It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

page: 10
30
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
In 10 years, the US will be the largest banana republic in the world. It's amazing that so much strident ignorance can be packed between two oceans like this, but the planet's bosses did it. And then they gave that mess the biggest guns ever, and sent it out to f*k the rest of the world up if it gets in the way of business.

Damn, it's a good thing we all get to die in the end. Then, we get to take full advantage of how stupid all these folks are.



I have some great hell and damnation ideas all sketched out. My first million years are going to be fun.
edit on 6/6/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by KnawLick
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


What do you think RNA is made of... I have a bachelor in biology, your right evolution doesn't aim to make species smarter. It makes them more likely to survive the forces driving on their existence. So a orange seal will generally die before a camouflaged white one in the artic etc. But what were these forces driving on homo erectis that werent driving on apes?

There is also no evidence of one species changing into another. There just isnt. So humans have 98% ape genes. Show me the species or remains that has 99% or 98.5%? We didn't go from 100 straight to 98. And anything inbetween would have had a hard time breeding, as different species produce sterile offspring, if any at all.

Never said evolution was wrong but to blindly follow it is ignorant.



News Science Early humans and chimps may have interbred to create hybrid man....
....The close relationship between man and chimp has just got cosier, according to a study which suggests that ancestors of the two species interbred at some point in the distant past to form fertile hybrids.

It is well established that chimpanzees are the closest living relative of humans but this is the first time that scientists have found evidence for hybridisation through interbreeding.

The astonishing conclusion comes from an exhaustive analysis of the genomes of humans, chimps, gorillas and monkeys published in the journal Nature. The researchers were particularly interested in the point at which the last common ancestor of man and chimp split into two separate species - the process of speciation that gave rise to the chimp and human lineages.

"The study gave unexpected results, about how we separated from our closest relatives, the chimpanzees," David Reich, of the Broad Institute of Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said. "We found that the population structure that existed around the time of human-chimpanzee speciation was unlike any modern ape population," he said. "Something very unusual happened at the time of speciation."

A comparison of the entire DNA of chimps and humans suggests that they split apart no more than 6.3 million years ago,far more recently than previously thought. The study found that an original split was probably followed by a phase of interbreeding and hybridisation, possibly with fertile female hybrids cross-breeding with male chimps, before the final split occurred.

www.independent.co.uk...

believing in blind faith is damned dangerous
edit on 6-6-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


then of course, what would MIT know?
edit on 6-6-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Plotus
It always disturbs me that some 'scientist' claims that we 'evolved' from essentially some 'soup' that was the beginning of life. That to me is absurd that the 'spark' of life transitioned from inanimate to animate by ....what a static discharge or bolt of lightning...... This presumption is so ludicrous as to be laughable.

So absurd that it was actually done in the laboratory a few years ago. Google 'autocatalytic RNA' or remain ignorant, the choice is yours.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by torqpoc
reply to post by Covertblack
 


Dear Covertblack,

I don't really wish to enter into a debate on this topic Dear. It truly highlights the point I was making that YOU wish to. I'm not going to compare apples and pears, my statement was factual and true.

Let's leave it at that shall we?

T


We shall. Go in peace believing what you desire to.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Barcs
 


Funny I never stated there was, simply just stated the fact that YOU know just as much as THEM. Seems I found a HOLE in your belief system, CHECK AND MATE.


Why do you dismiss evolution, if you don't think there is evidence of god? Surely you can explain what chromosome count has to do with evolution and how creatures with different # of chromosomes are somehow exempt. Do you realize that tons of creatures have different chromosome counts?

en.wikipedia.org...

Also, it's pretty widely accepted in the scientific community that the chromosomes fused at one point and there are tell tale signs of it.

www.evolutionpages.com...

So you need to explain how and why this debunks evolution, even though we can study observe and measure the process in any creature on earth. Good luck .

You are arguing from ignorance and nothing more. "Science doesn't understand xyz, therefor evolution is WRONG!!" Right...
edit on 6-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
The third alternative is Emanationism or as I call Emulationism. All things emulate their parent: species is a good example. Elements also exhibit this by emulating the ideal form, so all fires are hot, an 'ideal' fire would have the most heat. So there are ideals and particulars. Man imitates the ideal of man. There are multiple ideals, but only one reality in which all ideals exist, that Real All is God or Truh which all things emulate. Truth emanates these forms not directly but through an envisioning of itself, this perfect light contains all things just as a rainbow contains all colors, one eternal light, what the universe would look like from very far away, appearing as one light, but actually containing billions of stars.

