It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by sardion2000
Originally posted by jhova
I guarantee that people will start dying at a young age, I believe it is starting already.Good health care huh, who can afford it?Science also omes up with more ways to kill then anything else, or make money, not solving the major issues of the world.
No no no no nonononono.....how can I put this without offending....Up here in the Great White North we have something called Universal Health Care and its not perfect but it insures that everyone who need health care gets it. It doesn't work all the time and our health care system is underfunded but it isn't the scientist's fault its the gov't who signs the checks. Place blame where blame belongs, on a corrupt and flawed political system who would keep Universal Health Care from its people. And no science does not come up with more ways to kill than to help otherwise our overpopulation problem would be far worse. Its the Military and military scientists who have sold out who comes up with the ideas. Google Military-Industrial Complex its one of the only conspiracy theorys that I've heard of that was proven.
As for evolution being wrong... I agree that Darwinian Evolution has alot of holes in it but its an old theory and im sure there are newer ones out there that build and improve upon Darwin's model. I suggest all those who doubt Evolution to research the topic before debating its validity.
And don't read too much into the bible, I saw some documentary on the Hist chan(forget the name of show) and they pretty much said that the New Testament as it stands today is only the 1st volume in a 12 volume set. All the other holy books have also been translated and edited probably dozens of times so the original content is not there anymore. You don't even know for a fact that the bible you read today is the same one that was first written(Infact I would be really surprised if it even beared a resemblance). Im no Biblical Historian or nothing but I never put stock in anything as fragmented and contradictory as the current bible stands. And yes I have read it, I was forced to as a child....It took me a while to de-brainwash myself
Just me 2 cents worth...if its worth anything to anybody.....
Originally posted by AD5673
The Earth cant be a billion years old because there would be billions of humans on Earth. In 1900 there were about 1 billion people on Earth. One hundred years later it is nearly 10 billion people on Earth. If humanity is eve maybe 40,000 years old there would be nearly 60-100 billion people on Earth. I dont have a link or anything i just thought this up in my head about the Earth's population. What do you people think?
what do I think? I think you're a #ing idiot. read a book for christ sakes. Science > religion, no matter how much you wish it was inverted.
Originally posted by jhova
Anyone ever heard of the Ica stones?Or artifacts from mexico depicting a civilization lost to us?How about ooparts?If someone took a long look a these things, one might start to question evolution, and our knowledge of history as a whole.
Originally posted by jlc163
\They are not just qoting the bible, in fact, I don't remember a lot of scripture dripping from them. These men who write they often quote EVOLUTIONISTS in their arguments.
Many are scientists, with a DOCTORATE BEHIND THEIR NAME.
Originally posted by kinglizard
Again the people you are quoting have an agenda, which makes for bad science. They are religious CREATIONISTS attempting to prove their literal interpretation of the bible with bad science. I provided you with quotes from NASA, United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Energy and the U.K. Natural Environment Research Council regarding the age of the Earth. These groups are leading scientific organizations with no agenda. They pride themselves on sound science and study. If you are going to dismiss factual evidence from leading scientific organizations there is nothing more I can do for you. Continue to believe what you will. If you think you can provoke or anger me by calling me “sweetie”, “Sweetheart” and “luv” you’re wrong, I’m well above this type of immature name calling. Carry on….
Marshall and Sandra Hall have offered this summary....As Henry Morris well stated the issue:
In the first place, evolution is what is taught in the schools. At least two, and in some cases three and four generations, have used textbooks that presented it as proven fact. The teachers, who for the most part learned it as truth, pass it on as truth. Students are as thoroughly and surely indoctrinated with the concept of evolution as students have ever been indoctrinated with any unproven belief (1974, p. 10).Sir Arthur Keith of Great Britain wrote:
“[T]he main reason most educated people believe in evolution is simply because they have been told that most educated people believe in evolution!” (Morris, 1963, p. 26)....For the person who stubbornly refuses to believe in God, belief in evolution becomes automatic. Similarly, opposition to God as the Creator, the Bible and His Word, and the system of origins the Bible describes become just as automatic.
“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” (as quoted in Criswell, 1972, p. 73).
Aldous Huxley stated the matter succinctly in his article, “Confessions of a Professed Atheist”:
I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find reasons for this assumption.... The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do.... For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom (1966, 3:19).
Dr Alan Galbraith, whose Ph.D. in watershed science is from Colorado State University, ... an evolutionist for decades, since high school, before becoming convinced of Genesis creation. His scientific career with the U.S. Forest Service has involved applied areas like hydrology, watershed and stream restoration.
