It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


so what day was dinosaurs then?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 06:55 AM
Here are a few links that provide evidence that there were “ancient”civilizations that were flooded and made unusable.
Here is a 9.500 hundred year old city off the coast of India:

Here is another one off the coast of Japan:

Here is another one under the Black sea that appears to be 7500 yers old:

Here is another one off Cuba about a half mile down:

Here is another one near Israel:

Ill continue my research and get back as I have evidence and time

posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 07:48 AM
Not sure why your posting all that...

I'm well aware of now sunken cities. Nothing odd or mystical about it. We have devastating floods even to this day. I noticed the first link was saying something about noah's flood ... 7,000 years ago, there was no monotheism at all. It would be more like gilgamesh's flood, which the early monotheism crowd stole as their own. The sumerians were a polytheistic crowd. If your trying to link all these flood site's together as one event ... well, good luck. There's already a major flaw, your first link is 9.5K and your third is 7.5Kyrs. Those two flood event's are sperated by 2,000 year's.

IDK... maybe you can just try to explain better what your getting at here. You kinda strayed off topic abit.

posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:12 AM

In the Gilgamesh story, it abruptly jumps to the flood story, seemingly for no reason. That still puzzles me, but it is obvious that the flood myth has been around for a while. Also, Gilgamesh was a demi-god; I believe he was 2/3 god...

It's a pretty good story, though.

posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 02:26 PM
Doesnt the end times end with 'a great fire in the east' let me guess god gives the koreans plans to a 1 million megaton nuke.

And the H5N1 strain of bird flu does fit into accepted evolutinary science adding god into it doesnt make anyone else believe you. I could say that god did a whole loada other things:
The tsunami was made by god those damn heathens they all deserved to die.' That sounds like a brilliant god dunnit.
And I hate to tell you but most of the stuff in the bible is not even in the original context. SOme of the key gospels are missing, ever hear of the knights templar?

posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 07:03 AM

How is the time frame a flaw? If the level of the seas today were to raise by a half mile and future archeologists were to “discover” European cathedrals built in the first century AD “and “ buildings built in the United States during the twentieth century AD: Does that mean there were two different floods? That is an amazing thought process.
And as far as Gilgamesh’s flood: If the discovery was written in Japanese, Chinese, Korean, English, French and German: Does that mean there was more than one “discovery”? That is like saying if five people were in the woods and they all heard a tree fall: because they all heard it, there must have been five trees that fell.

posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 07:37 AM

... Perhaps you should stay in school. Honestly.

Your display of logic in that last post is worse then something a 5 year old would try to come up with. Please educate yourself abit more rather then falling into these gullible doctrine's of idiocy. There isn't even enough water on this planet to cover all the lands for starters. And the gilgamesh flood was a localized account for an actual flood within that region and that region alone. The biblical flood is a retelling of that sumerian account. The ancient summerians believed that the area they lived WAS the world. When the biblical people started to rewrite the epics, they rewrote it in such a way that today moron's can interpret it to mean the entire planet. Again, I repeat, those culture's back then had no concept of a giant spherical earth, they believed in a flat earth cosmology and the region's they lived as the whole planet. So in a sense, that localized flood WAS the whole world as they knew it. They also had a flat earth cosmology. As did alot of culture's back in those days. Perhap's by your logic we should assume the earth is really flat too?

Recheck your fact's, look at all the angle's and exercise abit of common sense before you try pushing BS claim's as truth on me. And please ... rethink your logic, seriously, my 5 year old can do better then that garbage.

posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 07:38 AM

Originally posted by ElOne
How is the time frame a flaw?

Because they didn't happen at the same time.. and did not happen in Noah's time either. If they were all dated at the same time then it would be logical to consider them part of the same flood.. or that there were several at once.

Edit. It still couldn't have convered the entire planet.

[edit on 27-2-2006 by riley]

posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 09:10 AM

Originally posted by sdunklee72520
found recently in a t-rex bone were blood cells collegen tissue and other things very well preserved.and even still elastic.

