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.
Originally posted by MrSpad
Originally posted by Rulkiewicz
reply to post by BlastedCaddy
... I don't know.
I can't say for certain that the earth is 6,000 years old and I'm open to the idea that it might be millions of years old. It seems that anyone who doesn't believe the earth is 6000 years old is automatically categorized as an unbeliever.
Why the fuss over thousands of years verse millions/billions of years? I think it boils down to agenda. The majority of evolutionists believe that the earth is mil/billions of years old, whereas the majority of Christians/Creationist believe the world is ~6,000 years old. People love to prove other people wrong.
The majority of Christains do not believe in the 6000 year earth theory nor in in a 100% literal intepretation of the Bible. The people who do are the new versions of Christianity like the Southern Baptists, Evangelicals, Mormons, Jehovas Witnesses and such. Mostly its an American thing in the fundamentalists South. Jewish tradition was to teach lessons through parables, a tradition Jesus also followed. These storys were to teach not to be taken a literal events. Most people simply believe in evolution sparked a supreme being as a way to address both science and faith.
Originally posted by cry93
We know from human and other animal remains that earth is far older than 6k.
Even man himself is older than that.
Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by rigel4
Not really.
The 6000 year old earth theory is a literal interpretation of Genesis.....keyword: interpretation.
Nothing in the bible tells us how to interpret it's passages....
Again, understanding the communication vessel used to interpret and record the knowledge given to ancient man can shed some light on this. Whoever wrote Genesis was using an ancient science to convey what they understood. Just as we use modern science to convey what we understand today....And the beauty of the whole scenario is that science is by nature tentative.....So what is being told has to be taken in reference with what they knew at the time....Just as anything we say today....
We can talk about how gravity helped mould our Universe all day...and to us it's pretty well established fact.....until new information comes out that makes us conform our belief to fit the new data-set....It's the same thing....Ancient science, modern science....It's just our way of interpreting and communicationg data...and invariably it changes...
A2Dedit on 10-6-2013 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
Well I disregard the notion simply because out of all the evolutionary processes I do believe in....nothing has demonstrated the intellectual "evolutionary" process like humans from apes...Nothing else even comes close to the evolutionary leap that would take....nothing at all...
There are evolutionary processes that require much longer time frames to accomplish than what is speculated with the apes to humans process, and yet we still so no significant intellectual change(like that of humans) accomplished via evolution....
nothing has demonstrated the intellectual "evolutionary" process like humans from apes...
Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
Well I disregard the notion simply because out of all the evolutionary processes I do believe in....nothing has demonstrated the intellectual "evolutionary" process like humans from apes...Nothing else even comes close to the evolutionary leap that would take....nothing at all...
Which evolutionary leap are you referring to? From Ardipithicus Ramidus to Australopitheucs Afarenisis? Homo rudolfensis to Homo ergaster? Heidelbergensis to Neanderthal? Habilis to sapien? Where is this really big leap? All I see is intelligence slightly increasing over time. Nothing comes close, except for the fact that's it's happened in multiple species of hominid, for example homo erectus. He was not a direct ancestor of homo sapiens yet the most recently dated fossils had a comparable brain size to modern humans.
There are evolutionary processes that require much longer time frames to accomplish than what is speculated with the apes to humans process, and yet we still so no significant intellectual change(like that of humans) accomplished via evolution....
By all means, elaborate on these time frames, that makes 7 million years too quick for evolution. I've heard that argument before but haven't seen any scientifically valid numbers or figures to back it up.edit on 10-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by Astyanax
What I'm saying is that NO OTHER EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS has been as dramatic as the supposed ape-to-man process......If evolution can achieve such work...Why have the evolutionary processes that take LONGER than the ape-human process not created something much more intelligent than ourselves? Why are we still at the top of the intellectual ladder? Why are we the kings of evolution?
A2D
What I'm saying is that NO OTHER EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS has been as dramatic as the supposed ape-to-man process......If evolution can achieve such work...Why have the evolutionary processes that take LONGER than the ape-human process not created something much more intelligent than ourselves? Why are we still at the top of the intellectual ladder? Why are we the kings of evolution?
evolution has theoretically been taking place since the very initial big bang...and only now, however many billion u want to call it, modern-man has emerged...yet humans are relatively new on the evolutionary timeline....
Some geneticists seem to think the evolution of man has come to a standstill.....just google it....
Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by Astyanax
What I'm saying is that NO OTHER EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS has been as dramatic as the supposed ape-to-man process......If evolution can achieve such work...Why have the evolutionary processes that take LONGER than the ape-human process not created something much more intelligent than ourselves? Why are we still at the top of the intellectual ladder? Why are we the kings of evolution?
A2D
Asian sons african sons etc....Ever heard of Pangaea? Supercontinent...These lands could have theoretically all been populated before the landmass known as Pangaea broke apart...
What happened to all the water? It went back inside the earth? Huge Ocean Discovered Inside Earth
Also, the landmasses and oceans would not need to switch places....Psalms 104 states that the topography of the Earth changed dramatically AFTER the flood...
*
*
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
Please try to read this to the end.
But how do you account for the difference in the timing? Homo Sapiens and his human (not simian) ancestors have been in existence for only three million years. Pangaea began breaking up 175 million years ago! And the first big split was into Laurasia (basically Asia, North America and Europe) and Gondwana (Africa, South America, Australia and Antarctica). The pattern of human emergence and distribution out of Africa – which we can trace by examining the genes of modern humans from around the world – does not fit this picture.
That 'huge ocean' is only the size of the Arctic Ocean – which is neither very wide nor very deep. And it's water soaked into rock, not an underground reservoir. There are plenty of those, but not nearly enough to account for the water that would have been needed to cover Earth to the height of Everest. Think about it – the whole Earth would have to be sodden with water to a depth about twice the height of Everest! That's impossible.
As I said in my first post on this thread, you cannot match the details of evolution to the Creation story in the Bible. The details of geology and cosmology don't, I'm sorry to say, fit any better. There is really no point in trying.
I think it is still possible to be a Christian even in our scientific age, but one has to accept that much of the Bible – and certainly the extraordinary stories in the Old Testament – are simply not factual. They are not even metaphorical in the crude way we've been discussing on this thread – 'a thousand ages in Thy sight are like an evening gone.' They can, perhaps, be read as myths or metaphors, though I suspect it is simply best to accept them as part of the historical baggage of Christianity and move on to the core of what makes the faith, which is belief in the possibility of personal and universal redemption through Christ's sacrifice and his teachings.
Not once did I "claim" that the evolutionary timeline for humans is/was short... Also, I clearly stated, multiple times, that I'm discussing the INTELLECTUAL evolution...