I have a question for some of you creationists-why do you find it so insulting to be related to apes, page 4

reply to post by brocket99

---

Lol. Good one. I think we all would love to believe that, but i just happen to know i am not.

reply to post by kcire

---

Lol. So you despise people who believe in God. Well i guess you have to have a reason. For me its like this. Science is food for the brain and Religion is food for the mind/heart.

You sit upon your throne, throwing judgment at men and women for believing. For believing in something better. It offends your senses to think that God would not reveal his self to you.

Lets say you were walking down a street and on one side you seen a man with a knife acting in a threatening manner. On the other side you seen a hungry child, sitting and crying, looking for help.

Which one would you walk toward.

Until you have peace in your heart toward all your fellow man, you will never know the truth until the end.

Call it what you will, but if you do not believe in a higher power then do not think of yourself as higher than others because of their belief.

s8int.com...

[edit on 24-8-2009 by Conclusion]

I dont know guys.. but if its offensive to be told we evolved from some ape, then i think its offensive to be told human males were made from dust, and females made from a mans rib.



It offensive in more than one way:

1) because its stated as truth even though there is no evidence to support it. its unscientific, and totaly open to interpritation.

2) because of this story, it was commonly believed (and sometimes it is still said today) that males have one less rib than females. (even though its ca 500 years ago since it was proven false)

In a creationist classroom: "god did it.. class dismissed" Gotta love it.. you dont need to know anything.


This is just mockery of science because they are anti-science. They obviously dont agree with people who used reason and logic, yet somehow dont have a problem with ATOMIC THEORY... have they ever seen the nucleus of an atom? How about the theory of electricity? Ever seen an electron?



Isnt this realy anti-intelligence? Especially when their core argument is that nothing can pop into existance from nothing, (when talking about the making of the universe) And then proceed to say that god has always been there, and made us from nothing. Talk about self defeating argument


But the nr 1 ignorant statement is when they say: "there is no evidence for evolution"

reply to post by ShiningSabrewolf

---

If God had told us through his word (the Bible) that he created humans by first creating monkeys then having them change into humans I would not nave a problem with it. Instead God said he created man in his image from dust. The Bible does not say he created monkeys to turn into humans.

Let me ask you a question if man evolved from monkies why do monkeys still exist?

reply to post by Daniem

---

Take a look at this. From a scientific viewpoint.


A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.

Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.

In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2

Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.

The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3

What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.

reply to post by Conclusion

---

Compared to philosophy and religion science is still an infant.

And look at how much more it’s done in that time!

Edit - While I'm not familiar with the problems you post about carbon dating it is clear from radiometric dating using other isotopes that the Earth is far older than 30,000 years or so.

reply to post by tungus

---

If you work the evolution logic backwards, at some point, the babies of our ancestors began gradually to look more like humans and less like apes, or primates.

Which is odd in itself not only because it begs the question how did the first proto-humans get their features without any predecessors

They did have predecessors. Every fossil and every species is transitional; if you follow the fossil record up from the first homo to modern man you will see each becomes progressively more human like in appearance.

but also how did they make it to reproduction age since primates kill their young with slightest facial deformities.

I can’t say that I’ve heard that to be true but even if it is the case for modern primates it is irrelevant since we are talking about their ancestors.

The other thing is the primates have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46.

As you say yourself if you look at the humans you will see that our 23rd pair is actually two chromosomes that have become fused. However I have no idea where you get the idea that this can only happen in the lab (are you suggesting humans were created in a lab?) or that fused chromosomes result in necessarily more intelligent species or worse, half and half species. Where do you get that from?

Not to mention that humans are 5 times weaker than the chimp. Isn't that a devolution instead of evolution?

No, evolution doesn’t have a goal, it is not linear and not progressive. However your example doesn’t seem to understand our ancestry anyway; we are not descended from chimps, we are cousins.

reply to post by PowerSlave

---

And as someone already mentioned, the dna thing which tells us we are made of the same goop as everything else on the planet fits with both creationism and evolution.

No it doesn’t because genetic analysis shows that similarity is correlated with how closely related two given species are as predicted by evolutionary theory. For example the fossil record strongly suggests that humans and chimps are more closely related than humans and goldfish, analysis of these species shows this to be true.


[edit on 24-8-2009 by Mike_A]

reply to post by Melissa101

---

Let me ask you a question if man evolved from monkies why do monkeys still exist?

By asking that question you reveal your total ignorance on evolution. Why not just say; if land animals evolved from sea animals, why are there still sea animals?

