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.

 

All you knew about Creationism! Debunked!

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   
ok, first.. Carbon dating is not quite as accurate as many say it is. www.brushchurchofchrist.com...

Now, I've heard, but unable to find for lack of time, that someone took a new 16 penny nail and brought it to a point of severe decay. After they carbon dated it, the results said it was like 10, 000 years old.


However, here's one that will curl your noodle!

Distances---Trigonometric Parallax www.astronomynotes.com...

Read the link below and realize carbon dating isn't ONLY means of measurement when concluding evolution based off of bones and rocks.

www.icr.org...

Now, here's where it gets kinda sticky for most evolutionist: why? Because it takes pure faith to say..God can do the impossible!" and let it go at that. ...

Gen 1:2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light

God made the earth FIRST and THEN there was

LIGHT (Hebrew אור) From H215; illumination or (concretely) luminary (in every sense, including lightning, happiness, etc.): - bright, clear, + day, light (-ning), morning, sun.)





posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
ok, first.. Carbon dating is not quite as accurate as many say it is. www.brushchurchofchrist.com...


Its post like theese that makes me wish there was a way of giving you a minus star.

Could you in any way tell me how objective that page is comparing to religion and science ?



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Carbon Dating is not perfect but give or take a million years all the evidence proves over and over again that man has been around for a lot longer than a few thousand years. Muslims, Catholics and Christian are almost as bad as the evolutionist when it comes to self serving dogmas. Mankind is in fact outside the normal evolution on this planet and that is why they will never find the missing link because the beings that many have translated into "God" or the "Gods" were the being who over time genetically engineered humans using some of their own DNA. There is a part of Humans that is not of this earth but all religions fall way short of telling the whole story. However, I feel sure the reality of who we are and what we are will be revealed very soon.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller

Originally posted by Essan
How about the fact they're made out of bone and not stone? Even when fully fossilised they still retain many of the internal structures of bone.

You do know the difference?


Yes I do. And I've never seen a fossilized bone from the inside. And even so, that can be faked too. The inside of a rock looks similar to the insides of a bone also. So I can't really tell the difference. I just think the Atheists made it all up. what do you think?

[edit on 2-4-2008 by jedimiller]


I don't think you really want to hear what I think. The Americans and the British both have a term that begins with a "b" that pretty much sums up what I think.

I actually can't tell if you're being serious or not. I've seen enough Creationist nutjobs on here that it wouldn't surprise me if you were being serious. Then again, I forgot to check the date on the original post. Was this posted on April Fool's Day?



Edited for spelling and grammar mistakes.

[edit on 4-4-2008 by Neiby]



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MajKarma
 


We don't have a transition fossil btween modern man and Cro Magnon, true. but then again we don't have one between homo habilus and Austriolapithiscine. And yes, I realize since my latin is bad I misspellsed at leas tsome of that. We don't have many fossils at all that show clear transitionary stages. We sort of get timestamps, or a picture taken every so often. If you look at the fossil record, you can see apes becoming more and more humanlike over time.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


Brillant post Rune.....but this is the wrong thread, IMO.

Please see that this is a spoof, IMO....

I'd like to see yoru attention, Rune, to REAL threads.

Just MO!!!

WW



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


No, I can assure you that JediMiller is quiet seriouse, or at least spamming quiet seriously. Even if this thread is a spoof, however, shoudn't i add what I've learned to someone else's ideas, or at least make available for them to take as they will? Just 'cause the OP may be a joke, the discussion itself is fiarly real. Unless everything afterwards was a joke. Then i'm blowing hot air. ^^;
EditL And I do pay attentio to real threads, it's just that i'm only actually any good when it comes to stuff dealing with Paleotology or archeology. Otherwise I make a fool of myself.

[edit on 3-4-2008 by RuneSpider]



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


Good post Rune....and I don't think you make a fool of yourself....

JUST MY OPINION...

