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.

 

A summary of 6, 000 years (a Biblical Hypothesis)

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Zaknafein

so im guessing that you believe that everything we see today is the result of chance over billions of years?

I dont know how information got started but I know it exists now. but how did it get started? how did everything get so organized for life to exist? DNA is not just a bunch of chemicals? how did it get so organized? it is the most complex thing on this earth. you are telling me that was one of the results of the big bang?

as far as I know, all organisms know how to communicate in one way or another, how if that possible?

I dont believe I ever got an answer for this question: how did space expand from the big bang if it never existed to begin with? how can something expand if it doesnt exist?

take a look at all the relationships between plants and animals and insects, the symbiotic relationships. everything works together to keep life in existance, you are telling me that the sybmiotic relationships are by chance?

I dont know about that, ive thought about that until by brain hurted.
how does everything in this world have some kind of connection between two or more things that make life possible?
you know that without insects, plants would never get pollinated.
you know that without plants breathing in CO2 and exhaling oxygen, humans and animals would not exist.
life works for itself. we understand the operation of life, how did it get started? did chance really cause the complexity of life?

I would think that it wasnt chance. it was an intelligent creator.


EC




posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
I dont know how information got started but I know it exists now. but how did it get started?

That's not Evolution, Evolution deals with life after it first started.


DNA is not just a bunch of chemicals?

Yes it is just a bunch of organic chemicals, we are just a bunch of organic chemistry when you get down to it. Genetics is not theoretical work anymore it's a practicle engineering discipline creating controversy around the world


how did it get so organized? it is the most complex thing on this earth.

No one knows yet. We may never know for sure but to say if we don't know for sure then GOD must've done it is Ignorant to say the least.


you are telling me that was one of the results of the big bang?

Uhh Different theory, that's the Big Bang Theory which has absolutely nothing do to with the topic at hand.


as far as I know, all organisms know how to communicate in one way or another, how if that possible?

It depends on what you mean by communicate. They don't "talk" if that's what you're thinking, it's all cause and effect.


how did space expand from the big bang if it never existed to begin with? how can something expand if it doesnt exist?

Again this has nothing to do with evolution, but if you're really curious I'd suggest you check out string theory. It's the latest attempt to come up with a Unified Theory of Everything. We are no where close to that though IMHO


you are telling me that the sybmiotic relationships are by chance?

Yes


how does everything in this world have some kind of connection between two or more things that make life possible?

Huh? Please refrase the question



life works for itself. we understand the operation of life, how did it get started? did chance really cause the complexity of life?

I would think that it wasnt chance. it was an intelligent creator.


So basically since it seems so implausible to you it has to have been created by some all knowing and all powerfull god. Superstition that's all that is. No proof for any of your claims. It's funny that you went from "Evolution Teachers immoral values" to "I would think that it wasnt chance. it was an intelligent creator."

Your agenda is clear and if people like you ran the world there would be no scientific innovation, womens rights would be nonexistant and we would currently trying to convert the non-believers(or killing them)

Extremism comes in many forms, most of them at first are non-violent but if left to fester they can spread like a cancer on society(sort of what's happening in the USA right now :@@


You wan't to know why I think SAT scores are plummeting? Anti-Intellectuals like you are the reason.

We live in a society that puts more worth in Dumb Jocks getting triple doubles for their NCAA team then a Nerdy unattractive kid who can program in a couple dozen programming languages.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
That's not Evolution, Evolution deals with life after it first started.

yes organic evoltuion does, but how do you account for life getting started in the first place? a chemical soup? life today is much too complex for things to begin by a bunch of random chemicals being put together and forming life. and how did life start from non-living things?


Originally posted by sardion2000

Yes it is just a bunch of organic chemicals, we are just a bunch of organic chemistry when you get down to it.

maybe thats why SAT scores are going down, because kids are being taught they are just a bunch of chemicals organized by chance, so who really cares abotu a stupid test anyways?