Why dont you return the curtosy and learn some basic science behind evolution, since others study both creation side and evolution before deciding on what to believe.

Why do you shun your own gods creation? (you do, since you refuse to learn about how his creation works.. which is what science is all about.)



What if i said to you: If man was made from dust, why is there still dust? Or did man and modern-day dust both came from a common dust-ancestor?


Scientists doesnt believe in these things because they want to, but because they HAVE TO. Next thing ill hear is that you dont follow "scientism"

God said

Erhm? You mean: you read a book believed to have been written ca 3000 years ago, that claims a god named Yahweh said....x

And if it had said god made monkeys to evolve into humans you would not have a problem? Well im speechless now..

[edit on 24/8/2009 by Daniem]

reply to post by Mike_A

---

Accomplished? lol. There is nothing new under the sun.


The Indian Epics, especially the MAHABHARATA, pick up the thread of
the tale of devastation and destruction. Atlantis, rather displeased
at its humiliating defeat, deceived that they were no longer
interested in subjugating the Rama Empire (An Indian Empire), and
decided instead to annihilate the major cities using weapons of mass
destruction. Sanskrit scholars could not comprehend what was being
described in the Epics until the dropping of the first atomic bombs
on Japan. There are AUTHENTIC VERSES from the Indian Epics:

"Gurkha, flying a swift and powerful vimana (fast aircraft)
hurled a single projectile (rocket) charged with the power
of the Universe (nuclear device). An incandescent column of
smoke and flame, as bright as ten thousand suns, rose with
all its splendor.

It was an unknown weapon, an iron thunderbolt, a gigantic
messenger of death, which reduced to ashes the entire race
of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas.

The corpses were so burned as to be unrecognizable.
Hair and nails fell out; Pottery broke without apparent cause,
and the birds turned white.

...After a few hours all foodstuffs were infected...
...to escape from this fire the soldiers threw
themselves in streams to wash themselves and their
equipment."
ÄÄ The Mahabharata

Indeed, this story is said to be nearly 24,000 years old! If this is
true than we are not the most advanced. As the Bible says "There is
nothing new under the sun." Evidence for Atlantis is well
documented.

If the above was not enough to convince your let me take you in

Page 1





deeper into this nuclear war:

"(It was a weapon) so powerful that it could destroy the earth
in an instant ÄÄ A great soaring sound in smoke and flames ÄÄ
And on its sits death..."
ÄÄ The Ramayana

"Dense arrows of flame, like a great shower, issued
forth upon creation, encompassing the enemy...
A thick gloom swiftly settled upon the Pandava hosts.
All points of the compass were lost in darkness.
Fierce wind began to blow upward, showering dust and gravel.

Birds croaked madly... the very elements seemed disturbed.
The earth shook, scorched by the terrible violent heat of this
weapon.
Elephants burst into flame and ran to and fro in a frenzy...
over a vast area, other animals crumpled to the ground and died.
From all points of the compass the arrows of flame rained
continuously and fiercely.
ÄÄ The Mahabharata

The Ramayana and the Mahabharata seem like science fiction. Not
only did aircraft exist such as Vimanas and Vailxi (as the Atlantian
craft are called), they had nuclear weapons. There seems to be a
fear of educating the worlds people about the distant past. Even
empires and leaders of China's past to Christians to Arab peoples
would destroy history in such a way that records of there amazing
cultures and events are nearly all wiped out. Indian Epics however
are still with us intact. Records of South American history all but
gone. Fear, and other factors have removed most of history before
5,000 years. Some only 1,000 years ago. In the America's just 300 -
500 years all most all lost! Today, perhaps some UFO records are
going the way of fears gate! However, again a few stories live on.

In another amazing Indian text the Agastrya Samhita gives the
precise directions for constructing electrical batteries:

"Place a well-cleaned copper plate in an earthenware vessel.
Cover it first by copper sulfate and then moist sawdust.
After that put a mercury-amalgamated-zinc sheet on top of
an energy known by the twin name of Mitra-Varuna. Water will
be split by this current into Pranavayu and Udanavayu. A
chain of one hundred jars is said to give a very active
and effective force."

reply to post by Conclusion

---

If you believe that you'll believe anything.

reply to post by Mike_A

---

Didn't say i believe it. Just thought i would share that. Because there is nothing new under the sun.

reply to post by bagari

---

And they use to be a lot taller.

There is no controversy about these facts; there was a race or group of people found in Australia called "meganthropus" by anthropologists. These people were of very large size--estimated between 7 to 12 feet tall, depending on what source you read.



