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 whirlwind
I understand what you are saying and would agree with that process but that is not what I meant. Take for instance the Lucy dating. It was the dating that changed, not Lucy.
By the same methods we have discussed, which is why I don't quote a date for the age of the earth at all. There is no doubt in my mind that earth is ancient - exactly how old it is I don't know. Your quote of 4.6 billion years is acceptable to me as I don't know. My point is that it doesn't disagree with the account God gives.
1. I understand what you have termed as evolving with the Italian gene. It is not becoming a separate species. It may mutate within people but the people do not become something else as in ape becomes man. When I speak of evolution that is what I mean, the evolution of man from ape or one animal species into another.
2. I would expect that if evolution (ape to man) was true then it would be a continuing process. There are still apes, there is still man and there are no in betweens. Fossils are ape or are man.
3. I didn't phrase that well. What I mean is how did one piece of evolutionary material work out evolving into a male while another piece evolved into a female (animal, human, whatever) at the same time so they could procreate and have offspring? If they didn't do that at the same time would not the species simply die off?
4. I do mean transitionals (thank you). My point is where are they now. For evolution to be a fact it must be a continous process. Where are the "living" transitionals? To me, we would see a constant state of flux in the process.
Of course science gets along fine....I was speaking about you adding more about Him.
You'd need to give me better details to understand exactly what changed. Lucy is dated at between 3 and 4 million years, no?
WW - By the same methods we have discussed, which is why I don't quote a date for the age of the earth at all. There is no doubt in my mind that earth is ancient - exactly how old it is I don't know. Your quote of 4.6 billion years is acceptable to me as I don't know. My point is that it doesn't disagree with the account God gives.
Mel - But whether it agrees with your book or not should not be the guiding factor. That's why your approach is not evidence-based.
The techniques to date the earth are generally the same as those used to date fossils. But in one instance you deny the evidence because your book says otherwise, but accept the same methods when your book doesn't speak to a particular claim.
So, ultimately, it doesn't matter how much evidence I could show you, the book of myths would win every time. Why even bother asking me to explain various aspects of evolution? I just presented a pile of evidence of modern humans dating well past 14,000 years and you disregard it.
You might as well state 'my book says x therefore you are wrong'. Do you think your book is inerrant or something?
It is still evolution. It is the one and the same. What you are doing is comparable to denying the existence of years but accepting seconds. Over very long periods of time, little changes become big changes. Just like lots of seconds become hours, days, and even years.
Do you expect to see himalayan mountains appear before your eyes to agree that they were gradually raised by plate tectonics?
WW - 2. I would expect that if evolution (ape to man) was true then it would be a continuing process. There are still apes, there is still man and there are no in betweens. Fossils are ape or are man.
Mel - This betrays quite a misunderstanding of evolution. There is no target. There is no reason why a chimp should evolve into a man in the next few million years....There are also lots of fossils between humans and lucy.
WW -
3. I didn't phrase that well. What I mean is how did one piece of evolutionary material work out evolving into a male while another piece evolved into a female (animal, human, whatever) at the same time so they could procreate and have offspring? If they didn't do that at the same time would not the species simply die off?
Mel -
I would have thought they'd have evolved together. Like most evolutionary changes, it would not have been asexual -> sexual in a single step.
Although, it is an area we have some ideas for, but no real certainity. Basically because it is likely to have happened very early in evolution. Even bacteria swap genes, so it is likely that asexual species gradually specialised into sexual species. For example, yeast can reproduce by either method, but sexual reproduction allows faster evolutionary change.
All species are potentially living transitionals.
Originally posted by whirlwind
No, my reference was to the man that discovered her going through 22 processes of dating before the one he approved of was IT!
Agreeing with the Book is the guiding factor to me. I know how that sounds to a scientifically minded person but it is what it is.
I understand that and agree with it being ancient, as Lucy is ancient but not man's ancestor. I don't put an age date on it because I don't know the methods used are infallible...actually evidence points to the fact that they aren't. The earth is ancient and we can make it millions or billions. The actual date doesn't matter to me.