Emulationism is the third alternative to creationism and evolutionism

Creationism's flaw is there never will be material proof for an immaterial thing.
Emanationism's flaw is you will never be able to recreat millions or billions of years in a test tube.
edit on 6-6-2012 by Lord Jules because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Clearly you've missed the point friend, I care neither for one side or the other to be right, my point is no one is sure at the moment so why act like one is? Also yes chromosome count differs from species to species that is very correct, what you couldn't show me though is a species evolving into another species and then shed or gained a chromosome, it just doesn't happen. For an animal to evolve the original DNA stays intact and changes minute properties of the animal, such as brown fur to white etc. There is no proof of a complete restructure coming from nature, just because we share 98% with chimps that doesn't mean we came from them, for evolution to work properly we would have to share a 100% compatability.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


I like your post very much! In the Creation Museum many exhibits are displayed with both explanations and I have to ask, how many evolutionists actually know the Creationist's point of view on topics such as dinosaurs, the solar system, and what's happening in the world these days.

I get so discouraged by the judgement! I know it's human nature, but 46% is a lot of people to feel smarter than...



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by KnawLick
What do you think RNA is made of... I have a bachelor in biology, your right evolution doesn't aim to make species smarter. It makes them more likely to survive the forces driving on their existence. So a orange seal will generally die before a camouflaged white one in the artic etc. But what were these forces driving on homo erectis that werent driving on apes?

Homo erectus was also an ape (like us). Clearly it evolved in a different environment that the ancestors of current day Chimps, Bonobos, Gorillas, and Orangutangs. I'm sure there are many books written about this. If you really have a bachelor in biology, you should at least have a basic idea about this stuff. Looks to me like your degree was a waste.


Originally posted by KnawLick
There is also no evidence of one species changing into another. There just isnt. So humans have 98% ape genes. Show me the species or remains that has 99% or 98.5%? We didn't go from 100 straight to 98. And anything inbetween would have had a hard time breeding, as different species produce sterile offspring, if any at all.

Never said evolution was wrong but to blindly follow it is ignorant.

See, your degree was a total waste. You don't even have the basic understanding of how speciation works. Go read a book.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


i was obviously talking about humans. who have been around 200,000 years according to YOUR science. not 7 million... sooo yeah know what your talking about before smart a** remarks...



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Could you then please show me the exact link between man and it's next common ancestor? I mean yeah I'm sure you'd show me a chimp, problem with that is that they had to shed a chromosome to become us, not something that happens naturally through evolution. My point being that at this point creationists and evolutionists are on an even playing field, because no one knows where MAN came from.

Here is another person who hasn't understood the very basics of evolution. Humans and chimps have a common ancestor. Neither evolved from the other. There is a very complete fossil record from chimp-like species to man, look e.g. here (don't mind the text, just check the pics). Also, no chromosomes were shed. In our lineage, two chromosomes fused. This is not unheard of. In fact there are dozens of examples of chromosomal fusions in mammals, insects, plants, etc.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Barcs
 


Clearly you've missed the point friend, I care neither for one side or the other to be right, my point is no one is sure at the moment so why act like one is? Also yes chromosome count differs from species to species that is very correct, what you couldn't show me though is a species evolving into another species and then shed or gained a chromosome, it just doesn't happen. For an animal to evolve the original DNA stays intact and changes minute properties of the animal, such as brown fur to white etc. There is no proof of a complete restructure coming from nature, just because we share 98% with chimps that doesn't mean we came from them, for evolution to work properly we would have to share a 100% compatability.


If that last line were true, we wouldn't have such a large variance in chromosome counts from creature to creature. Saying that nobody knows is a lie. We can measure the genetic mutations from generation to generation in humans which is direct evidence of evolution. I showed you how 2 chromosomes can fuse together as the species changes or moves to a new environment. My link clearly demonstrated the evidence to suggest it by comparing chimp and human DNA. Nobody shed or gained a chromosome, and again you have failed to show me how this has anything to do with the evolutionary process itself. It is essential god of the gaps. "I don't know exactly how the chromosomes fused, therefor EVOLUTION IS WRONG!!!!"