These people were found with mega tool artifacts, so their humaness is difficult to question. Four jaw fragments and thousands of teeth have been found in China of "gigantopithecus blacki"--named after the discover. Based on the size of the teeth and deep jaws, its size has been estimated at around 10 feet and as tall as 12 feet, 1200 pounds. (Photo:Giant human femur reportedly found in Turkey)

The "problem" is that human fossils are the rarest of all, and generally, only the hardest bones, jaws, teeth and skulls survive. As with most "early man" artistic recreations, a great deal of the individual is surmised.

The question is, is gigantopithecus a man or an ape? I personally have no opinion, but it is clear that very large men did live once. Scientists are of course afraid of being ridiculed and rather than estimate the size of the individuals possessing larger skulls and teeth than "us", they prefer to use the term robust.

Anthropologists spend quite a bit of time trying to decide what is an ape, what is a man, who they believe descended from who and the like. Now, most consider gigantopithecus an ape,(its more convenient to the theory of evol) but the co-discover at least, and many others still see no difference between the teeth and jaws of Giganto than other so-called ancestors.

As we said, everyone believes that meganthropus with his mega-tools was a "man". Tools have been found in the same area as giganto as well, but the tendency has been to associate them with other "types' found at the same location.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by Conclusion]

here is another

An extract and photograph from the British S t r a n d magazine of December 1895, reprinted in W. G. Wood-Martin's Book, Traces of the Elder Faiths of Ireland, mentions a fossilized giant that had been found during mining operations in County Antrim, Ireland:

Pre-eminent among the most extraor dinary articles ever held by a railway company is the fossilized Irish giant, which is at this moment lying at the London and North-Western Railway Company's Broad street goods depot, and a photograph of which is repro duced here...

This monstrous figure is reputed to have been dug up by a Mr. Dyer whilst prospecting for iron ore in County Antrim.

The principal measurements are: entire length, 12 ft 2 in.; girth of chest, 6 ft 6 in.; and length of arms, 4 ft 6 in. There are six toes on the right foot. The gross weight is 2 tons 15 cwt.; so that it took half a dozen men and a powerful crane to place this article of lost property in position for the Strand magazine artist.

Dyer, after showing the giant in Dublin, came to England with his queer find and exhibited it in Liverpool and Manchester at sixpence a head, attracting scientific men as well as gaping sightseers.

Business increased and the showman induced a man named Kershaw to purchase a share in the concern. In 1876, Dyer sent this giant from Manchester to London by rail; the sum of £4 2s 6d being charged for carriage by the company, but never paid.

Evidently Kershaw knew nothing of the removal of the 'show', for when he discovered it he followed in hot haste, and, through a firm of London solici tors, moved the Court of Chancery to issue an order restraining the compa ny from parting with the giant, until the action between Dyer and himself to determine the ownership was dis posed of. The action was never brought to an issue.

Unfortunately (as far as this writer knows), nothing more was ever heard of the Antrim giant or its owners.



[edit on 24-8-2009 by Conclusion]

reply to post by Conclusion

---

What do you mean there is nothing new under the sun? Are you saying that the scientific advancements of the past few hundred year never happened? Have we always had televisions, the internet and space flight?

Unless you’re going to plumb the depths and reinterpret old scriptures then science has done a hell of a lot more than religion and spirituality in the time it has been around.

reply to post by Conclusion

---

Meganthropus and Gigantopithecus were not Homo Sapiens, they are not nor were they ever considered at all human.

Also, please if you’re going to copy and paste from elsewhere at least cite your sources.

Edit - To be clear the classification of Meganthropus is unclear, but it has not been classified as human.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by Mike_A]

reply to post by Mike_A

---

Its like this. Knowledge is learned and knowledge is lost. There is knowledge that has been lost from the ancients. Like how did they build all those awesome gigantic structures. To believe we are more intelligent than they, well it shows how....well you know.

reply to post by Mike_A

---

Sry about the site...it is S8int.com

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

---

I think when science matures it will prove the truth.

Does String Theory Confirm the Bible?

By Allen Epling



While much is being said about Creationism Vs Evolution, and the debate goes on concerning who is right and what should be taught in our schools, a quiet revolution has been taking place in an area of science that is seldom discussed in public. Yet the theories being advanced from leading scientists about this subject suggest that many of the "miracles" and supernatural events of the Bible may actually be scientifically acceptable at some point in the future. The field of science I'm talking about is Quantum Physics and specifically String Theory.

