Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Earth is a lot older than 6000-10,000 years, get over it!

page: 4
37
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
this thread got my blood boiling man, how could people be so stupid...that isn't near enough time for any of the species we see today to have fully developed, LET ALONE THE ECOSYSTEMS...LOL stuuuuuuupiddddddd.

not to mention the fact we have freakin dinosaur bones which are AT LEAST 65 million years old. LOLx2

can't believe I even have to say this.. but i will say this again, STUPID RELIGIOUS PEOPLE.




posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by pccat
 


Except that we have mountains of evidence that shows we coexisted with Neanderthals as recently as 30,000 years ago. All human beings, except Africans, share 4% of their genetic material with Neanderthals meaning we were mating with them.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 


They're not stupid, they're just wrong. I'm sure you're wrong about something too. I'm sure as hell wrong about a lot of things.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by pccat
 


Don't worry, I've read the KJV. The problem is that we have remnants of humanity that are far older and we have a great lineage of fossil ancestors between our more ape-like ancestors and our more human like ancestors all the way to us.

And we coexisted with Neanderthals. We may have even interbred with them (it's actually very likely, though I hold my reservations about the extent).



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I was reserved too about the suggestion that we did not actually evolve from Neanderthals but mated with them until scientists did the study on mitochondrial DNA and discovered that almost all of the world's population have Neanderthal DNA except for the population in Africa. The fact that some humans are excluded or isolated from this suggests the likelihood of them mating.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 



Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
Hello. To make things little more interesting:
Nobody can prove that Universe/Earth were not created "aged".


Then I might as well accept last Thursdayism.



I mean, according to religions - people are reason for creation,the part which is of interesting to God. So imagine this - there is loooooooooooooooong boring movie. You are interested only in its part between 1999999919919399289839829839 years and 1999999919919399289839836839 years. So this is the part you are going to watch and what is before that you are going to rewind. And when you would like to describe how long you are watching this you will not say 1999999919919399289839836839 years but 7000 years and 1msec for rewinding.
And yes, i know that it is demagogy but i just want to show you that you will not be able to prove anything to anyone who really believes -


It's also just sort of ridiculous...



there could always bee excuses and similar mind games so i personally fail to see why would one try and constantly poke other ideas as long as it does not concern himself - and it is both to religious preachers or atheistic ones.


Well...atheists don't really have preachers...



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
For those that believe in the 6k -10k year theory
I would like for them to explain a few things to me

Ardipithecus ramidus -Some 4.4 million years ago, a hominid now known as Ardipithecus ramidus lived in what were then forests in Ethiopia.

Homo habilis - is a species of the genus Homo, which lived from approximately 2.3 to 1.4 million years ago at the beginning of the Pleistocene period.

Homo erectus - evolved in Africa about 1.8 million years ago. Migrations first to Asia and then to Europe.

Homo sapiens - Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, reaching full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago

Then there is Neanderthal man - The first proto-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 350,000–600,000 years ago.

Cro-Magnons -The earliest known remains of Cro-Magnon-like humans are radiometrically dated to 35,000 years before present.


So is the dates wrong ? should they be

Ardipithecus ramidus -Some 4000 years ago

Homo habilis - approximately 2300 to 1400 years ago

Homo erectus - evolved in Africa about 1800 years ago.

I mean I'm trying to get the dates right here to understand


Homo sapiens - Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200 years ago,

Then there is Neanderthal man - 350–600 years ago.

Cro-Magnons - 350 years before present.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by yourmaker
 


They're not stupid, they're just wrong. I'm sure you're wrong about something too. I'm sure as hell wrong about a lot of things.

no i'm sorry but they are stupid. if they weren't then they wouldn't be so WRONG and would be willing to accept that no, the earth is not even remotely in the thousands of years old.
they're not just a little wrong but completely insane, and yeah i'm wrong on somethings, but when I am,
I admit it and have the desire to learn what it is I didn't understand so I can have some clarity.
for them, clarity is the bible, a lie, a god, a lie, the pope, a lie. just lies, if we don't tell them what's up, they will never learn.

this...is just childish beliefs...they've been indoctrinated since youth, I know because I was told all the same BS growing up but obviously it didn't work because of just how stupid it was what they were saying.

I understand you trying to defend them, it's cool, I respect that, but what they are doing is allowing stupidty to be acceptable, and pushing further stupidity onto others.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilBat
Homo sapiens - Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, reaching full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago

And for 50,000 years modern man rode horses and lived in dirt huts making little change to no change in lifestyle from what their ancestors lived like 200,000 years ago. Then in the last 100 years, we stopped riding horses, built cars, piped electricity to homes and went to the moon. Science.

Oh, and we also created MTV and Jersey Shore, so that is a step backwards.
edit on 15-5-2011 by Captain Obvious because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Captain Obvious
 


I understand the long history of humans

I'm asking for the 6k-10k believers to explain to me the years in their terms

I want them to have me believe and come on to their side of the fence.

I'd like to see a time line from them

example :
10000 B.C. Planet Earth formed.

6000 B.C. First signs of primeval life (bacteria and blue-green algae) appear in oceans.

5000 B.C. Earliest date to which fossils can be traced.

4400 B.C. Ardipithecus ramidus

4200 B.C. Australopithecus anamensis

3200 B.C. Australopithecus afarenis

2500 B.C. Homo habilis

1800 B.C. Homo erectus

1700 B.C. Homo erectus leaves Africa.

1000 B.C. First modern Homo sapiens in South Africa.

700 B.C. Neanderthal man

350 B.C. Neanderthal man replaced by later groups of Homo sapiens

180 B.C. Cro-Magnons replaced by later cultures.

150 B.C. Migrations across Bering Straits into the Americas.

100 B.C. Semi-permanent agricultural settlements in Old World.

10–40 B.C. Development of settlements into cities and development of skills such as the wheel, pottery, and improved methods of cultivation in Mesopotamia and elsewhere.

