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.
I can see that you don't really know what a spirit is, or what spiritual death is, but you think that god is talking about a "spiritual death" in the garden when Adam and Eve fall? Why think that if you don't really know what that means? You know that we all physically die and what that means, doesn't it make more sense to think it's talking about a physical death since we know that's real?
Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Hydroman
He didn't tell them if they ate of the tree they would live forever. God simply told them NOT to eat from it. The devil (as a serpent) told them that if they ate then they would be equals with God. It was a trick to ruin the immortality and perfect world that God had created.
Get your facts straight before you mock an entire religion.
Open your mind, and google "Erich von Daniken" & "dinosaurs". It's fascinating.
Originally posted by CalledOUT
You missed the fact that I pointed out the greek gods were a localized artwork, and many other cultures have their own art work of their gods or imaginations. The commonality of the artwork and stories across the globe proves that all the cultures saw the same thing, not just guessing.
A NEW species of eel found in the gloom of an undersea cave is a "living fossil" astonishingly similar to the first eels that swam about 200 million years ago, biologists reported today. The strange find was made last year in a 35m deep fringing-reef cave off an island in the Western Pacific state of Palau, they said in the British journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B. The small brown fish has very few of the anatomical characteristics of modern eels, a vast range whose 819 species are grouped into 19 families. In contrast, it has many hallmarks of primitive eels which lived in the early Mesozoic era, back when dinosaurs ruled the Earth.
The term "living fossil" was coined by Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species. It is used to describe species that have survived for millions of years, exploiting niches that are so stable that there is little pressure on them to evolve.
Some will give the argument that the steps of evolution forbid the co-existence of dinosaurs and men, which is not certain.
Originally posted by alfa1
"all cultures saw the same thing" is actually impossible, because (although it isnt well known amongs the public) the various types of dinosaurs were themselves localised.
It is *impossible* for you to claim all cultures around the world all saw the same dinosaurs.
Its actually quite the opposite - if people lived with dinosaurs, each of the civilisations around the world would draw their own local dinosaurs they they saw. It would be, in your terms, "localised artwork".
Originally posted by iterationzero
It has nothing to do with evolution. There's just a lack of objective evidence for it based on what we'd expect to find if they co-existed e.g. unfossilized dinosaur remains.
They have found unfossilized dinosaur remains, the funny thing is that they still believe it's 65 million years old... HA!
Newer research, published in PloS One (30 July 2008), has challenged the claims that the material found is the soft tissue of Tyrannosaurus. Thomas Kaye of the University of Washington and his co-authors contend that what was really inside the tyrannosaur bone was slimy biofilm created by bacteria that coated the voids once occupied by blood vessels and cells. The researchers assumed that what previously had been identified as remnants of blood cells, because of the presence of iron, were actually framboids, microscopic mineral spheres bearing iron. They found similar spheres in a variety of other fossils from various periods, including an ammonite. In the ammonite they found the spheres in a place where the iron they contain could not have had any relationship to the presence of blood. The successful extraction of ancient DNA from dinosaur fossils has been reported on two separate occasions, but, upon further inspection and peer review, neither of these reports could be confirmed. A more recent study (October 2010) published in PloS One contradicts the conclusion of Kaye and supports Schweitzer's original conclusion.
Originally posted by DJW001
Newer research, published in PloS One (30 July 2008), has challenged the claims that the material found is the soft tissue of Tyrannosaurus.
Originally posted by Stovokor
How in the hell did such a silly topic get 40 pages of discussion???
How did someone starting a thread about the flinstones get so many flags??