on 8-8-2005 by Donner]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   
nice post donner, no religious person who believes in creationist theory is answering your post because they can't answer it to support creation without sounding incredibly dumb.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   


This site - www.unb.ca... - lists 174 of the earth's known impact craters. There may be more, I don't know, but this is a good listing of those that have been identified. Disregard the dates given for them if you like, however there is no denying that they ARE craters. There are 174 listed. Taking the proposed creationist earth age of approx 6000 years, that would give us an average of one major impact every 34.48 years. Now I'm not saying that they would happen like clockwork at that interval, but wouldn't you think that at least a few of them would have occurred during the past 2000 years? I think there would be some mention of such a catastrophic event in the annals of history, don't you? Some of those craters are quite large and the effects on the environment would be impossible to ignore. I'm curious to see how creationists would account for them.


im kinda curious of how you would account for the lack of fossil meteorites in the lowers layers of earths strata. very few if any are found in the lower layers, in fact most fossil meteorites are found in the upper layers.
also you dont know if they hit the earth at certain dates, its possible that many of them hit the earth at the time of the flood, it would be a great explanation as to what caused the foutains of the deep to break open and what caused the earth to wobble and give it its tilt. its possible that most of them hit at the same time, if an object travels too fast, it fragments. its possible, so count that as a possibility.

I think that God probably used something like a meteor so impact the earth so that the crust would crack, letting the water that was under the crust burst out and flood the earth. a meteor would break the canopy of water that was above the atmosphere, and it would break the earth up into plates. anything is possible, but you cant tell just by looking at the earth how it is today.


EC


[edit on 9-8-2005 by Evolution Cruncher]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
I think that God probably used something like a meteor so impact the earth so that the crust would crack, letting the water that was under the crust burst out and flood the earth. a meteor would break the canopy of water that was above the atmosphere, and it would break the earth up into plates. anything is possible, but you cant tell just by looking at the earth how it is today.


if that amount of water existed under the crust then the heat have been boiling that water hence boiling the whole earth since the beginning. it simply could not withstand that pressure. the land we stand on sits on magma, mostly... not water.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   


if that amount of water existed under the crust then the heat have been boiling that water hence boiling the whole earth since the beginning. it simply could not withstand that pressure. the land we stand on sits on magma, mostly... not water.


ah, you dont know if the earth could withstand the pressure. and you dont know for a fact if water was under the crust of the earth or if there wasnt. the time before the flood was very different. the water under the crust might not have been boiling. it might have been between two great layers of crust. there is no way to tell, I take it by faith.

EC



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   
you might call it faith but it's basically just a guess. where did the water go after the flood...did it go back underground? if so it should still be there right?



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

im kinda curious of how you would account for the lack of fossil meteorites in the lowers layers of earths strata. very few if any are found in the lower layers, in fact most fossil meteorites are found in the upper layers.


Just north of Chicago is a metor impact crater that is 280 million years old.

Des Plaines Disturbance

There are no surface features left of it and it has been covered with clacial drift, but it is there.

bulletin.geoscienceworld.org...



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
How to account for that? Well, that would seem logical to me as the lower strata are, by definition, deep underground. Impact craters are erased by volcanic and tectonic activity, the ones we do see are located in relativelt stable geological locations. Meteorites do not always survive an impact, to have one survive an impact AND the complete erasure of the crater, which would have to happen if it would end up in the 'lower strata', would be unlikier yet. Then the odds of actually finding one of these... think if it, a meteorite burried in the lower strata, all evidence of its associate crater erased, any that would happen to be found would be by blind luck alone... 'ok lets dig a shaft down here a few thousand feet... no meteorite? OK move a few feet to the left and try again'

This still doesnt answer the basic question though. I thought the bible states the flood was caused by rain, I don't recall seeing any mention of vapor canopies, huge undergound reseviors of water being released, or multiple meteor strikes. An impact releasing enough water to cause a global flood would leave some kind of water erosion or other evidence. For that matter, what would the volume the cavities undergroud be to hold enough water to cover the earth, and by what mechanism would this water be expelled and kept above ground rather than flowing back down? What would keep these huge cavities from colapsing once the added wieght of all that water was above them? If that were in fact the cause for the flood I would think the bible would SAY that was the cause of the flood.

As I stated before, the environmental effects of even a single one of the larger impacts would be catastrophic. I simply cannot imagine most of them striking at the same time and any life on earth surviving at all. The effects of such an event would not be gone within a mere 40 days. And such events would not have gone unnoticed. Again, an average of one impact every 34.48 years, if the age of the earth is truly only 6000 years, and those are just the craters that we can see and identify, and little to no written record of these events.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   


I thought the bible states the flood was caused by rain


it says the fountains of the deep. that means that the water came from the ground. some from the rain and some from the canopy of water talked about in genesis chapter 1.


EC



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   
A question for creationists.

Q: Are we to assume everything in the bible is to be taken literally as historical fact ?

everything as in 100% ?



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   


Q: Are we to assume everything in the bible is to be taken literally as historical fact ?

everything as in 100% ?


what exactly do you mean? are you asking me if I believe that bible is 100% true.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Well I must be honest this is the first thread that ive responded too without reading it in entirety just responding to the first Question.