This new paradigm in science began with Max Planck in 1900, and was furthered by Albert Einstein, and has long been on the fringe of science, but was little discussed by the general scientific community at large because of the bazaar predictions and almost unbelievable experimental results it generated concerning the ultimate structure of the universe. The results of these experiments were never in doubt. It is real enough that several Nobel Prizes have been awarded in this field, and its advocates include Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, and other "giants" of science.

Yet it seems somewhat hypocritical for scientists to characterize Christian beliefs in the miracles of Jesus, as "supernatural", when very reliable experiments in this area suggest that reality is far more unreal and unpredictable.

What was in doubt, and highly controversial, was what it suggested. It suggested that our knowledge and understanding of the universe is not the quiet, static laws as given by Sir Isaac Newton, and even Einstein, but a chaotic realm controlled by probability and seemingly infinite complexity.

We hear the buzz words like String Theory, Quantum Gravity, Inflation, but few in the general public actually care to understand what they are about. Basically, the fundamental idea of Quantum Mechanics is that, in the sub-micro world that lies underneath all of the "real world" that we see, smaller even than the subatomic particles that make up matter, lies another realm in which, literally, any event imaginable has a measurable possibility of happening, and to some degree, DOES happen. A postulate of this is the idea that it also says that there is no certainty in any event. Strange things do happen with "ghost-like particles that move in ways that defy logic, matter being created in a vacuum, and even particles that move backward in time. Its all very real, to the point that TV and nuclear weapons would not be possible if not for actions of some of those mysterious particles.

String Theory is the latest attempt in this field to try to describe the event that physicists call "The Big Bang". The implications of this theory border on supporting and giving insight into some of the mysteries in the Bible.

What is String Theory? It says that at the basic structure of matter and space, all matter is ultimately composed of "string-like" structures that vibrate at different frequencies and energy levels. That much is not too complicated. It is the other outcomes predicted by the theory that physicists don't discuss a great deal in public, for fear it would lend credence to the religious concepts of people of faith.

String Theory also predicts that there exists multiple external universes to our own that sometimes bounce into each other and collide. The November, 2008 issue of Scientific American magazine devotes an article to "Colliding Universes" which have different dimensions and structures to our own. There is the suggestion that perhaps just such a collision was the cause of the event that we call "The Big Bang".

Most religions today have some concept of alternate "worlds" we go to after we die. In most cases, they describe a place that is totally separate from the world as we know it, and suggest a place with different physical properties and laws.

That is an idea that has been around in all of recorded history, in all civilizations. Could there be a common thread between the "alternate universes" of physics and the places described in the Bible. If that is true then we can expect to see in the future more experiments and theories from the scientific community, which support that idea.

For those who don't believe in Hell, there is a very real possibility that future discoveries in science will confirm such a place can exist, possibly as one of those external universes to our own.

The Bible makes reference to a "bottomless pit". There could not be a better description of certain objects in space which have been proven to exist, that we call "Black Holes". They have gravity so great that they trap matter and even light, inside, forever, in a concentrated geometric point in which the density is infinite and the temperature is infinitely high. These may be the doorways, or "Wormholes" to these external universes. There is also a luminous belt, called an "accretion disk", that surrounds these dark objects. It is flat and gives off radiation, much like a "lake of fire".

If all of this sounds too bazaar and too far out to be true, remember that at present, String Theory is just that, an unproven theory. However, the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) is spending billions this year to launch the Large Hadron Collider, the world's most powerful particle accelerator, for the specific purpose of finding out if String Theory is correct about extra dimensions and external universes.

In the popular movie "Contact" a priest is asked what he believed. In defense of his friend, a non-believing scientist, he commented," As a person of faith I am bound by a different covenant, but we are both searching for the same thing, The Truth."

In view of "alternate realities", and theories about "uncertainty", it seems that the only thing we can be sure of is "The Truth". Isn't that what Jesus said to reassure us? "I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life...."There is no doubt that science and religion are still far apart in some areas, but eventually the "truth" will bring us all together.

Ex-Vatican Translator, Mauro Biglino\'s Alternative Creation/Translation Theory
  Posted 11 days ago with 40 member flags

EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 18 days ago with 24 member flags

"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags

Radical Theory Explains the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life, Challenges Conventional Wisdom
  Posted 17 days ago with 3 member flags

Please be more specific about which type of creationist you\'re speaking of...
  Posted 17 days ago with 2 member flags

Proof that the pharoes did not build the pyramids, so who did FIND OUT HERE
  Posted 15 days ago with 2 member flags

The meaning or point of existence or life
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags

Sand Castles and Science
  Posted 10 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: