Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Last Dinosaur Died in 1927!

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
I don't know a single christian that thinks the earth is less than millions of years old. It is not a prerequisite of Christianity to believe the earth is young. Genesis is an old story trying to explain how the earth and mankind was formed. The common people those days weren't well educated so their long drawn out theories were boring to people who had little understanding of the heavens.




posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
The Fossil records are fragments of a previous Kernel's lost bytes due to early coding skills of the Creator Programmer who gradually got better at coding. These Lost Bytes have definitive clues such as the "Trilobite" and others and the further you go down the rabbit hole of this Universe being a "Holographic Infinite Reality Machine" the more sense it makes. How else could you possible have an infinite universe ? Just write it into the code and bingo its reality to the observer/s.

Enter stage left the fossil records not showing any evidence of transitional species - the sudden appearance of mankind and other anomalies that are easily accounted for with a software update here and there to fix up errors. The biblical records of people living long lives and Giants are merely sandbox reality memes played out for the purpose of...
edit on 22-10-2012 by mazzroth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by twistedlogic
I don't understand what all the confusion is about. The dates have nothing to do with his calculations. I'll spell it out since some are having trouble with subtleties. The graph assumes Ussher's calculations of the earth's age to be correct, the graph then takes the observed geological timeline of fossils and rocks and makes them relative to Ussher's calculations. This is done to dramatize the illogical belief that the earth is not even 7000 years old. Ussher's works are relevant to this dramatization because he was one of the first (yah one of the first's and lived in the 1700's) to try and calculate the earth's age based solely on descriptions given in a COMPILATION of books and stories passed on through the ages. (the Bible)


Ahh so they are just made up to fit in with your imaginary time scale. Any evidence of your geological time scale thats not hundreds of years old.
Butt hurt much


Originally posted by twistedlogic
Wrong. Fossils and rocks are dated by the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred at the atomic level. Science Basics
Science Basics 2
More Science
Quick Fix Explanation
Quick Fix Explanation 2


Fossils are dated by rocks and rocks by fossils
Search INDEX FOSSILS
Then
GEOLOGICAL TIME SCALE
Butt hurt much




Originally posted by twistedlogic
Wrong again. And i don't need a source for this one, i can explain it quite simply without "sciency" words for you.
Hubbles observations were true, but an illusion. The universe is believed to be around 14billion years old (you can even substitute your own beliefs and this will still work out) So the earth is believed to be around 14billion/7 thousand years old. The observable universe (the universe observable by light/through telescopes) is around 28billion/14thousand light years across with 14billion/7thousand light years on either side of us. The universe is larger than 28billion lightyears across but since existence has only been around for 14billion/7thousand years this gives the illusion that we are at the center of everything since the light has only had that amount of time to travel. Make sense?


Nah, thats crap and not an answer, its a cop out. Its crap. Explain red shift???



Originally posted by twistedlogic
This is poetry and metaphors, no refuting needed because, well, it is poetry and metaphors...


So should I take it litteraly or not. Its an explanation that was asked for. Its been given. Its written
Butt hurt much



Originally posted by twistedlogic
EXACTLY!! this is the nature of written word, so why hold it as fact? How do you make your decision to hold the 7 days literally over the second stories 1 day? How do you determine to take it literally at all?


Seems you are preaching your faith at me, go try it on another Christian.
I will decide what I take litteraly and what I dont


Butt hurt much



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   


Fossils are dated by rocks and rocks by fossils


What are you trying to explain by this?

edit


Butt hurt much


What are you 12? Post links to back up what you are trying to say. I am intrigued how you came to your conclusions with what you posted.
edit on 22-10-2012 by cconn487 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 





Ahh so they are just made up to fit in with your imaginary time scale.


No no no, you have misunderstood. The information is made relative to YOUR imaginary time scale.




Fossils are dated by rocks and rocks by fossils
Search INDEX FOSSILS
Then
GEOLOGICAL TIME SCALE


Ummm, no. Dated by the decay of isotopes... did you even read any of my links?




Explain red shift???


The doppler effect but with various wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum instead of sound waves.
Doppler




Nah, thats crap and not an answer, its a cop out. Its crap.