1. How do you explain the Mutation of things such as virus's in their RNA and DNA is god creating and tweaking new curent virus's all over the world, at the same time just for fun? Thought he only could do it in the first 7 days of creation? or dont you really belive the bible literally.

2. Explain to me the Galpogos islands. Its volcanic, a recent land mass well after any supposed week of creation whenever in geoligical history you lace it. So on this island trere are lizards that have evolved a differant biology so that they can swim in the sea and graze underwater Sea Grass. No other lizards in the world can swim (cold blodded you Know!) and certainly no others eat any form of Sea Grass. There physiology has been shown to be adapting to enable them to stay under water for longer.
I.E. they are actually changing their bodies and physiology, to adapt to their environment . It has been observed and is still being observed Now. Its called EVOLUTION

3. Please also explain to me how sealed caves where totally seperate species of insect and fish have evolved since their anscestors were first enclosed in these systems. Spiders have been found that have bo eyes and have lost all their pigmentation due to lack of light. Microbes even have adapted to feed not on their traditional source of much at the bottom of lakes and rivers...in these sealed caves to actually start feeding of the rocks themselves. Please plase explain this to me.

4. Please explain when you look around at your current brothers or sisters in humanity why we are differant? part of gods plan to create divison? Why have the Eskimos evolved to have a differant skin/flap system over their eyes to protet them from harmfull ultraviolet radiation? Why do the Tibetans who live in the highest place in the world have a More active and evolved bone marrow and liver functions to keep the Massive amounts of Red Blood cells in their body they need to survive in that environment?

5. please explain the little people recently found in Sumatra area the Pygmie fossils....which have proven these four feet tall pre humans, used tools, fire and also had a advanced social society...this is proved by the fact that they have found fossils of very old members of that society with no teath, and unmobile unable to hunt etc. Therfore they looked after that individual and a 'society' was there, but not quite Human...please please please explain how creation explains that!

At the end of the day if you believe in every word of the bible as historical fact then how did god after creating all of creation, everything then return to differant parts of the earth like sealed caves a few thousand years ago, decided to do some more work? so that means the bible is wrong then? but hey surely if God was going to return to the Gallapogos say 10,000 years ago and create a entirely new type of Lizard why not drop some off at say Hawaii too?

Why in these returns to creating life on earth didnt he just once look around and think no I think maybe I wont create a new Spider in this cave to be undiscovred for thousands of years...how about I stop that famine now? or War.... well if that is the sort of God you believe in and Worship...well IMHO i really believe you need to reavaluate the basis and truth of any beliefs you have. Its traditionally know as the 'Night of the dark soul' Have fun njoy finding the truth based on fact not speculation.

IMHO (and no offense meant) the belief in the traditional creationist theory ie all literla etc dinosaurs never existed and put there to tets your faith etc...is as Insane, wrong and dangerous to society as any Islamic Jihadi teaching.

And also in case any christian wants to try and slate me with faith or bash and bully me into supposed submition about what ive said I base it on some experiance. I really have read the bible and most of the other relevant and left out texts than most proclaaimed people of Faith. I dare say more times than most people I have ever met of discussed with this issue. I was brought up in a Very very formally religeous environment taught by monks and priests. I attended mass at least 4 times a week for most of my formative years. I learnt latin greek etc to a low standard (languauge was not my forte but science was) I had more faith and belief in God (christian) that i thought it was unshakable, but you must only believe what you can examine and prove to be right, and after eduacting myself much over the years that faith has gone and I see things differantly Now. That does not mean im not spiritual, just realistic.

Creationists understand one thing, the belief or positing of a divine creator in no way means that the Big Bang did not occur or that life on earth did not really start in a water pool somewher on earth from combining chemical starands some 4 billion odd years ago. Why would mary have to be a Virgin, if god cerated us we are all little parts of him/her/it so he is therefore rejecting what he his creating? You ar all just living by explanations given to scientifically ignorant people millenia ago in a language not even spoken anymore, that was actaully written later than you think, to control them and offer some sort of explanation. To give the Shamans and witch doctrs of their time some power over their society.

Im sorry but I know that this is sooo true.

MischeviosulyWonderingWhoAndWhyThisMemeIsBeingRestoredSoStrongly

Regards Elf.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   
You have voted MischeviousElf for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.




posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   

I take it by faith.
EC


And there we have it in a nutshell. If you just take it on faith why are you attempting to make some kind of cogent argument? (and I do mean attempting).

If you think that God created the Earth 6000 years ago, along with all the evidence to show that it is much older (perhaps your God is some kind of joker?), then that is up to you. However it is a purely philisophocal posistion and not supported by logic, science or simple common sense.

So why do you feel the need to argue with people using pseudo-scientific clap-trap? You just end up looking very foolish indeed.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher


Q: Are we to assume everything in the bible is to be taken literally as historical fact ?

everything as in 100% ?


what exactly do you mean? are you asking me if I believe that bible is 100% true.



I'd say literal is the key word, is it to be taken literally as historical fact ?
and the 100% means do you believe it is accurate



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I understand the the bible does not have every single bit of history, but for what it does have, I believe to be 100% accurate.
and the evidence that is presented in support of an old earth is not based fact, its based on assumption of many things.

evolution and creation are taken by faith.

EC



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join