Originally posted by sardion2000
No one knows yet. We may never know for sure but to say if we don't know for sure then GOD must've done it is Ignorant to say the least.

how is that ignorance? Having God create and design is a solution that would solve many problems that evolutionists have, becasue there is no proof for evolution, just things from the imagination. and dont say No one knows, i know that God did it.

Originally posted by sardion2000
Uhh Different theory, that's the Big Bang Theory which has absolutely nothing do to with the topic at hand.

dont avoid the question. if there was no big bang, then how do u propose life came to be?


Originally posted by sardion2000
Your agenda is clear and if people like you ran the world there would be no scientific innovation, womens rights would be nonexistant and we would currently trying to convert the non-believers(or killing them)


now there u are wrong. you are getting christianity confused with islam. christanity is based on follwing God's word, and the golden rule. evoltuion is based on killing, and the need for death for natural selection. it seems to me that evolution practices more violence.


Originally posted by sardion2000
We live in a society that puts more worth in Dumb Jocks getting triple doubles for their NCAA team then a Nerdy unattractive kid who can program in a couple dozen programming languages.


and what is being taught in college classrooms? evolution, wow. maybe we should try teaching kids about other things, reather than saying we have the same ancestory as an earthworm. perhaps our values might change as a whole. and the bible says that money is the root of all evil, im sure u will be able to figure out the situation with the jocks and programmers with that verse.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Ouch! That was harsh Sardion!

But it's not just a matter of a simple dice roll; it's a matter of what works. There've been untold millions of mutations that might have lead toward new independent species, but the first mutant didn't live too long. Only the adaptations that aid in survival ever get passed on.

For example, in a symbiotic relationship such as between bees and some flowering plants, it's what works. It probably started out in a smaller scale, in which one of the plant's hormones (which very likely had a completely different intial function) attracted the interest of proto-bees by mimicking another smell.

The plant's pollen might have also initially been distributed by another means (i.e. wind), but the bees carried it farther and spread that individual's pollen to a greater number of other plants, increasing the population of bee-attracting plants. From there, subsequent mutations could lead to the nectar that attracts bees even more.

Symbiotic relationships don't magically happen, it takes incremental development over millenia.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by Zaknafein]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   


yes organic evoltuion does, but how do you account for life getting started in the first place? a chemical soup? life today is much too complex for things to begin by a bunch of random chemicals being put together and forming life. and how did life start from non-living things?


Yes, life today is probably much too complex to be spawned from a combination of chemicals, but not too complex for the first life. Look at the complexity of modern single-celled archaebacteria and its not so mind-boggling that life spawned from inorganic matter.



maybe thats why SAT scores are going down, because kids are being taught they are just a bunch of chemicals organized by chance, so who really cares abotu a stupid test anyways?


Maybe I'm one of the few minority, but in my own experience as a teenager, Evolution vs Creation was not on my mind when taking the SAT.



dont avoid the question. if there was no big bang, then how do u propose life came to be?


He's right, the big bang really doesn't have anything to do with this. The big bang doesn't even conflict with God unless you're dogmatic about Young Earth.



now there u are wrong. you are getting christianity confused with islam. christanity is based on follwing God's word, and the golden rule. evoltuion is based on killing, and the need for death for natural selection. it seems to me that evolution practices more violence.


Okay, first off, Islam is not an evil religion -- that's a bias you really need to get rid of. Now I'm not saying Christianity is like this today, but in the dark ages the clergy was very notorious in its destruction of knowledge and carried out more than a few Crusades. The first man to translate the Bible from Latin into English was murdered as a heretic. Again, I'm not saying modern Christianity is anything like that, but Sardion's view is not unfounded.