The earth is ancient, animals and plant life are ancient but man is not, at least not in the flesh. He was here in that ancient time but not in a flesh and blood body and for that reason human (as we know human) bones are not found from that time.
I didn't see evidence for ancient man in what you presented. The numbers are just numbers as presented by man.
I know you don't accept this but I do place "my book of myths" over anything man claims. It is infallible. It may contain things not yet understood or things that have been mistranslated but other than the part man stuck his nose in it is the Word of God and therefore, inerrant.
I believe that is playing word games. As I stated, the evolution I am speaking of is the jump of one species to another, as in animals. The Himalayan Mountains certainly took time to shift upward but they started out mountains (or earth and rocks) and at the end they are still mountains (earth and rocks).
I agree that there is no reason why a chimp would evolve into man and any time schedule could be given.....there is still no reason. There may be many fossils between humans and Lucy but some are ape and others are human. No dividing line has to be made. You are looking at it from the persepective of them becoming human. I look at it from seeing apes and humans - separate beings, separate entities with no melding involved.
Bacteria may swap genes but you are asking me to believe that not only did humans begin in a primordial swamp but they eventually became animal and somehow at the same time stopped being asexual and became male and female in order to produce offspring. Oh, and along the way developed a moral code and emotions and love for fellow man with a thought process that enables them to achieve so many things? And you think I believe in myths?
Where are their remains? With all the searching for fossils should we not have found numerous complete skeletal forms of "transitionals"in various stages. I don't believe your apes qualify for that - they are apes, not human. Because there are similar facial or body characteristics doesn't mean they are related.
Apes will continue to be apes at the end of a million years.
As far as trying to convert you....as you are trying to get me to understand science more I ask you to also open that scientific mind to your spiritual side. Both of us will benefit, I'm sure.
No, my reference was to the man that discovered her going through 22 processes of dating before the one he approved of was IT!
You'll need to do better than that. Any support for this?
Agreeing with the Book is the guiding factor to me. I know how that sounds to a scientifically minded person but it is what it is.
Aye, it basically says to me that you are closed-minded. ...What's the point of me carrying on? Why even bother discussing it? I have a busy life, and so the 10-20 minutes it might take me to respond to you is a waste of time, no?
The earth is ancient, animals and plant life are ancient but man is not, at least not in the flesh. He was here in that ancient time but not in a flesh and blood body and for that reason human (as we know human) bones are not found from that time.
What does 'flesh and blood' body mean? Are you basically saying that homonids may have been around, even modern looking humans at dates of 190,000 years, but that they were not true human like you?
Of course, it all just words and numbers on a forum. Are you suggesting that scientists are lying?...Even the Xian ones?
I know you don't accept this but I do place "my book of myths" over anything man claims. It is infallible. It may contain things not yet understood or things that have been mistranslated but other than the part man stuck his nose in it is the Word of God and therefore, inerrant.
Heh, yeah, of course it is. Unless it is actually compared to evidence.
I agree that there is no reason why a chimp would evolve into man and any time schedule could be given.....there is still no reason. There may be many fossils between humans and Lucy but some are ape and others are human. No dividing line has to be made. You are looking at it from the persepective of them becoming human. I look at it from seeing apes and humans - separate beings, separate entities with no melding involved.
Tell me which were the apes and which were the humans. Come on, it should be easy. Is habilis an ape? How about erectus? These dudes were around millions of years ago, never mind 190,000.
Why even ask the question if you are just going to throw the 'you are asking me to believe evolution' hurdle? Of course I am. You were asking me to explain a concept within evolution.
Now you throw in more stuff. You are just obfuscating now. It was bad enough before by throwing non-sensical questions to me. I answered them. Now you want answers to more questions, we get further and further from the 14,000 year fantasy of yours all the time.
Where are their remains? With all the searching for fossils should we not have found numerous complete skeletal forms of "transitionals"in various stages. I don't believe your apes qualify for that - they are apes, not human. Because there are similar facial or body characteristics doesn't mean they are related.