55–30 B.C. begin using agriculture ,Earliest known civilization arises in Sumer (45–40 B.C.). First phonetic writing appears (c. 35 B.C.). Sumerians develop a city-state civilization (c. 30 B.C.).

30–20 B.C. King Khufu (Cheops), 4th dynasty (27–26 B.C.), completes construction of the Great Pyramid at Giza (c. 26 B.C.). The Great Sphinx of Giza (c. 25 B.C.) is built by King Khafre.

30–15 B.C. In Britain, Stonehenge erected according to some unknown astronomical rationale. Its three main phases of construction are thought to span c. 30–15 B.C.

But since we all know 753 BC: Roma (Rome) is founded by Romulus
that would mean Neanderthal and Cro-Mag walked with Homo-sapiens in Rome at some point
which wouldn't make sense.

Its a sarcastic way of saying "Show me the proof"
edit on 5/15/2011 by EvilBat because: fix the 6k-10k date



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Captain Obvious
 


Technology goes through an evolution process itself but evolves not in a linear fashion but through exponentials. I think it is Ray Kurzweil who proposed that every technological advance creates the potential for 1,000 new ones. Technology also coincides with jumps in human civilization like the establishment of permanent settlements with horticulture/agriculture.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


thanks for being nice

I have no problem with the earth being 4.5 billion years old..
its a very complicated subject..
as science is ever changing according to new discoveries..
I am not willing at this time to just toss the book out..
not until I get a good explanation about the origins of our universe..
I guess that I would be in the catagory of intelligent design believers..
just my faith, no way to really explain..



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 


I can understand your anger/frustration..
I feel the same way about birthers and truthers..
we all have our own beliefs that we want others to see..



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by pccat
reply to post by yourmaker
 


I can understand your anger/frustration..
I feel the same way about birthers and truthers..
we all have our own beliefs that we want others to see..


I don't "believe" in anything but fact and evidence. I only put my thoughts out there if I know there's something someone can take from it.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 


No, I'm not trying to accept them, I'm trying to make it about education rather than confrontation. We don't need to insult them to strengthen our position. In fact, I'd say calling people stupid only weakens our point from both the appeal and reason angles. Calling people names isn't exactly appealing or reasonable, is it?

I know that the idea itself is stupid, but to call people, many who are entirely uninformed about the actual facts, stupid is pointless. They are ignorant. I'm ignorant on certain matters myself. I don't know much about textile manufacturing, mechanical engineers, or animal husbandry. That makes me ignorant. These people happen to be ignorant about science, unfortunately their religion tends to cause them to make claims about that which they are entirely ignorant of, thus making them appear stupid.

Sure, some creationists are simply stupid. But any group will have a decent proportion of stupid people in it.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by yourmaker
 


No, I'm not trying to accept them, I'm trying to make it about education rather than confrontation. We don't need to insult them to strengthen our position. In fact, I'd say calling people stupid only weakens our point from both the appeal and reason angles. Calling people names isn't exactly appealing or reasonable, is it?

I know that the idea itself is stupid, but to call people, many who are entirely uninformed about the actual facts, stupid is pointless. They are ignorant. I'm ignorant on certain matters myself. I don't know much about textile manufacturing, mechanical engineers, or animal husbandry. That makes me ignorant. These people happen to be ignorant about science, unfortunately their religion tends to cause them to make claims about that which they are entirely ignorant of, thus making them appear stupid.

Sure, some creationists are simply stupid. But any group will have a decent proportion of stupid people in it.


excellent points I can see the error in my ways. but in a way I did it on purpose. it creates discussion.
blatantly calling them out gives them reason to question why someone would in the first place.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I don't see how anyone today can believe the Earth was formed around 10,000-5000 BC. This idea simply stemed from the Hebrew Bible and may actually be referring to spiritual gnosis in humans and realization of the fall into the material world, but that world has existed for billions (as far as we know, because this universe could be one of many "Big Bang" occurrences) of years before humans, no doubt. As for human intelligence as it stands today, it could possibly have begun to flourish around 15,000-10,000 BC as well because the oldest structures found seem to date back to about that time. Of course, it could go back much further than that, but we still haven't found out. It's a mystery.
edit on 15/5/11 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)
edit on 15/5/11 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



Who or what thread made you tell us something that everyone knows, except for a limited few.
2nd.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by yourmaker
 


No, I'm not trying to accept them, I'm trying to make it about education rather than confrontation. We don't need to insult them to strengthen our position. In fact, I'd say calling people stupid only weakens our point from both the appeal and reason angles. Calling people names isn't exactly appealing or reasonable, is it?

I know that the idea itself is stupid, but to call people, many who are entirely uninformed about the actual facts, stupid is pointless. They are ignorant. I'm ignorant on certain matters myself. I don't know much about textile manufacturing, mechanical engineers, or animal husbandry. That makes me ignorant. These people happen to be ignorant about science, unfortunately their religion tends to cause them to make claims about that which they are entirely ignorant of, thus making them appear stupid.

Sure, some creationists are simply stupid. But any group will have a decent proportion of stupid people in it.


Excellent reply and you are wholly correct in your reasoning. I applaud you sir.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
our planet is most definitely older than science can totally prove

just because it can't be completely and definitively proven doesn't make it false though

common sense seems to prevail into thinking it is much older than can be fathomed by myself at this point






top topics



 
37
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join