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Whats the title say "MAY". humans MAY have also bred with aliens... truth is I don't claim to know, because the science is inclusive. I mean turn on the science channel programs on origins of life, they will say the same thing.

Not some whack job, dinosaurs and humans hung out, but NOBODY knows what the truth is, to suggest otherwise is ignorant



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by imherejusttoread
 


In a nutshell? He was a bully before his conversion towards early proto-Christians, and he was a bully after it, in the opposite direction.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


You still miss understand, you CANNOT shed or gain a chromosome through EVOLUTION. Knowing this fact, how could we share a common ancestor with a chimp that has a different number of chromosomes? It's an impossibility at this point an is actually sudo science to suggest that fact, every other animal has a clear path of where they came from, we do not, so please like every other person here have enough common sense to know that we don't know enough to get an clear answer on the subject matter. Only time will tell and a creationist AT THIS POINT, is as close to the 'TRUTH' as you are.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


It was my minor. If your an expert I'd love to hear how exactly I'm wrong other than "my degree was a waste". I love to debate, all sides of an issue, it makes you smarter.

So please, I would love to hear the errors in my argument in all seriousness?

DIDN'T think so....
edit on 6-6-2012 by KnawLick because: If your going to call my post junk. back it up with more than name calling



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by KnawLick
reply to post by Barcs
 


i was obviously talking about humans. who have been around 200,000 years according to YOUR science. not 7 million... sooo yeah know what your talking about before smart a** remarks...


I wasn't making smart alec remarks, I was defending science, and showing your obvious ignorance of it. You said,

"but it doesn't explain how monkeys were picking there butts one 10,000 years and the next they were forming religions and developing agriculture"

You are assuming man went from monkey to man in 10,000 years when the process was 7 million years to go from ape like ancestor to modern humans. You demonstrated that you haven't even read the basics of evolution with that statement. Sorry, science is based on fact, not fairytale.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by KnawLick
reply to post by Barcs
 


i was obviously talking about humans. who have been around 200,000 years according to YOUR science. not 7 million... sooo yeah know what your talking about before smart a** remarks...


I wasn't making smart alec remarks, I was defending science, and showing your obvious ignorance of it. You said,

"but it doesn't explain how monkeys were picking there butts one 10,000 years and the next they were forming religions and developing agriculture"

You are assuming man went from monkey to man in 10,000 years when the process was 7 million years to go from ape like ancestor to modern humans. You demonstrated that you haven't even read the basics of evolution with that statement. Sorry, science is based on fact, not fairytale.


So the monkeys got screwed?



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Actually your wrong about that, we can't measure the evolution of humans, that's the problem, if we could you could show me our 100% match in our past. We take something that seems right and then associate it with something else. Your science says this took place 200k years ago, not nearly enough time to rearrange chromosome structure, that type of evolution, ACCORDING TO SCIENCE, takes millions of years. Also there's the fact that an animal that evolves from a genus leaves that genus behind, so in theory why are chimps still around? Another paradox... Please use some common sense, you know nothing more then the people many here call ignorant.
edit on 6-6-2012 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2012 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by wisefoolishness
 




There are many similarities between the Gilgamesh flood account and biblical flood account (Genesis 6–8), beginning most importantly with God choosing a righteous man to build an ark because of an impending great flood. In both accounts, samples from all species of animals were to be on the ark, and birds were used after the rains to determine if flood waters had subsided anywhere to reveal dry land. There are other similarities between the Gilgamesh flood account and biblical flood account.

One major point of clear agreement is that a global flooding disaster occurred in ancient times. Portions of the Gilgamesh account (Chaldean Flood Tablets) have been found dating back to 2000 B.C. or earlier. Tablets containing the full story, however, date to approximately 650 B.C., or well after the Genesis account (c. 1450 – 1410 B.C.) These Chaldean tablets, from the city of Ur (modern day Southern Iraq), describe how the Babylonian God Ea decided to end all life except for the ark dwellers with a great flood. Ea, believed by the Babylonians to be the god who created the earth, selected Ut-Napishtim (or Utnapishtim) to construct a six-story square ark.