We have much more than looking at their morphology to determine phylogeny. I'll let a more reality-based Xian explain just one line of molecular evidence for you:
We have loads of transitionals forms in the fossil record. How about whales...
Apes will continue to be apes at the end of a million years.
You have no evidence this would be the case. This is just an unsupported claim. You can't even support the 14,000 year claim, why should I even think you know what you are talking about here.
As far as trying to convert you....as you are trying to get me to understand science more I ask you to also open that scientific mind to your spiritual side. Both of us will benefit, I'm sure.
I've got an open-mind. You haven't. You have the conclusion before the evidence, which leads you to deny piles of good scientific evidence in favour of a book written thousands of years ago. I follow the evidence, like any good rational individual.
'Spiritual' side? I think I already have one. But it has nothing to do with your book of myths.
Originally posted by whirlwind
From the television program "Carl Baugh" and he stated it was from a March 1996 National Geographic. I assume, an article about the one that discovered Lucy, in which he admitted he was biased.
I hate to say this as I have enjoyed our discussion but it could well be a waste of our time. I used to be so open minded and gullible that I accepted anything a knowledgeable person taught. What you term closed-minded I believe is being certain, so certain I stake my soul on it. So, I hope we will be able to discuss topics but I will certainly understand if you cannot.
What I am saying is that there was an age before this one. That was the age of the dinosaurs.
Satan, rebelled in that age and many of God's children followed him. Father, instead of killing His children, destroyed the age, not earth but the age. The earth was greatly shaken and flooded. Is that when the plates split apart and the earth tilted on it's axis? Perhaps.
We are the same spirit now as we were then and as we will be in the next age. The only change is that God created us in flesh to pass through this time on earth. The 14,000 years I have explained before as when this age began. So...yes, I am saying that either the dates are incorrect when dating humans or they are not human beings. That is based on "a day with the Lord is as 1,000 years". If that isn't correct then my calculations are also incorrect but it is what I have to go on and I trust it.
If you are at all interested or question the three ages of earth I can validate, Biblically of course. Just let me know.
No, I'm not. I am suggesting that is what they believe but that does not make them right.
What it comes down to is someone is wrong. Either the scientist are incorrect or God is.
My answer to that would be the human ones may certainly be human but the dates given for their existence would be incorrect.
Melatonin, those were not non-sensical. If evolution is true then they are valid questions that need to be answered. Too, you can throw out that I believe in myths and fantasies but I can't say "you are asking me to believe evolution"? Which do you believe was more harsh?
We may be getting more distant from the original topic but it isn't on purpose. One thing seems to lead to another.
Originally posted by whirlwind
From the television program "Carl Baugh" and he stated it was from a March 1996 National Geographic. I assume, an article about the one that discovered Lucy, in which he admitted he was biased.
march '96?
i should have that one... i guess i'll have to look through my as of yet unpacked collection of national geographics later.
or through the online archives...
damn, they only go back to '97
I hate to say this as I have enjoyed our discussion but it could well be a waste of our time. I used to be so open minded and gullible that I accepted anything a knowledgeable person taught. What you term closed-minded I believe is being certain, so certain I stake my soul on it. So, I hope we will be able to discuss topics but I will certainly understand if you cannot.
but you're still being closed-minded. you're "so certain" that you're willing to ignore reality for the sake of your personal beliefs.
What I am saying is that there was an age before this one. That was the age of the dinosaurs.
ok, what about the billions of years prior to the arrival of dinosaurs?
Satan, rebelled in that age and many of God's children followed him. Father, instead of killing His children, destroyed the age, not earth but the age. The earth was greatly shaken and flooded. Is that when the plates split apart and the earth tilted on it's axis? Perhaps.
now you're adding superfluous superstition to events that can be explained by cosmology and geology.