They didn't find any actual blood cells or fresh tissue. What happened was that Dr. Schweitzer took a bone and treated it with some chemicals that dissolved away the mineral components, and what was left was a mass of organic material that had deconstructed over time. It still had some of the structural features of tissue preserved in it, i beleive, but it wasn't perfectly preserved tissues and cells and the like. Its very interesting, but there's no reason, scientifically, to not expect it, considering what's known about the preservation and stability of organic chemicals. Others have been finding protein remians in bones for a little while now too. Schweitzer's work is pretty spectacular though.

as for evolution I believe we do evolve to be able to survive yet in the last 30k years there has not been any evidence of any new specie showing up anywhere where are they?

There have been many instances of observed speciation in the modern era.

As for over the past 30,000 years, please present evidence that this hasn't happened.

If we evolved from a rodent with 36 billion combinations in it's dna to what we are today in 7 million years with 56 billion combinations thats 20 billion significant changes in our dna in 7 million years? or around 3 billion changes a year.

Where are you getting 7 million years from?

at that rate there should be new animals every week!

I don't know if I'd agree with the rationale you've used to figure out the change rate, but, given that, why assume that the rate is the same in all groups all the time?

It is quite relevant. We are talking about how we got here, on earth

I'm sorry but its not. Evolutionary theory does not claim that a peice of dirt suddenly became consious.

The problem I have with that is that there “is” micro-evolution meaning that individuals of a particular species develop behavioral changes or adapt minimal alterations to their existing anatomy

Please explain why a series of small changes, one after another, isn't a big change, when looking at the begining and the end products. In Zeno's famous Paradox, it is immpossible to move from point A to point B because in order to do so you must first move half way, and then half-way, and then half way, before you can ever move the full way, and thus movement is 'logically' prevented by allways having to move half-way. Of course, this is absurd, and we can move between points. Similarly, a salamander, for example, can't give birth to a lizard, but each generation can be slightly altered from the previous one, and over generational time this can result in a population of lizards.

Where did you read that Jesus created living organisms out of clay?

Its implied in a trinitarian godhead. But its not particular to this discussion, so if you're not a trinitarian christian then feel free to ignore it as irrelevant. But lets not ignore the genetic aspect, the shared genetic material (shared and also altered through generational time), evidence that supports evolution from a common ancestor for life, and that also is in general agreement with the morphological and paleontological evidence for this divergence.

Which says there will be “pestilences” to wipe out millions if not billions of people

There have been such diseases in the past. There is nothing particularly apocalyptic about right now.

Evolution takes place over millions of years, this is happening within a few years, definitely suggestive of a higher “thought” process and a definite purpose. Time will tell.

No, this is incorrect. Evolution does not require millions of years. Evolution is the change in populations over the timespan of a generation. In a small number of generations, this means small total change, in a great number f populations, this can mean a great amount of change.

Science has no “proof” that single cell organisms evolved into multi-celled organisms.

Agreed. Science has no proof of anything infact. Science does not deal in proofs. Science deals with observations of the natural world and a logical analysis of those observations, not 'proofs'.

They have fossil evidence that they existed

Its a bit more than just 'in the oldest rocks there are single celled organisms only and then in later rocks there are mutli-cellular ones', althought that in itself is good evidence. Its the distribution and sharing of genes amoung these organisms, and the sequences in which the multicelled forms appear. Its not proof, but then again we have no proof of anything in science.

And Im telling you that the Bible clearly states that life did evolve on earth and that the evolution process was “created” by God.

Why should what you say matter? What is the evidence to support what you state, thats what is important. If you are talking about the bible, then you are talking about an opinion, your personal interpretation. I look at the bible and I see nothing about evolution. It would be remarkable if there was anything about it, considering that the entire conception of organisms in the distant past was radically different from the modern biological idea of polytypic species living in relation to their local environment and existing in a particular moment in time. Indeed, without this sort of understanding, there can't be anything like evolution, and the understanding of organisms in the bible, that of broad 'kinds', is throughly in keeping with similar ancient conceptions of organisms. Its not just non-evolutionary, its pre-evolutionary.