WW



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Not a joke guys. However, I do admit I like having fun out there, but I mostly do it in BTS now. I am passionate about topics like these (religion/creation). Remember what the mods have told us, don't attack the user, but the theory/topic. And do it intelligently. I know I had no official prove or scientific evidence of this. But, I still believe in this thread 100%. I believe that there are some bones out there at museums that are totally fake. That there are scientists out there who will produce fake evidence just to fight the real origin as told in the bible.

Now, I'm not saying that the rocks they use to produce these shapes are not real. Sure these rocks are millions of years old, and they are then taken into labs and sanded down to look like bones. using very good sculptors out can do this easily with rocks. Hope i'm not offending anyone with these outrageous claims, that was not my intent.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jedimiller
 


You still ignore to answer the questions that make your theory complete nonsence..

What are your explanation on the fossils found 5 kilometers inside the coal mines of Svalbard. That I myself have seen surfaced from places never explored by man.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jedimiller
 


Ignorance is bliss! Ignoring simple questions and start new fantasy threads in the meanwhile ?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jedimiller
 


I live near the north-east coast of England and over the years I have often visited the small fishing town of Whitby. Whitby is where Captain Cook sailed from to discover Australia and America in 1972

www.cookmuseumwhitby.co.uk...

and it is also where the Ammonite Whittlers live.

Ammonite Whittlers carve beautifully shaped cephalapods out of local rock and bake them in brick kilns to make them appear to be 180 million years old

www.fossils-uk.com...


Every Friday at midnight, the Whitby Whittlers walk along the sandy beach and carefully embed the ammonites into the side of the cliff face. Many are also sold to local shops where tourists buy them along with all kinds of other fake fossils. Some hunt for their own along the cliffs.

If you walk to the top of the cliffs you will see the ancient remains of Whitby Abbey. You may also see the Whittlers carving new fossils out what is left of the Abbey

www.timetravel-britain.com...


Whitby is also where Bram Stoker was inspired to write the story of Dracula

www.draculawhitby.co.uk...

The stone sarcophagus where Dracula actually hid is also near the Abbey ruins. Sadly, the lid was used by the Whittlers to carve a sabre-toothed tiger. This idea never really took off as these larger fossils were too heavy to carry up and down the cliffs.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   
I find this thread all too funny…… all this is, is an example of ignorance of fossils – let me educate: If a foot print is found dating back say a million years ago, then it is conclusive evidence that something alive made that print. Scientists then make a mould into the print to create a model of what the foot may have looked like.

Since most moulds of fossilized foot prints made 65 million years and beyond have mostly bird like similarities, it can then be concluded that the feet of creatures that made the prints had the foot and leg structures of birds which proves birds are descendants of the creature that lived at that time because of the similarities of the foot.

If the size of the print was say a meter in diameter, it can be concluded that the creature that made the print was much large then the modern day birds although has bird qualities, suggesting the print was made by a creature that had the body structure of a bird but was much larger then our modern birds.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   
I am still whaiting for an answer to my question JM. You seem to throw out theories that you make up in 5 minutes and refuse to answer the real questions. When are you gonna be a man and answer me?



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jedimiller
 


Yes, I noticed your act was a bit cleaned up. However you're still ignoring a lot of contradictory facts.
But, youare right, after a fashion, many fossils on display these days are not real fossils, some, like Sue, are composites, partially the fossils found, partially reconsructions based on other skeletons. See, it's really hard to get a intact skeleton, scientists have to make do with many partial skeletons, and then reconstruct the creature from there. Also, the sheer fact that the fossils are as old as they are, and as brittle, means that standins, make of plaster, plastic, or other matierials, are used instead for display purposes. In some places they use casts of the originals, since they be incredibly rare, like archeopteryx.
The fact is, if you went and loked for fossils of Dinos, you'd be able to find them. In rock. There's a definite difference between fossil bone and rock.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jedimiller
 


Fossils can be found already present in rock and that is enough to debunk your argument. Even inside the rock where nobody, "evolutionists" and "atheists" included, could get in there to do anything to it.



[edit on 14-6-2009 by mike3]

[edit on 14-6-2009 by mike3]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join