We are the same spirit now as we were then and as we will be in the next age. The only change is that God created us in flesh to pass through this time on earth. The 14,000 years I have explained before as when this age began. So...yes, I am saying that either the dates are incorrect when dating humans or they are not human beings. That is based on "a day with the Lord is as 1,000 years". If that isn't correct then my calculations are also incorrect but it is what I have to go on and I trust it.
so you're saying that dating methods based on proven constants are incorrect because a book of myths written by bronze age nomads who ended up committing atrocious genocides in the name of a previously henotheistic mountain god to finally settle in the region of cannaan says that things can't be that old?
look at the dating methods, they're not 100% accurate, but they aren't going to be off by enough for it to matter.
Originally posted by whirlwind
Superstition? Why do you say that? Because God shook and flooded the earth you think it wouldn't be shown in cosmology and geology? The two are one.
Madness....You will stand in front of that God one day, whether or not you believe in Him now. Please consider that in the references you use here.
You believe dating methods are correct but many do not.
As you've argued this before I know you have heard the arguments. The only thing "constant" about them is that they constantly change.
I don't have any argument with "things" being ancient and I don't care about how many thousands or millions of years are placed on them. I know they are ancient, I know they can certainly be the age scientist place on them. But, not humans. Apes and animals are....humans are not.
To substantiate the Bible telling us about the three ages of earth and the earth being millions or billions of years old, agreeing with geology, let me list the scriptures that teach us that.
Originally posted by whirlwind
From the "tone" of your response about National Geographic I assume you think I'm making it up?
You should know me better than that by now. I just wrote down what I heard. I don't know why you question it anyway as you already agreed that Lucy turned out to be a fake, so why do you question the validity of what I said?
Aren't you and Melatonin being closed-minded to what I am saying? It's a two-way street. I looked more into evolution today but don't have time to discuss it until tomorrow.
I didn't explain myself well. I meant that whole first age, however long it was and whatever went on during it. As far as I know the dinosaurs could have been there the whole time.....I don't know. The Bible gives us some hints about that age but it doesn't tell us very much.
aye, but can ye validate the beliefs scientifically?
What it comes down to is someone is wrong. Either the scientist are incorrect or God is.
you're creating a false dichotomy. it's either your book is the absolute inerrant word of god and is wrong or science is wrong...
that's actually not the case. thousands of other arrogant religions have each tried to show how much they know about how the world was created and each one had a different story, any of those is just as valid as your idea.
My answer to that would be the human ones may certainly be human but the dates given for their existence would be incorrect.
again, you're saying that the dating methods are incorrect
are you saying that dinosaurs didn't stop existing 65 milllion years ago?
that date was figured out through the same concept of radiometric dating. do you dispute it?
it's quite obvious that the radiometric dating isn't wrong here, you are in error
Melatonin, those were not non-sensical. If evolution is true then they are valid questions that need to be answered. Too, you can throw out that I believe in myths and fantasies but I can't say "you are asking me to believe evolution"? Which do you believe was more harsh?
mel isn't asking you to believe in anything but quite apparent reality that you're arrogantly stating is incorrect without a thorough examination of the evidence
now, to the contrary you believe in something that is essentially baseless make-believe that i cannot disprove, for that is the nature of make-believe things. that is the very definition of myth and fantasy.
We may be getting more distant from the original topic but it isn't on purpose. One thing seems to lead to another.
ok, now can you support that 14,000 year date without using the ol' bible?
Originally posted by whirlwind
There is more given about the "foundation" of the earth, or the casting down or overthrow, if you are interested.
No, I'm not a scientist. I leave that to you.
Of course the others aren't valid. They weren't inspired by God and if not Him, I must wonder who???
dinosaurs stopped existing when God destroyed that age.
Over 250 million fossils from 25,000 species have been found, yet only a handful are even compatible with evolution and not one that can't fit into a Creationist model. If Darwin was right, there should be millions of transitional fossils.
"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" - Tom Kemp, Oxford University
"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists in Darwin's time and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequences very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record." - D. Raup, Conflicts Between Darwin and Palenontology (Bulletin Field Museum of Natural History 50 (Jan,1979).