This is no cop out, it adequately explains the illusion of Hubble's observations. Let me show you what a cop out looks like...



I will decide what I take litteraly and what I dont


Notice how it doesn't answer the question at all? That is a cop out. And do you not see the problem with everyone just deciding individually what to take literally? There becomes many various forms of "truth" out there, and thats just not possible.

And whats with the repetition of butt hurt? I was being polite by laying off the subject of God. Butt hurt much?
edit on 23-10-2012 by twistedlogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by mazzroth
Enter stage left the fossil records not showing any evidence of transitional species - the sudden appearance of mankind and other anomalies that are easily accounted for with a software update here and there to fix up errors. The biblical records of people living long lives and Giants are merely sandbox reality memes played out for the purpose of...


I already posted a huge list of transitional fossils. Humans didn't suddenly appear. They evolved over millions of years as evidenced by the dozen + hominid species that have been discovered and like the rest appear to change slowly over time.

Lost bits of data ending up as fossilized skeletons? Yeah that sounds very much like what happens when you lose data on a hard drive. It buries itself in a programmed world and decays based on the properties of that world.
If our reality was programmed, it was programmed to evolve.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
Fossils are dated by rocks and rocks by fossils

Hovind, is that you? Still trying to push your agenda from prison I see. What you are saying is nonsensical because FOSSILS ARE ROCKS. Here's a google term for you. Permineralization. Over time, the organic matter decays and is replaced by rock. The rock is dated based on the breakdown of certain isotopes, and there are several methods of dating that confirm one another. It's not even close to your lie above. Are you trying to claim the fossils within the rock are older than the rock themselves or that they somehow got stuck inside of it after the rock formed? Either way it makes no sense and science is very much against you on this one.
edit on 23-10-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
sorry double post.
edit on 23-10-2012 by Barcs because: double post



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   
How come no one ever asks...Hey, are all those skeletons they keep saying are human ancestors just the skeletons of extinct ape species?

Seriously. Just cause you find another different ape skeleton doesn't in any way make it human. That's bad science. Imagine we bury Danny Devito down twenty feet and Arnold down 10 and wait to have evolutionists dig them up in 10,000 years. Look, big huge guys developed from little guys, why they are almost twins.



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by winterkill
How come no one ever asks...Hey, are all those skeletons they keep saying are human ancestors just the skeletons of extinct ape species?

Sure. Humans are apes, so yes, that would be accurate.


Seriously. Just cause you find another different ape skeleton doesn't in any way make it human. That's bad science.


So, you are suggesting that scientists are just guessing about these fossils and that a decade worth of analysis is NOT done on them?
Scientists don't find a fossil a go, "OMG! That like totally looks similar!! LOL". If by bad science you mean repeatable tests and experiments, then sure, it's terrible!

humanorigins.si.edu...

This site is fun and interactive. You'll learn a lot about how fossils are studied and dated. Over a dozen transitional species have been found between ancient ape and modern human.

If evolution is false, explain Neanderthals and the other hominids that clearly show slow change over time.


Imagine we bury Danny Devito down twenty feet and Arnold down 10 and wait to have evolutionists dig them up in 10,000 years. Look, big huge guys developed from little guys, why they are almost twins.

That's not even remotely close. Future paleontologists would find 2 humans. They wouldn't assume one evolved from the other, they are the same species.

Key google terms for you: permineralization, transitional fossils, fossil formation, human evolution.
edit on 23-11-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by winofiend
reply to post by Awen24
 


YOU SIR, I like.

well put post. Oh how I long to read things like this here, it's rare, but you prove it does happen.

Thank you!



Your post praising Awen24 is highly ironic considering I usually see you coming into any given thread very quickly to LAUGH at the OP, provide minimal thoughtful content of your own (when there even is any), and then exit.

And yes, crocodiles. I, for one, HAVE heard scientists claim that big lizards like that have changed little in thousands and thousands of years. It was a valid enough point. I am, for the record, not a creationist. I do believe in evolution. I also believe it may have been "sparked" by something intelligent, though I can offer no proof of this (none that you would accept, anyway.) My entire point here being that your post is very ironic. If you like that style of posting, maybe you should give it a try a little more often yourself, instead of just mocking others for that which you disagree with?






top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join