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 samaka
The bible is actually scientifically accurate, show me where it fails at that?
Originally posted by free_form
Someone posted a thread with similar content a few days ago. One of the pictures posted in that thread was particularly stunning - an engraving of what was unmistakably a stegosaurus - on an ancient wall (I think from somewhere in Bangladesh? I'm probably wrong, search for the thread).
I think it's entirely plausible that some species of dinosaur survived into the era of early man, and were most likely hunted to extinction. Take the aforementioned stegosaurus.. A creature that as far as we know, would probably be easy game for a tribe of clever humans.
Many megafauna are documented to have lived in the time of man.. For example, the giant sloth.
Perhaps archaeologists are aware of these historical discrepancies, but it's become a hush-hush sort of thing. Like many other sensitive things (the true origin of man, for example), it will never be disputable within mainstream science.. if you try and dispute those things, you're labelled as 'crazy', and would lose all of your credibility. If I were an established archaeologist, I would surely not want such a label attached to my name (see: Buzz Aldrin's bashing in the media after his extraterrestrial claims).
Science is already figured out.. everything is set in stone already..
No, but what I'm saying is that something as fantastic as the discovery of dinosaurs coexisting with mankind would challenge so many beliefs, not to mention what we've had labelled as historical fact for so many years.edit on 16-8-2011 by free_form because: dyslexia
Originally posted by celticwarrior10
in your thread you showed no real evidence of what you are trying to prove,
on the other hand if you would like me to produce some evidence to debate your claim well im afraid this page and thousands more would not have enough room to hold it all.
Originally posted by nyk537
What gives evolutionary scientists any more credibility that creationist scientists?
Didn`t god supposedly ` make the sun stand still ` so that Joshua would have enough light to finish a battle ? Why don`t we see a record of such an astounding event from civilisations such as the Chinese and Egyptians who were known to chart celestial events ?
The second secular source about Joshua’s long day, which was mentioned by Totten, is based on what seems to be a recently lost ancient Chinese manuscript. In 1810 Gill presents the account:
In the Chinese history27 it is reported, that in the time of their seventh emperor, Yao, the sun did not set for ten days, and that men were afraid the world would be burnt, and there were great fires at that time; and though the time of the sun’s standing still were enlarged beyond the bounds of truth, yet it seems to refer to this fact, and was manifestly about the same time; for this miracle was wrought in the year of the world 2554, which fell in the 75th, or, as some say, the 67th year of that emperor’s reign, who reigned 90 years.28
Tales relating to Joshua’s long day abound in North America. Almost all of the tales in North America tell of a long night. The only exceptions are those related in the chapter on Hezekiah’s sign. Olcott31 has collected five of particular interest.
The Ojibways tell of a long night without any light.32
The Wyandot Indians told missionary Paul Le Jeune of a long night.33
The Dogrib Indians of the North-West tell of a day when the sun was caught at noon and it instantly became dark.34
The Omahas say that once the sun was caught in a trap by a rabbit who checked his traps at the break of dawn, presumably before sunrise.35 (This may be Hezekiah’s sign, instead.)
Finally, the Bungee Indians from the Lake Winnipeg area of Canada also tell of a long night.36
The preponderance of long night tales in the Americas would rule out the theory that Joshua’s long day was a miracle which was local to Canaan. It also rules out the speculation that the story migrated around the world, for then it would everywhere be a long day (or a long night), but not a mixture of long days and long nights.
Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by kallisti36
Yes but their "lunacy" is fine because it is based on "science" isn't it? On the other hand...I'm bat-turd insane because of my religion.