"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a human like creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." - Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion, almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it." - Dr. Tim White (anthropoligist, University of California, Berkeley), as quoted by Ian Anderson in new Scientist, April 28, 1983, p.199
"And paleonanthropoligsts disagee about whether homo erectus should be folded into homo sapiens. Certainly, there is nothing in the morphology of homo erectus to differentiate it from homo sapiens. It's characteristics fall within the scope of homo sapiens morphology. Moreover, judging by the dates commonly accepted by paleoanthropolgists, homo sapiens, homo erectus, and neanderthal man have all existed contemporaneously. And there is little reason to suspect that australopithecus was anything other than an ape. - H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, Univ. of Manchester, UK), 'A physicist looks at evolution', Physics Bulletin, vo. 31, 1980, p.138
So...There seems to be a great divide even among the scientist.
Everything in it is shown to be true so why would I not wish to use it?
Originally posted by whirlwind
From the "tone" of your response about National Geographic I assume you think I'm making it up?
not at all, i just want to see the original reference.
You should know me better than that by now. I just wrote down what I heard. I don't know why you question it anyway as you already agreed that Lucy turned out to be a fake, so why do you question the validity of what I said?
... i never said lucy was a fake. i said piltdown was a fake. lucy is far from a fake, lucy is legit.
Aren't you and Melatonin being closed-minded to what I am saying? It's a two-way street. I looked more into evolution today but don't have time to discuss it until tomorrow.
we aren't being closed minded, we're completely open minded. you just have to give us evidence, you haven't.
I didn't explain myself well. I meant that whole first age, however long it was and whatever went on during it. As far as I know the dinosaurs could have been there the whole time.....I don't know. The Bible gives us some hints about that age but it doesn't tell us very much.
but the bible is far from an accurate history book, and you'll have to provide us with some outside evidence.
stop with the bible quotes. they won't get you anywhere in this discussion. start with physical evidence, that WILL get you somewhere.
i'm not a scientist either, i'm a person studying to be an archaeologist.
just because you're not a scientist doesn't mean you can't validate a belief scientifically. there should be SOME evidence that validates your theory, but there isn't. just a book that is quite flawed.
Of course the others aren't valid. They weren't inspired by God and if not Him, I must wonder who???
but every other religion would say your story wasn't inspired by their deity...
so your argument kind of falls flat
can you actually PROVE that your story was inspired by god?
hell, can you actually prove that god exists?
dinosaurs stopped existing when God destroyed that age.
but you can't prove this...
do you have anything more modern about the disagreement. i look at the date and that was 27 years ago.
Everything in it is shown to be true so why would I not wish to use it?
because everything shown in it ISN'T true.
small example: exodus
says that the pharaoh's son was killed by the angel of death...
reality says his son was killed by blunt force trauma to the head.
..oh, and there isn't any evidence to show that the jews were slaves in israel.
it's also true that women are the equals of men.. but the bible doesn't say that
the bible says that the earth is a flat disc.... that is also not true
the bible says the the sun stopped in the sky, that's just not true either
it's quite clear your book isn't true on all accounts, you just refuse to acknowledge that.
Originally posted by whirlwind
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Madness, I'm not a scientist, I don't go and try to prove anything. I am telling you what your Father tells you happened and it is up to you to believe it or not. Please ask yourself just what kind of "physical evidence" you think I could possible provide.
The Book is not flawed. It has some mistranslations from the original manuscripts.
I truly don't give a rat's patootie about other religions. They are not real. They are a complete waste of time, energy and thought and should be completely disregarded by anyone of any spiritual discernment at all.
I can tell you some things that might persuade you, however, I rather doubt it. As I said before, until it's time your eyes and ears may not be opened to the truth. If I have a chance later this evening I will tell you a few things........we'll see how you accept it.
Good heavens Madness, I can't even prove I'm who I am to you.