Furthermore, biological evolution preaches nothing about what lifestyle we live. It's a theory that attempts to increase our understanding of biology and find out what happened on Earth in the past -- nothing more.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by Zaknafein]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   


He's right, the big bang really doesn't have anything to do with this. The big bang doesn't even conflict with God unless you're dogmatic about Young Earth.


well that alol depends on what god you are talking about.
if you are talking about the god of the bible, then billions of years conflict a lot.
the bible says that God did it all in six days about 6000 years ago.

so if you are talking about the God of the bible, the big bang has a lot of contradictions.

evolution starts with the big bang because from that, everything has to EVOLVE. the word evolve is found in the word EVOLUTION. people dont seem to get that. evolution theory starts with the big bang, from that starting point its called cosmic evolution. stars evolving is called stellar evolution and cheicals and elements evolving is called chemical evolution. and where life starts is called organic evolution.

you have to have all of those. of life does not even exist.

you cant deny it, and the reason it if denied is because no one wants to defend the idea that we all came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago.


EC



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   


evolution starts with the big bang because from that, everything has to EVOLVE. the word evolve is found in the word EVOLUTION. people dont seem to get that. evolution theory starts with the big bang, from that starting point its called cosmic evolution. stars evolving is called stellar evolution and cheicals and elements evolving is called chemical evolution. and where life starts is called organic evolution.


We've got to stick to specific points in order to get anywhere. What you're speaking of is way too broad to be answered in anything less than book form.

Thus far, I've only been concerned with the following definition of Evolution:

3. Biology.
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Now what problem do you have with it?



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Ive been around that block before, but when it comes back around to origins of life and universe, Ive always been amazed at how evolutionists want nothing to do with those two.

Creationism deals with creation...and THEN evolution.

If you want to deal with one finite point, is it not best to start at the beginning?



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   
well put jake. you cant have a present without a beginning. life needs a beginning. to most evolutionists life started from nothing, and then a rock, and then soem rain, and then a chemical soup, and now...all this. this being highly complex living organisms that can think on their own and create fascinating technology...all by chance????? the more and more i look at the world around us, and study science, the more i am convinced that there was a creator, with the creator being God. everything is too perfectly designed to come along by chance.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Alright then, we'll start from the beginning. . .

Based on our current evidence, the most likely explanation for the origin of the universe is the big bang.

There are a couple of key evidences for this:

1. Cosmic Background Radiation: everywhere we have observed within the universe has an underlying temperature of about 3 degrees K. This is the reason why in even the deepest darkest corner of space, absolute zero does not exist. The big bang is certainly a plausible explanation for how the universe came to be filled with this omnipresent energy.
2. Hubble's Law: all known galactic bodies are moving through space away from a central point.
3. In the universe as a whole, the majority of atoms tend to be the lightest elements; for whatever reason, there's lots of Hydrogen and very little Uranium. It seems to me that based on E=MC^2, if the universe started out purely as energy -- not matter -- then it would be easier for that energy to become simpler matter (light elements) than for it to become the heavier elements.


So what problem do you have with the concept of the Big Bang?



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
loon I think you missed the entire point in my post. Evolution is a dangerous philosophy and if believed, can lead to many bad things.
such as:

the increase in violent crimes,
the increase in STDs in 10-14 year olds.
the increase in number of pregnant teens ages 10-14.
the drop in SAT scores in the 60's
the rise of marxism, Naziism, communism.
the new world order

there is more of a negative side to evolution than a good side.

im not saying that Science is a religion. gravity is not a religion, we observe it, its scientific. Evolution is not observable nor is it demonstrable. its not scientific.

refer to my signature and then think about it, think real hard and you will agree.