I started out as a pure evolutionist

Strange, you don't seem to actually understand evolution.

then by being open minded by nature, I discuss ideas with people that I meet who spend their life, in one discipline of science. A good place to start is with the Bible

You are being open minded, and that is reflected by your going to the bible to understand the natural world? Why not the rig veda? Or hesiod's Theogeny? There are lots of religious texts out there in the world, why did you 'happen' to start with the bible? How is accepting at the begining the religious ideas of a group of ancient goat-herding pastoralists from the levant being 'open minded'?

But if there is an answer out there somewhere I will do my best to find it, and get back to you.

But if you are just going to look at the bible and try to create an interpretation of part of the bible so as to explain this, then what is the point? In the end, it'd just be an interpretation of a particular text.

that there were “ancient”civilizations that were flooded and made unusable.

I don't think that in any of those cases the settlement in question was destroyed by a sudden flood, except perhaps the ones around the black sea. But, and perhaps I have missed part of the conversation, what is this supposed to mean? That there are ruins of cities that today are underwater? This is something unexpected?

Does that mean there were two different floods? That is an amazing thought process.

Why aren't you applying the same critical thought to the idea that I suppose you are supporting, that all these floods occured at the same time? Indeed, why suppose at all that, because there is evidence of flooding of the black sea, and evidence of a flood in part of japan, that therefore they were caused by a global flood?
The fact is that the evidence rather doesn't support a global flood, and indeed one could even say that the evidence we have refutes a global flood ever having occuring.

Perhaps you should stay in school. Honestly.

Your display of logic in that last post is worse then something a 5 year old would try to come up with

This is a discussion board. We are all here to discuss the subject. This is not the first time that i have seen you attack a fellow member for not being, in your opinion, 'educated' enough. If there is a flaw in another member's reasonging, point it out. But do not personally attack other members.

posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 04:23 PM
I want to thank you. You have helped me find the one missing piece of the Biblical puzzle that eluded me in my search. Now I don’t expect you to understand or accept this but, to me, in Biblical terms it makes perfect sense. If you went to Australia pre 1600’s the Aboriginal people were what the “original” creations looked like. In Australia anyway.
Did he create the “yellow” people of China, the Red people of North America, the tan people of South America, and the “blacks” of Africa? Im sure he did, however I don’t want to get bogged down on trivial “yes but” games. And beside all of these races of people have been contaminated, Europeanized, Westernized.
When I read the Australian Aboriginal Mythology I was amazed how it paralleled Genesis. In Bagadhimbiri their story tells of two creator Gods [Jehovah God and Jesus], they practiced circumcision, one brother killing another [Cain killing Able], a flooding which revived the sons [In the story of Noah the earth was flooded and the only ones left were Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives.]
There is even Bamapana A trickster hero that committed a great taboo. [Satan, a fallen Angel that tricked Eve.] Their creation story is, exactly parallel to the Christian story. There was nothing physical, God created the earth and then “vanished” accessible only through prayer and the spirit.
So the reason that Australia was spared is because they were not “contaminated” by white man [of which I am one], until after the 1600’s. Now look at the mess the animal and people are in. You see, in all of my research, I saw that God never acted until the last of anything, except one, was afflicted. And I just couldn’t see where man fit in. We are absolutely in the “end times”.
How do we fit in? Before white man arrived the Aboriginal people lived a life of separated communities, living off of the land, in harmony with it, just as is written in the Bible. They were distinct, had different languages and customs and rituals. .
This is almost exactly how it is described in the Bible. Then when the Angels came down and mated with the females, they created “giants”. These were mental giants not physical giants. Neanderthal man
It was this point forward that man really “progressed” or “evolved” depending on your terminology With the greater brain power came planning and forethought. From here developed the need to store “stuff” for future use. The stores needed to be protected. Hence, the birth of civilization. When bartering became limiting and cumbersome, money was “invented”. With money came greed and wanton destruction for its acquisition. The churches, in search of precious metals and commodities financed the exploration of the New World, under the guise of religion. In South America and North America whole civilizations were wiped out. and Original belief systems were dismantled and destroyed, presumably forever. Most if not all of the rain forests of the world have been reduced to a fraction of their original size and with it unknown and innumerable species have been rendered extinct. Because of the greed, almost all, if not all, of the waters of the inhabited world are contaminated, some to the point of being poisonous. and and Here in the US, we are the worst offenders and are currently spreading our unconscionable practices to Mexico, China, Iraq, and Africa; just to name a few places. And finally, apparently, we have managed to irreversibly alter the only place left that was pristine, Australia. and and 8-E50B1AB83A69448BCA256BCF000B4D64?open and We have introduced cats, foxes, goats, pigs, camels and more that have decimated bird and small animal populations. Introduced the cane toad which is lethal to anything that tries to eat it. Wiped out the Tasmanian tiger and who knows how many other species. And of course we had to “convert” the Aboriginal people to our way of destruction. So you see, there is a reason that Australia was spared.
Why wasn’t Australia flooded? That is a good question. However the answer is in the Bible.. In Genesis chapter one:
[6] And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
[7] And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament….
A thick fog was created, where the moisture content was so high it was impossible to survive when inhaled over long periods of time. The Ark floated some 150 days before it landed. You can drown in less than fifteen minutes. It would have been quite easy to keep the fog away from Australia, a gentle breeze, the breath of God.
So thanks again, Produkt, this was the only thing that didn’t add up. The reason God waited so long. Oh! And you wanted “evidence”, links for my assertions. I hope this suffices