I attended a creation seminar arranged by my pastor. I had only been a Christian for some four years or so, and was still a convinced evolutionist. I have to admit that I went with the attitude — what can this pastor, whose last science course was probably in junior high school, tell me about the area I know so much about? ...I came away from that meeting with my faith in evolution shaken enough to make me have to embark on what turned out to be a three or four year intensive study of all the available material on creation/evolution. At the end of that time, I was convinced that the creation point of view, from a scientific standpoint, was the only credible position that a thinking person with a scientific background could accept. [note that is shook his faith in Evolution, but he went to study facts afterwards:] ...I think it has to be the total geologic record of all those sedimentary, waterborne layers. Fossils, as we now know, generally have to be formed by fast catastrophic burial to preserve the details we see. And within the layers, there is much other evidence that they were laid down rapidly. Also, the stratigraphic column, the “stack” of all these layers, is essentially continuous throughout the world; there is no worldwide discontinuity or “time break”. So it shows to me that there was indeed a worldwide Flood, and not just localized floods as many believe. ... Geology is a very important part of my background. The Ph.D. program was in four areas — geology, hydrology, atmospheric physics to some extent, and plant ecology.
Dr James Allan, M.Sc.Agric. (Stellenbosch), Ph.D. (Edinburgh), retired as senior lecturer in the Department of Genetics, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, in 1992, ... researched the genetics of fruit flies, snails, chickens, dairy cattle, and fish, and taught students quantitative and population genetics, particularly in its application to the breeding of animals. ...Dr Allan told us that he accepted evolution as a young student at university ‘virtually from the word go. ... For about 40 years I believed in the theory of evolution.’ He thought that evolution explained the similarities that exist between living things—such as all living things sharing the system of coding genetic information on DNA—and never questioned the idea. ... I saw my weaknesses, my sin, my faults. I was converted and I began to read Scripture really meaningfully for the first time. ... However, he carried on believing in evolution, until one day his wife said, ‘Is there any reason why God should not have created all forms of life on the basis of a universal genetic code?’ ... We asked him how he now viewed the supposed evidence for evolution. ... ‘I began to look more critically at the assumptions underlying some of those things that seemed so logical. For example, I came to see that resemblances between taxonomic families, orders, classes, etc. are due to the work of a creator, not common ancestry.’ Previously, when people brought up creationist interpretations of the evidence he would say, ‘Why bring that nonsense to me?—it’s not science.’
But in the last decade or so, as he has considered a number of these, he has found that they are perfectly reasonable and intellectually acceptable. He now finds it sad that anyone should insist on evolutionary interpretations, which are ‘unproven and unprovable.’ ‘Science, becomes much more meaningful and satisfying in the light of Scripture, rather than in rejecting it. And I certainly believe it is only as we consider together with legitimate science, the truth learned from Scripture, that we can ever really understand and appreciate the physical universe in which we live.’ ...
Anoter, on video:
(no doctorate) claims he converted to cristianity based more off of reading Darwin's work...
I was first an atheistic evolutionist, then a theistic evolutionist, then I considered gap, day-age, long days, etc. and finally arrived at the "young Earth" position three years after my conversion and an extended study of both Scripture and science (perhaps a process of evolution in my life!!).
In 1972, the anthropologist Marshall Sahlins (a former cultural evolutionist turned skeptic of cultural evolutionism) dubbed hunter-gatherers "the original affluent society" on grounds that "all the people's material wants are easily satisfied."
The fifty-year head of a university science department in San Diego accepted Christ through the faithful witness of his wife and family. Several months after his conversion, this longtime Ph.D. exclaimed, "I can hardly believe I could be so dumb for so long! I thought I knew something before I was converted, but the greatest period of learning in my life has taken place these past few months."62
It is a subject that an atheist like Ivan Panin devoted a lifetime to study - resulting in his conversion to Christianity.
The author, a medical doctor, in this book recounts his conversion from a Darwinist to an Intelligent Design advocate.
the purpetuator of the piltdown man:
Not every bible thumper defends creation:
"Finally, I [Gary Parker], like many Christians, was honestly confused about the Biblical issues. As I told you, I first became a creationist while teaching at a Christian college. Believe it or not, I got into big trouble with the Bible Department. As soon as I started teaching creation instead of evolution, the Bible Department people challenged me to a debate. The Bible Department defended evolution, and two other scientists and I defended creation!"