Marxism and communism are the only form of governments that your belief will allow and heres a news flash for you, the Nazi's and Hitler were a very Evangelical party whose principals are exactly the same as the damn religious right.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
first of all hello to ALL
this being my first post on these forums i'll make it short
Tony is absolutely right about hte national-socialists , another sign of their "faith" is the following : the wehrmacht belt buckles had the inscription "Gott mit Uns" trans. : God with us ...... this of course does not make the whole christian population evil but "darwinism" was certainly not the main reason for AH's madness

about communists and anti-semitic actions : Marx was a jew (born and raised 60 km from my home town) Lenin was a jew Trotsky was a jew and a lot of others in the bolchevik movement, would jews create a movement to eradicate judaism ?
do you really believe it is "darwinism" that led stalin (not a jew) to do what he did to his own people (and many others) ?
what was it that led the conquistadores and and other settlers on both american continents to massacre millions of natives ? darwinism ?

you definitely picked the wrong way to justify your point of view



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Hvitserk

im not saying that it was darwin, but it was the same idea. it was the idea that one race evolved better than the other and that maybe one race is more supreme than the other(s)

they all thought that they were speading up the process of natural selection, and no I did not pick the wrong people to make my point.



EC



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
the increase in violent crimes,
the increase in STDs in 10-14 year olds.
the increase in number of pregnant teens ages 10-14.
the drop in SAT scores in the 60's
the rise of marxism, Naziism, communism.
the new world order

there is more of a negative side to evolution than a good side.


I think having believers in God who commit sexual acts against children could cause these issues MUCH more than the belief that we evolved over time.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
Hvitserk
they all thought that they were speading up the process of natural selection, and no I did not pick the wrong people to make my point.
C


Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
Hvitserk
they all thought that they were speading up the process of natural selection, and no I did not pick the wrong people to make my point.
EC


as far as i remember the hebrews called/still call themselves "the chosen people" ever since one can trace their existence back. darwinism ? natural/godly selection ?

as for the idea of a so called superiority of certain parts of the population ...it is a bit more complicated than just speeding up the process of natural selection
Eugenism was (probably still is ) practiced officially in some countries up until the mid seventies , preventing for example mentally or physically disabled people from procreating vie chemical or even mechanical castration/sterilization
Eugenism

the idea of the superiority of one people over another has not waited for darwin and his theory of evolution to appear

africans and kanaks (natives from new caledonia) were "shown" in cages long before Darwin. Still, explorers (a lot of them influenced by church) did not consider them as humans , probably even giving more consideration to pets and farm animals

does it make it right ? No
should it be done ? Certainly not
does it prove that god had nothing to do with the creation of the universe ? not at all
does it prove that earth is 6000 years of age ? absolutely not
does it prove that evolutionism is bad/good for humanity (as far as such a question can make sense) ? again no



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by SupaSmoove101
My theory on the scientific error called the geologic column is this:
1. It is very difficult for a bone to fossilize. One way is to have the bones submerged in moving water so that the minerals in the water can displace the cells in the bone and cause it to turn rock solid. A flood is gives the perfect conditions for this to happen.

Then explain why several fossils are formed in limestone, which cannot be deposited by a flood. Why also do we have fossilized amber which takes millions of years to fossilize.



2. How could it be that every era could just so happen to achieve these perfect conditions millions of years apart? And thus creating layer upon layer of fossilized bones which pertain to their era in time... That would be difficult wouldn't it. (Let's for one moment guess that a flood swooshed around all of these animals and artifacts and they were fossilized on top of each other via hydrologic sorting. That would explain the same rock being in different layers of the geologic column. Even though the year of the rock type was apparently determined by the layer it was found in the geologic column. And I hate saying geologic column, because it does not exist.)


Hydrologic sorting doesn't explain the geologic column. If the layers were only formed this way all sandstone would be below all shale. The fact that we have Limestone in between is proof of that. Limestone is not formed in Fast running water. Basic geology proves this to be completely impossible.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   
For starters, i dont see what SAT scores or rise in crime or the number of radicals has ANYTHING to do with the age of earth. The first page of this thread names a few reasons why the earth cannot be 6000 years old, namely an indian (from india) calendar and trees that are "40,000" years old.

