Survey Results: Origins and Evolution

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

Yes. Because bones are more concrete evidence than things made by man. Bones need no interpretation beyond a logical deduction from similar species today or then. Unless you have a time machine, you can never know what artifacts truly mean. It's all speculation, because the human mind is impossible to fully predict. The fact I cam imagine it being primitive gods from an unsophisticated culture demands it be a plausible possibility. This is not so with bones, for they are there, have a time period, and follow simple logical rules of evolution.

edit on 31-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

agreed but it isn't just artifacts, it's also texts and one of the reasons those texts were ruled mythological was because 300 years ago, we didn't recognize the science and thought it all sounded too fantastic. in other words, science is still science, even if it's 10,000 BC, or 10,000,000 BC, it's still science. science isn't a created thing, it's just a revealing of the laws of the universe, that have remained unchanged for a very long time

reply to post by Wolfenz


Gold doesn't rust.

reply to post by Imtor


No its not about calling everything a demon, its about connecting the dots which you obviously seem incapable of even attempting. Now go to my profile and read my thread about why i think there demons and maybe you'll see the vast similaritys between these abduction accounts and demonic possession the list is literally huge. There are no aliens on other planets that come and visit us like star trek or something, this idea is pure fantasy!!!

reply to post by NewAgeMan


That church minister is preaching the message of the devil... Feel free to attend if you desire to be deceived.

reply to post by Majic


Sorry but i have to disagree with you about Evangelism. It isn't desperation, the lord Jesus Christ told us to go out and preach the gospel to every nation on earth.

Originally posted by usmcmailman
Uncivil quote removed

Amen my brother these non believers and so called Christians who believe in evolution and call God a liar can think what they want, whether that be evolving from apes or sea fish or what ever other wacky things they claim, its purely of the works of the devil, and Christians who try and mix Darwinism in with Christianity shall be rewarded with hell fire, its truly evil and deceptive to even try and mix the two together. God said he created us in his image, not the image of an ape... that is pure blasphemy and people like gorden are going to be held accountable of there words and false teachings.

Originally posted by Wolfenz

The Problem i see they look fairly new not much rusted!
Unless they are Metal made of Nonferrous Material

They should be made of wood, and although some may be gilded or bronzed, I don't think that iron was in general use during the time period in question. A solid metal wheel, of any metal, would have added to the weight and decreased the speed of any chariot, a decided disadvantage in a "war" scenario, and so to be avoided as principle,

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

Originally posted by MrXYZ

I hope you realize that a charriot could fall off in a storm without the boat actually sinking...again, a LOT more plausible than your magic hypothesis. Hell, we know it's happened before. Also, underwater, there's something called CURRENTS. So if something sinks, it doesn't necessarily stay at the same spot for thousands of years.

Actually there are no currents in the dead sea, ever wondered why its called "The Dead Sea"..

I) The Exodus crossing is claimed to have taken place in the Red Sea, not the Dead Sea.

2) the Dead Sea is called that because of the intense salinity it has, which discourages the existence if living stuff within it. Currents have nothing to do with it, and are present in bot the Dead Sea and the Red Sea, and anywhere else that liquid is present and subjected to differential heating or gravitational attraction.

3) The Exodus crossing has nothing to do with either evolution, creation, or the origin of life. It's a red herring, an argument presented to side track the discussion.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Majic

 

Sorry but i have to disagree with you about Evangelism. It isn't desperation, the lord Jesus Christ told us to go out and preach the gospel to every nation on earth.

Show me an example of where he preached to people who didn't want to hear it. Then show me an example of his preaching a false doctrine.

Then, if you can do those two things, you may have some support for what you are doing here.

reply to post by undo


Science fiction is not that different that magic, and I see no reason why the writings of some text should overshadow 3 billion years of evolution.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

Science fiction is not that different that magic, and I see no reason why the writings of some text should overshadow 3 billion years of evolution.

edit on 31-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

best i can say is we shall see, although i guesstimate, that it's probably a mixture of all of the above. we all seem to be picking up on separate but related pieces of data. i find it ironic that at this particular time in history, when science could really rise to the occassion, it is mired in the same political mumbo jumbo and "official truth" that typified the holy roman empire for over 1000 years. i guess somebody's gotta be the purveyors of truth, just wish it didn't always resolve into a hardened facility. human nature i suppose..

reply to post by undo


I really just don't see anything that you said in the last page as provable. You keep changing who this mysterious creator species would look like the more I went on, and that's just it. You are trying to attach something that not only has no proof, but no room, nor reason, to exist. We're alone on this world. We got here over the death of a billion ancestors whom were not able to compete. Nobody came zooming down to create us. To be frank, you're just not that important. In as much as ants do not pay any attention to us, and we merely look at them and keep moving, I suspect we are the same. Until we do something that can threaten them, I suspect we're just looked past. And to be honest, I wouldn't be supervised if they blew themselves up today, and all we saw was a few extra stars.