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 02:28 PM
Well I ahte to tell you but the colour of skin is normally dictated by the enviroment, when blacks come to a white dominated country (im not being racist) their childrens skin will be slightly lighter than theirs wihtout any interbreeding after succesive generations thye will become white. I think i read somewhere it takes 1000years for this to happen.

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Shenroon
Well I ahte to tell you but the colour of skin is normally dictated by the enviroment, when blacks come to a white dominated country (im not being racist) their childrens skin will be slightly lighter than theirs wihtout any interbreeding after succesive generations thye will become white. I think i read somewhere it takes 1000years for this to happen.

Skin color is an on / off genetically controlled trait. It is also affected , as Produkt said, by the environment. However there seems top be evidence that the amount of sunlight an individual is exposed to, also has an effect.
“Although there are 16 possible combinations in expressing the skin phenotype, there are 5 different possible genotypes that the genes of melanin can express for, as indicated above. Each expression of melanin has an accumulating effect on skin tone, until maximum expression of melanin through 4 dominant alleles leads to a black skin phenotype.
Therefore, when any person is born, they will be one of five colours. After this, external factors such as UV sunlight from the sun will change the skin colour away from the genetic expression of its initial colour.”
Two scientists, Jacob and Monod came up with the “Operon Hypothesis” where the ‘regulator gene’ produces a repressor molecule that inhibits the process of RNA messenger production. The process is quite ‘technical’ and not necessary to get into here, although quite informative. Check it out!
So it is very possible and even probable that skin color can be changed very quickly; especially if external genetic influences are at work.
Richard McCulloch in his article on “Racial Diversity” says’” When members of different races interbreed they cannot produce offspring that possess the racially distinguishing characteristics of both parent stocks. The distinctive racial characteristics of one or both of the parents are either negated or diminished as their racially unique, and therefore mutually incompatible, ensembles of genes are disrupted or diluted.” Go to the bottom of the third paragraph.
In an Anthropological article I found this statement: “If races are defined as geographically delimited conspecific populations characterized by distinctive regional phenotypes, then human races do not exist now and have not existed for centuries,
Delimit meaning: to fix or define the limits of
Conspecific meaning: of the same species
Phenotype meaning: the visible properties of an organism that are produced by the interaction of the genotype and the environment
So in a nutshell what is being said here is that there doesn’t seem to be now, nor has there been for “centuries” any differences in the human species attributed to the environment where they live. Different from what is seen in animal populations from different environments. The implication here however, is that prior to this “for centuries” time period there were differences. Giving credence to a unifying event as is told in the Bible where “angels” came down and mated with the “females”.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in