For the indian calendar, I do not have enough information to agree or disagree with it; it is possible they had a different way of counting years so the numbers are skewed.

for the trees, the "40,000" years was a media exaggeration, this is admitted even by the tasmanian park and wildlife rangers. They say that the oldest tree they have found was 2000 years old. They also believe that the trees were growning at separate times of some dead trees are older than 10000 years old, however they do not state how they figured this out, and if carbon dating is their answer (ring counting wouldnt work because those trees were supposed to have died 8000 years ago so they would still number 2000) then i wouldnt trust it because carbon dating seems to have many flaws when testing the information.

Another person in a different thread brought up the layers of rocks. These layers are supposed to be different colors for different seasons, thereby showing the passing of time. Yet the Mt Saint Helen's eruption in 1980 mimiced this layering in a much shorter amount of time, so this cant be shown entirely accurate either.

and can we please stop the "your belief is the reason our world sucks"? It's a rather shallow argument which only makes people defensive.

---Pineapple



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
You wan't to know why I think SAT scores are plummeting? Anti-Intellectuals like you are the reason.


This thread is astounding. In fact, the recent invasion of anti-intellectuals to this forum (not unlike the neo-nazis that conspire to drop by on occasion to spew their own ignorance) is a sad turn of events.

They should have never ran the Internet out to trailer parks.

Most just want attention and an excuse to witness their faith and fairy tales. Some are just trolls. Others are the worst kind of disinformation agents that spend their angry pathetic lives bouncing from website to website posting any psudeoscience and half baked religious tract they can find to rationalize they fact they weren't properly raised, educated or indoctrinated into this millennium.

I'm sorry, but if you think The Flintstones is based on a true story, there's a good chance your parents were cousins. You don't have to like the fact you're a braying idiot; But paying your $19.99 monthly fee to AOL doesn't give you the right to subject the rest of the world to your dementia.

I suggest anyone not wishing to sink to their level move along, and no longer respond to the Amish with Internet.

This forum is ABOUT THEM not FOR THEM.

If you don't like it, take it up with senior staff. Oh, you just did.

EDIT: Moved to Faith & Spirituality Forum since this post.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by RANT]



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I have to say, Im a bit disappointed in you.
You found a personal attack and then followed up by heaping on your own.
At first I couldnt tell which side of that conversation you were landing on. Most of your post could have fell on either side.
Im not sure why I expected more then bubbling hate from you. Maybe its because of your position here, and some sound logic Ive seen you display.

Am I correct to assume that when you speak, you speak for all the staff , senior staff? No. That wouldnt be right would it. There are a couple there who believe Jesus, right?

If you think that nothing turned into something, and that something turned itself into a living cell, and that cell turned into everything we have today...and you want to rag on the flintstones, yet alone Amish with internet, then you have a bigger problem then you realize. I doubt there would be a flintsones if there was no evolution theory.


You can make comparisons to the things that you find to be the worst of the world, and you can call names and poke fun, but in the end, I still hope that you find Christ, so I can call you my brother, and we can be neighbors in the same trailer park in heaven.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Evolution, in biology, complex process by which the characteristics of living organisms change over many generations as traits are passed from one generation to the next. The science of evolution seeks to understand the biological forces that caused ancient organisms to develop into the tremendous and ever-changing variety of life seen on Earth today. It addresses how, over the course of time, various plant and animal species branch off to become entirely new species, and how different species are related through complicated family trees that span millions of years.

Evolution provides an essential framework for studying the ongoing history of life on Earth. A central, and historically controversial, component of evolutionary theory is that all living organisms, from microscopic bacteria to plants, insects, birds, and mammals, share a common ancestor. Species that are closely related share a recent common ancestor, while distantly related species have a common ancestor further in the past. The animal most closely related to humans, for example, is the chimpanzee. The common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees is believed to have lived approximately 6 million to 7 million years ago (see Human Evolution). On the other hand, an ancestor common to humans and reptiles lived some 300 million years ago. And the common ancestor to even more distantly related forms lived even further in the past. Evolutionary biologists attempt to determine the history of lineages as they diverge and how differences in characteristics developed over time.

That is what the fight is all about, not the earth is not 6,000 years old.

encarta.msn.com...




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join