I might. I just typed some in. The point isn't when but what is being said and by whom. Even the scientist disagree about what are considered facts and dates. The argument can go on forever by knowledgeable people and I am not one of those. I don't know anything about archaology (what a terrific field for you to go into though).
We already discussed most of those. I'll have to put off further discussion until later. I will say, I don't understand what you mean by "flat disc". The quote was the "circle of the earth". Where do you get flat disc?
Originally posted by whirlwind
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Madness, I'm not a scientist, I don't go and try to prove anything. I am telling you what your Father tells you happened and it is up to you to believe it or not. Please ask yourself just what kind of "physical evidence" you think I could possible provide.
well... you said that god flooded the earth. i'm going to assume you meant the whole planet... surely some scientist has found proof of this. i'm not asking you to go out and do field work, i'm asking you to find me information from people that have that can substantiate your position.
The Book is not flawed. It has some mistranslations from the original manuscripts.
no, the original manuscripts are flawed to. like where it says that the earth is a circle. the hebrew is the same for the word for a flat circle someone would draw on a piece of paper.
I truly don't give a rat's patootie about other religions. They are not real. They are a complete waste of time, energy and thought and should be completely disregarded by anyone of any spiritual discernment at all.
your ironic arrogance amuses and saddens me.
have you even bothered to study any of them?
i mean, honestly, islam has a great amount of good in it. for one, it actually praises the scholar, unlike christianity.
I can tell you some things that might persuade you, however, I rather doubt it. As I said before, until it's time your eyes and ears may not be opened to the truth. If I have a chance later this evening I will tell you a few things........we'll see how you accept it.
i told you, i want proof.
Good heavens Madness, I can't even prove I'm who I am to you.
well, you could. it'd be a long, complex, and expensive process, but you could.
i can prove to you that the dinosaurs were most likely killed in a massive cataclysm involving an impact of an asteroid approx. 65 million years ago
I might. I just typed some in. The point isn't when but what is being said and by whom. Even the scientist disagree about what are considered facts and dates. The argument can go on forever by knowledgeable people and I am not one of those. I don't know anything about archaology (what a terrific field for you to go into though).
well, the disagreement in the source wasn't about dates, it was about classification of homo erectus.
I can tell you some things that might persuade you, however, I rather doubt it. As I said before, until it's time your eyes and ears may not be opened to the truth. If I have a chance later this evening I will tell you a few things........we'll see how you accept it.
i told you, i want proof.
Originally posted by whirlwind
"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" - Tom Kemp, Oxford University
"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists in Darwin's time and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequences very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record." - D. Raup, Conflicts Between Darwin and Palenontology (Bulletin Field Museum of Natural History 50 (Jan,1979).
"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a human like creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." - Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion, almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it." - Dr. Tim White (anthropoligist, University of California, Berkeley), as quoted by Ian Anderson in new Scientist, April 28, 1983, p.199
"And paleonanthropoligsts disagee about whether homo erectus should be folded into homo sapiens. Certainly, there is nothing in the morphology of homo erectus to differentiate it from homo sapiens. It's characteristics fall within the scope of homo sapiens morphology. Moreover, judging by the dates commonly accepted by paleoanthropolgists, homo sapiens, homo erectus, and neanderthal man have all existed contemporaneously. And there is little reason to suspect that australopithecus was anything other than an ape. - H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, Univ. of Manchester, UK), 'A physicist looks at evolution', Physics Bulletin, vo. 31, 1980, p.138
So...There seems to be a great divide even among the scientist.
So...There seems to be a great divide even among the scientist.
Not really, half of those quotes are quote mines, the others are just opinion. None of them actually question evolution, not one. At most, they might be seen to be questioning details.
Why is that creationists think that regurgitation quote mines and opinion means anything? Iz it coz they do it with teh bible?
There is no debate on the validity of evolution in the scientific community. Lots on details, none on the big picture. I'm sure you can find a few scientists who'll spout religiously-motivated BS about evolution, like Dembski and Behe, but they are sort of like mad auntie in the basement types.