See, some are theistic evolutionists, i.e., they believe in the bible, but evolution, to them, is true...Creationists are not always christians, some are buddhist, etc...come on, there are a lot of articles on the pope deciding to believe in evolution.
I distinctly remember being taught evolution in Sunday school.
THIS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN VERSES NON CHRISTIAN DEBATE! IT IS EVOLUTION VERSES CREATIONISM, that means that you will find people of MANY faiths arguing for both sides, and there are prabably a few lies on both sides, that' why I TOLD you to read...saying something is false and actually having proof that it is false are two different things.
Sweetheart, if you had any CLUE as to how much I WISH that CREATIONISM HAD NOT PROOF, you would pity me, but I have seen nothing truely contrary come out of you that has proof in the opposite direction.
And a number of them have fraudulent degrees. No kidding. Many have PhDs in religion, which has very little to do with physics and biology and geology.
go to the sites, some got their degrees in Chemestry, Geology, and from place like Edinborough...these are not always those types of doctorates...some, if you look at their doctoratein Theology, their Masters is a science related masters.
[Edited on 18-5-2004 by jlc163]
Originally posted by BlackJackal
The first and last one are the best. Knock yourself out.
LMAO I love when people try and justify a scientific fact with a guy from 1883 hehe.
HELLO! How uneducated can people possibly be? Why do you people come here and even post when you are completely brainwashed to the point you cannot see night from day? NO were in the bible does it say how old the earth is. A human being wrote every single word in the bible a HUMAN BEING. Other than the 10 commandments no were did any holy angel, creature, alien, or god ever write one piece of the holy bible so please, please, please open your mind and eyes to the undeniable fact that you are being blindly mislead by a book written by barely educated people's of thousands of years ago. I do believe in god but you must stop denying the very dirt you walk on please...
It is entirely possible that god created evolution and Adam did not just drop out of thing air no? COuld not Evolution been the very power of god? Why do christians continue to fight an unwinnable fight. SOME HUMAN WROTE GENISIS NOT GOD. He may have wrote the facts as he saw them or heard of them but genesis cannot and should be taken as literal. If you continue to blindly follow the belief that the bible is literal then I am afraid in your life time you will find evidence that your beliefs are completely false. You must find ways to fit what you read in that bible with the evidence god has left us to discover him? See. the bible is all about knowing god and to know god we must learn about his creation the universe, our world and ourselves.
Soon blind christians will be the peoples on earth that know the least about god than anyone else because they fail to see that god is. IS all around you. IS in you and wants you to become more like him by learning about him not denying the very world and universe around you...
Im done think. think real hard who and what wrote the words you so blindly follow.
[Edited on 18-5-2004 by BlackJackal]
Originally posted by BlackJackal
The scientific evidence is in front of your face yet you do not wish to look ( judging from your responce you failed to look at any one of the links that I provided you with). As for the misguided christian argument, I am not even a christian, I just choose to think for myself. I have studied Creationism, Abiogenesis, Evolution, theistic evolution, Intelligent Design, and Panspermia for well over 8 years now. After reasearching each theory I am left with the knowledge that currently the best theory is somewhere between Creationism and Intelligent Design.
Please read a little before you jump the gun.
Originally posted by kinglizard
The Triassic period began with the impact of the largest object ever to hit the earth, along with several other major impacts.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
According to the latest theories, the largest object ever to hit the Earth was the Mars sized planetoid that hit about 4.5 billion years ago and resulted in the formation of the Earth’s moon.
The modern theory is that the Moon was created by a massive impact with the Earth nearly 4.5 billion years ago. During this early time the Earth was still growing, as were other smaller planetary bodies (called planetesimals).
One of these, probably about the size of Mars, struck a glancing blow on the Earth. The impact knocked a sizable chunk of material off the Earth and into orbit. The resulting orbiting debris of terrestrial and asteroid material ended up forming our moon.
This idea helps to explain a few strange things. First, why is Earth rather hefty for its size with a large iron core, while the Moon is made up of lighter materials. If the two worlds had formed near the same place at the same time, as one of the early theories suggested, then the moon would also have a big iron core, but it doesn't. With the modern theory, the heavy iron core of the impacting planetesimal would get trapped and incorporated into the Earth, while only lighter rocky materials would get blown off into orbit, creating the Moon.
This idea also explains why other planets don't have huge moons that are almost the same size as their central planets. Getting whacked by super-giant planetesimals would be a very rare, probably a unique event.