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.

 

God, humans, and dinosaurs it all comes together.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Selmer2




And no I don't believe God just created Dinosaurs and then just simply got 'bored' so to speak, I believe there would have been incredible wisdom in his decision to allow termination of the dinosaurs (which were magnificant creatures) if HE did terminate them and the ET's didn't do it.


Does anyone else believe the Adam and Eve story with the apple? I think it was an analogy for something more sinister.


The dino evolved as a means to help plant life reproduce.
Their demise was a result of a change in atmospheric pressure, which caused them to literally fall to pieces under their own weight. The smaller of the species evolved into birds which still today help plant life reproduce.

As for Adam and Eve. You pose a good question.
I am of the belief the whole saga is speaking on the subject of the human body and the functions of its brain.

Example- adam is the sub-conscious mind and Eve the conscious mind.
Adam could do very little until Eve came " to help meet".

The supposed 'original sin' or the consumption of the apple is clearly procreation.
Death is a Universal mandate of procreation.
This notion leads us into the reasoning necessary to understand why the great redeemer would need to have been born of a "virgin" or some other means rather than procreation. Death had no dominion over the redeemer.
This of course is a whole different ball game that I won't go into here except to say, Christ seems to speak(john 10) of the sub-conscious mind(adam) awakening to follow the conscious mind(eve) as the means of ascending back to the "father".

The very thing christianity claims created the problem, fixes the problem, it would seem.

They built their religion, which worships an imposter they call "god" in the name of Jesus. Exactly the way he predicted they would.

Go figure.




posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShawNee922
The dino evolved as a means to help plant life reproduce.
No it didn't!!!!! When will people realise that NOTHING evolves for a purpose or to help anything. Things evolve, and the new traits that appear might help other plants/animals but it didnt evolve on purpose.


As for Adam and Eve. You pose a good question.
I am of the belief the whole saga is speaking on the subject of the human body and the functions of its brain.

IMO Adam and Eve is like all the other creation myths - a myth, nothing more.



The supposed 'original sin' or the consumption of the apple is clearly procreation.
Why procreation and why an apple?


Death is a Universal mandate of procreation.
Not strictly true but I see where your at, as the universal mandate for death is LIFE.



G



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
to try debate the knowledge or belief of the spirit, with the the knowledge or belief of the intellect. It's apples and oranges. Mind and spirit.

Yes, Science and Religion can co-exist easily when both the logical intellectual who bases everything on scientific fact, and the the spiritually religious who believe God created all, are OPEN MINDED.

When either are not, it's simply a moot point. So why argue? Why bother? Neither are going to convert nor conceed.

One must be open minded enough to realize that the possiblity of a God does not negate universal scientific truths-but perhaps they were created by such as a God.

Likewise the religious believer needs to conceed that the existance of God does not negate scientific facts of the history of the world.

It simply is not *one or the other* people.

Usually, IMHO they (science and God) validate each other when not trying to destroy each other. But people on both sides are so blind and so egotistical- thats the problem with mortal man...always trying to destroy, descredit, disband any unity, divide the masses.

Fact is: One CAN NOT understand that which is spiritual-purely by intellect.

Any more than one can understand science by their intuitive or spiritual beliefs in lieu of having proper education or experimentation.

Education of one's soul does not come by intellect alone but by spiritual means. It's simply impossble to come to real spiritual knowledge purely by intellect.

Those who do not believe in God surely can understand that principle...one would think...hope, and yet their bigest arguement against God being true is "prove it." which is immature at best when you think about it. They are asking the impossible-and they know this-but they think this is their proof. But because it is impossible to "prove it" is not proof in of itself that God does not exist.

However, I have found quite often one's intellectual understanding is often increased on the subjects of both God and science when they first allow an expansion of their spiritual beliefs (even if starting at ground zero of having none, or in the negatives of constantly trying to refute it) and have an actual honest trial of faith in the search for truth in the universe.

I have yet to see the opposite come to any fruition very often-where say someone reads some religious script in intellectual and spiritual doubt and disbelief or with the intent to disprove it intellectually, and came to any such spiritual growth. Rarely, but not very often.

I enjoy being open minded and partaking intellectually and spiritually in my belief of God and the Science He used for Creation on his own time table and scale.

And damn...thats enough on the subject from me, huh?



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   

The Bible mentions a dragon in Revelation (12, 13, 16, and 20). Revelation 20:2 identifies the dragon, “He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.” The Bible is not teaching that dragons ever truly existed. But it is comparing Satan to a fire-breathing monster.


Well if you were John, in those days you had a revelation of a large freaky beast. What would be the closest thing he knew of to call it, a dragon (dinosaur). When there is no name for the beast he see's, what else could he say? He could call it a Moutain Lion. He had to compare it to what he had known.

[edit on 17-1-2007 by thexsword]



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I never got back yesterday to post that on your original theory as I had wanted, but while I encourage you in your train of thought, I would disagree with the God got bored part-LOL.

But I do agree with some of your post conceptually. I think that our time is not God's and he could have created the world, and every living creature for his own purpose and meaning for how ever long he wanted to.

I mean even in the Bible-Genesis- mankind was the LAST thing to be created, right? So good call-really. Of course he could have created dinosaurs and neanderthal cavemen as a type of being close to monkeys and humans...different creatures at different times, but then still He created humans after all else was said and done.

keep pondering its a great way to grow.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by thexsword
Well if you were John, in those days you had a revelation of a large freaky beast. What would be the closest thing he knew of to call it, a dragon (dinosaur). When there is no name for the beast he see's, what else could he say? He could call it a Moutain Lion. He had to compare it to what he had known.


I would be inclined to strongly agree.

However one must also consider that a "dragon" to John, could have been like a large snake or lizard (think Kimono Dragon)...not what people later imagined, interpreted it to be, wrote of fictionally, or what has traveled all the way to hollywood to represent an ancien dragon in the process.

But I totally agree with your logic here. That John had to be refering to something he/people of the time knew to live as his point of reference.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShawNee922

Evidence of dino and man are found together in the same layers of mother Earths crust. They walked together brother....

...The dino evolved as a means to help plant life reproduce.
Their demise was a result of a change in atmospheric pressure, which caused them to literally fall to pieces under their own weight.


This is simply untrue. They are not found together in the Earth's layers. There is absolutely not one shred of evidence that says that man and dinosaurs walked together. If you're talking about the Biloxi River incident, that was proved to be nothing more than a hoax.

And no, that wasn't the cause of the dinosaurs demise. It is now known that a meteor, comet or some such that impacted the earth, displaced land into the atmosphere causing the sun to be blocked out, i.e. nuclear winter.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   
How is it known it was a meteor? Did your teacher tell you?

And this is simply untrue, dinosaurs and humans are found constantly together. Even if you research some of the most highly esteemed evolutionist they will admit this. It is sad people resort to speaking things when it's not true.

2+2=5?



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   

And this is simply untrue, dinosaurs and humans are found constantly together.


How do you know they lived together? you read it in a 2000 year old mythology book?



Originally posted by thexsword
Even if you research some of the most highly esteemed evolutionist they will admit this.


Do they now




[edit on 17-1-2007 by DarkSide]



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by thexsword
How is it known it was a meteor? Did your teacher tell you?

The rocks, the iridium layer, and the impact crater and the biological record tells us. You haven't heard this before?

Here:
en.wikipedia.org...

It's one of five worldwide extinction events.


And this is simply untrue, dinosaurs and humans are found constantly together. Even if you research some of the most highly esteemed evolutionist they will admit this.


Actually, no they aren't.

I work for a paleontologist and in the past year I've learned a LOT about dinosaurs. I've worked on material fresh from the digs, and I know my human bone anatomy (I once taught anatomy and physiology.)

The evolutionists know full well that dinosaurs and humans didn't coexist because they know the fossil records for each of the ages of the earth. The only ones who make this claim are the creationists and they can do that by ignoring and dismissing most of the material in collections and museums.

And a few of them resort to outright fraud:
www.csicop.org...



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by thexsword
How is it known it was a meteor? Did your teacher tell you?

The rocks, the iridium layer, and the impact crater and the biological record tells us. You haven't heard this before?

Here:
en.wikipedia.org...

It's one of five worldwide extinction events.


And this is simply untrue, dinosaurs and humans are found constantly together. Even if you research some of the most highly esteemed evolutionist they will admit this.


Actually, no they aren't.

I work for a paleontologist and in the past year I've learned a LOT about dinosaurs. I've worked on material fresh from the digs, and I know my human bone anatomy (I once taught anatomy and physiology.)

The evolutionists know full well that dinosaurs and humans didn't coexist because they know the fossil records for each of the ages of the earth. The only ones who make this claim are the creationists and they can do that by ignoring and dismissing most of the material in collections and museums.

And a few of them resort to outright fraud:
www.csicop.org...


Thanks, Byrd, I couldn't have said it better than myself. I'm married to a biologist who keeps up with the latest scientific findings. There's not ONE example of them being found together, except for misinformation from creationists who completely dismiss scientific findings.

Interesting work you must do, Byrd, perhaps you'll start a thread telling us about what you've learned/discovered about dinosaurs?



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Actually the concept of dating dinosaur fossils using radiometric dating is very unreliable. Scientists routinely throw out results from radiometric dating when the results don't match up with the accepted beliefs of the scientific community. In fact, most types of radiometric dating don't even match up with each other. For example, an age test on an igneous rock using Potassium Dating will almost always return a completely different results than a Uranium test. Also, considering fossils are formed under wildly varying scenarios, it is impossible to establish a consistent method of dating them. To understand how radiometric dating works is to understand that it can be hugely affected by the smallest variable, such as weather, atmospheric conditions, climate, the earth's magnetic field, and conditions under which a fossil was formed. Read about it yourself www.answersingenesis.com (search for Carbon Dating)



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by secretsoldier
Read about it yourself www.answersingenesis.com (search for Carbon Dating)


Carbon dating is not used to date anything older than 60,000 years.

Instead of reading creationista sites, read something from someone who knows what they are talking about...

www.asa3.org...


6. Decay rates can be affected by the physical surroundings.

This is not true in the context of dating rocks. Radioactive atoms used for dating have been subjected to extremes of heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, acceleration, and strong chemical reactions far beyond anything experienced by rocks, without any significant change. The only exceptions, which are not relevant to dating rocks, are discussed under the section, "Doubters Still Try", above.

....

20. Different dating techniques usually give conflicting results.

This is not true at all. The fact that dating techniques most often agree with each other is why scientists tend to trust them in the first place. Nearly every college and university library in the country has periodicals such as Science, Nature, and specific geology journals that give the results of dating studies. The public is usually welcome to (and should!) browse in these libraries. So the results are not hidden; people can go look at the results for themselves. Over a thousand research papers are published a year on radiometric dating, essentially all in agreement. Besides the scientific periodicals that carry up-to-date research reports, specific suggestions are given below for further reading, both for textbooks, non-classroom books, and web resources.


[edit on 18-1-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   
creationism is based on the fact that 2+2=X

for all values of X the bible tells us fit

it doesn't matter how many mountains of evidence you bring forth

EDIT: and why isn't this thread in the origins forum?

[edit on 1/19/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   
all christians need to do to fit creationism in with evolution is to accept the fact that god got the ball rolling and it didn't happen in 7days. nobody even knows what a day = in "god time". so, if we came from apes then believe that's how god planned it. it doesn't change your faith at all.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by reaganero
all christians need to do to fit creationism in with evolution is to accept the fact that god got the ball rolling and it didn't happen in 7days. nobody even knows what a day = in "god time". so, if we came from apes then believe that's how god planned it. it doesn't change your faith at all.


well, it does move people to look towards a more broad interpretation of the bible
something the fundamentalists cannot accept



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   
i guess i never understood the argument. i mean if you're a christian you believe god is all powerfull, so if god set evolution in motion than why not go along with it and claim it was how he intended. believing in evolution does not in any way debunk creationism. it only accepts a process of life growing.

(grammer edit)

[edit on 19-1-2007 by reaganero]



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by reaganero
i guess i never understood the argument. i mean if you're a christian you believe god is all powerfull, so if god set evolution in motion than why not go along with it and claim it was how he intended. believing in evolution does not in any way debunk creationism. it only accepts a process of life growing.

(grammer edit)

[edit on 19-1-2007 by reaganero]


it's not an easy argument to understand
i actually don't understand WHY someone would believe it
however
most arguments from fanatics are hard to understand
anyway
i ask again: WHY is this on conspiracies in religion?
isn't this an origins issue?



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Evolution implies that Live and Humanity is just Random Stuff.
Not Intelligently Designed, not Divinely Created.
Chemical reacted, probabilities and randomness did the rest.

Humans aren't even the Top of the evolutionary Ladder. There is no Top. They are just one of Evolutions products, no more or less successful than cockroaches or bacteria.

Not good for the egocentric view that we are the Most Important Creation of God.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
if you take the genesis account of 7 literal days than yeah i can see that, but since god is beyond time 1 day to god could be a million years to humans. so, it doesn't play down god's power or put humans on a lower slot if christians accept that god is so powerful and perfect that he orchestrated how things evolve.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join