During the mid-nineteenth century, this complete “Epic of Gilgamesh” (from 650 B.C.) was unearthed in some ruins at Nineveh’s great library, and the depth and breadth of similarities and differences became evident. Here is a more extensive listing of the similarities and differences:

• God (or several gods in the Gilgamesh account) decided to destroy humankind because of its wickedness and sinfulness (Genesis 6:5-7).
• A righteous man (Genesis 6:9) was directed to build an ark to save a limited and selected group of people and all species of animals (Noah received his orders directly from Jehovah God, Utnapishtim from a dream).
• Both arks were huge, although their shapes differed. Noah’s was rectangular; Utnapishtim’s was square.
• Both arks had a single door and at least one window.
• A great rain covered the land and mountains with water, although some water emerged from beneath the earth in the biblical account (Genesis 7:11).
• Biblical flooding was 40 days and nights (Genesis 7:12) while the Gilgamesh flood was much shorter (six days and nights).
• Birds were released to find land (a raven and three doves in the biblical account (Genesis 8:6-12); a dove, swallow, and raven in the other).
• After the rains ceased, both arks came to rest on a mountain, Noah’s on Ararat (Genesis 8:4); Utnapishtim’s on Nisir. These mountains are about 300 miles apart.
• Sacrifices were offered after the flood (Genesis 8:20).
• God was (or gods were) pleased by this (Genesis 8:21), and Noah and Utnapishtim received blessings. Noah’s was to populate the earth and have dominion over all animals (Genesis 9:1-3); Utnapishtim’s was eternal life.
• God (or the many gods) promised not to destroy humankind again (Genesis 8:21-22).

Perhaps most interesting is how the stories remain consistent over time. Although the complete Epic was discovered in the mid-nineteenth century, much earlier segments (before the writing of Genesis) have been discovered and dated. Yet most significant is the greater fidelity of the Hebrew account. This is attributed to the importance of Jewish oral tradition and the possibility that some of the story was recorded by Noah or from his time, which would make the Hebrew account precede the Babylonian version.

Some scholars hypothesize the Hebrews borrowed the Babylonian account, but no conclusive proof has been offered to support this. Based on the many and varied differences and details within these stories, it seems unlikely that the biblical version depended upon an existing Sumerian source. Further, given the Jews’ reputation for passing down information scrupulously from one generation to another and maintaining a consistent reporting of events, Genesis is viewed by many as far more historical than the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is regarded as mythological because of its numerous gods and their interrelationships and intrigues in deciding the fate of humankind.

Certainly, for those who believe the Bible is God’s Word, it is sensible to conclude He chose to preserve the true account in the Bible through the oral traditions of His chosen people. By God’s providence, Jews kept this account pure and consistent over the centuries until Moses ultimately recorded it in the Book of Genesis. The Epic of Gilgamesh is believed to contain accounts which have been altered and embellished over the years by people not following the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.





It is true that the Genesis flood account shares many striking similarities with the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic, and with the Babylonian Atrahasis epic, for that matter. In fact, literally hundreds of flood traditions have been preserved all over the world, with traditions abounding in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia, as well as both of the Americas, and the Genesis account shares similarities with most of them. Of the flood traditions which have survived to the present time, about 95% describe a global cataclysmic deluge, 88% tell of a favored family of humans saved from drowning to reestablish the human race after the deluge, 66% say the family was forewarned of the coming cataclysm, 66% blame the wickedness of man for the deluge, and 70% record a boat as being the means by which the chosen family (and animals) survived the flood. More than one third of these traditions mention birds being sent out from the boat. Since every culture has descended directly from the flood’s survivors, it is logical that stories of this traumatic event are both abundant and universal, having been passed down from generation to generation. This is certainly the case. Many of these traditions are remarkably consistent, considering the relative isolation of the cultures, the length of time that has elapsed since the flood, and the human tendency to embellish, exaggerate, and distort stories over time. The Babylonian and biblical accounts of the flood appear to represent different retellings of an essentially identical flood tradition. Skeptics want to imagine that there was, in fact, no flood and that the Bible’s flood account was borrowed from a Babylonian myth. The evidence seems to suggest otherwise: there was, in fact, a catastrophic worldwide deluge, and the veracity of the biblical account is attested to by numerous other similar ancient accounts. In addition to abundant historical evidence, there is a wealth of physical proof in favor of the flood’s historicity. The flood of Noah’s day was most certainly a real historical event, and the biblical account of what happened is trustworthy.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join