Sure I believe in God. And that the Bible is true. But there is no scientific proof for creation, and I doubt there ever will be.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

Some music to inspire you and calm your righteous wrath.





Just don’t go getting shot by your wife while trying to strangle her with a telephone cord.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

I really just don't see anything that you said in the last page as provable. You keep changing who this mysterious creator species would look like the more I went on, and that's just it. You are trying to attach something that not only has no proof, but no room, nor reason, to exist. We're alone on this world. We got here over the death of a billion ancestors whom were not able to compete. Nobody came zooming down to create us. To be frank, you're just not that important. In as much as ants do not pay any attention to us, and we merely look at them and keep moving, I suspect we are the same. Until we do something that can threaten them, I suspect we're just looked past. And to be honest, I wouldn't be supervised if they blew themselves up today, and all we saw was a few extra stars.

Sure I believe in God. And that the Bible is true. But there is no scientific proof for creation, and I doubt there ever will be.

i didn't change who they would look like, i just never mentioned what i suspected in this particular thread. i have elsewhere on ATS, although my data on it has grown over time and slightly changed my original position. it evolved, shall we say. however, to suggest it has no proof when reptiles and amphibians were the big kahunas on this planet for at least as long as mammals, if not longer, is perhaps evidence of you being so cemented in your world view that you literally cannot entertain anything else, not even hypothetically, which is what i mean about the whole "hardened facility," aspect.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Just don’t go getting shot by your wife while trying to strangle her with a telephone cord.

now asty, you know better than to suggest crazy murderous behavior is isolated to one world view.
that's an inflammatory post, and a clear attempt to troll the posters in the thread.

reply to post by undo

Now undo, don’t be naughty. It’s just a different kind of music. The kind I thought someone who portrays Jesus with gaping, fanged jaws where his crotch should be might enjoy.

reply to post by undo


Again, no. Mammals are just about 200 million years old, while amphibians are no where near as young. And the idea that anything that came before us must have been whom created us is silly. There is no need for a creator.

Every group of creatures at some point in time had domination of this planet, because the planet evolves and so thus the creatures on it do too.

Before dinosaurs, there was a whole era of mammal-like reptiles. A sort of missing link. Had the extinction that wiped them out never occurred, reptiles never would have taken over in the first place. Mammals would have.

I'm sure you've never seen these animals before.

They're all older than dinosaurs.

They're all the ancestors of mammals or close cousins.

Look familiar? Most of these template forms were reused by evolution after the dinosaurs went extinct. Rhinos, dogs, rats, lemurs. All template forms that are older than dinosaurs.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...:Moschorhinid1DB.jpg
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...


So do you get it? The fact dinosaurs ruled the world is irrelevant. There were near-mammals that ruled the world before them. This world has had many eras, many time periods, and many rulers. And there is no proof any of them but man were ever capable of what man can do. There is no proof anything created us, and to use such silly logic that some other morphology ruled the world before us so therefore they created us is absolutely foolish.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Please point me to where in the Bible Jesus says that those who believe in evolution will burn in hellfire? It doesn't really seem in his character to have died for our sins and then turn around and say, "Oh yeah, this didn't count for those of you that believe in evolution. I don't care if you believe in and worship me and my Father. I don't care if you follow all of my teachings. And you wanna know why? **** you. That's why."

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


I like the part where you said amen, and then the original post was removed for being uncivil.

Funny. I've no clue what he said, but if it got removed, and you're saying amen, I'm guessing you both are not very Christ-like.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

Originally posted by usmcmailman
Uncivil quote removed

Amen my brother these non believers and so called Christians who believe in evolution and call God a liar can think what they want, whether that be evolving from apes or sea fish or what ever other wacky things they claim, its purely of the works of the devil, and Christians who try and mix Darwinism in with Christianity shall be rewarded with hell fire, its truly evil and deceptive to even try and mix the two together. God said he created us in his image, not the image of an ape... that is pure blasphemy and people like gorden are going to be held accountable of there words and false teachings.

edit on 31-8-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)

edit on 31/8/11 by masqua because: Removed quote

God a liar?

In one chapter of Genesis man is created before the animals and in another the animals before man.

The two geneologies of Jesus in the New Testamant are different and don't agree with each other.

So does this mean God is lying in one or the other, or is He confused?

Perhaps instead of it being us calling God a liar, it is rather YOU who has a limited view of God, which is restricted to a literal interpretation of a book that was never meant to be take literal, and therefore runs into contradicitons like the two mentioned above.

Ever consider that possibility?