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 john_bmth
but, since humans where supposedly giants back then, its plausible.
This sentence... is utterly nuts. Do you seriously believe this??
Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by dayve
It doesn't explain anything. There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that a) the world is only 6k years old, b) that dinosaurs and humans co-existed (there's a good 60-odd million year gap between the two) and c) that giants ever existed. It only makes sense to someone who's trying desperately reconcile their religious dogma with the known facts (and completely ignoring the facts that contradict their dogma).
Maybe?
Maybe mainstream science is wrong
Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by Pressthebutton
The dinosaurs was an experiment, before man was created. Man was to first take this form, but it didn't work out. Now, you have man as you see it today, in the image of Father.
Why is your god the "father" and if man was created in his image there would be no women as they are not like him, they are different.
But that is the norm for "christians".
And what about the multiple "gods" that descended from heaven to mate with earth's women?
Originally posted by AndyMayhew
I'm pretty sure 99% of Christians think dinosaurs died out around 65 million years ago, though some may disagree over the role a meteorite impact had in it all.
I suspect most Jews and Muslims think the same.
Just because a handful of fundamentalist extremists think a children's story is real, doesn't mean anyone else does. Don't tar the many with the brush of the stupid. There are always those who think the tooth fairy is real and that the elephant got it's trunk in a fight with a crocodile. Sad, really.edit on 7-7-2012 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by Sailor Sam
Why is your god the "father" and if man was created in his image there would be no women as they are not like him, they are different.
When you see me speak of man on here, I am speaking of both male and female. Instead of assuming, a question would you let you understand what I speak on.
But that is the norm for "christians".
You must have confused me with someone else?
And what about the multiple "gods" that descended from heaven to mate with earth's women?
These were of the watchers, not Father. As there is only one God.
edit on 7-7-2012 by jhill76 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by works4dhs
Christians base the 6000 year concept on their understanding of the Bible, as well as what theologians teach.
Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by TruthSeekerMike
Maybe?
Maybe mainstream science is wrong
Ok get this, they say that humans came about around 100,000-150,000 years ago, and that the human genome is no older then 250,000 years max. Then I read a news report on Yahoo news that says they found tools and potteries used by humans in a community, that dates back 500,000 years old.
So um.....? Yeah i see things like this all the time and they just can't get it right, or "get their story straight"edit on 7/7/2012 by GunzCoty because: missed a 0
Originally posted by Pressthebutton
I'll just stick to the obvious here, we have so many sites that predate that number! One of the most well known of these I think is Gobeki Tepe,
The site isn't just old, it redefines old: the temple was built 11,500 years ago—a staggering 7,000 years before the Great Pyramid, and more than 6,000 years before Stonehenge first took shape.
Thanks
Originally posted by AndyMayhew
I'm pretty sure 99% of Christians think dinosaurs died out around 65 million years ago, though some may disagree over the role a meteorite impact had in it all.
I suspect most Jews and Muslims think the same.
Just because a handful of fundamentalist extremists think a children's story is real, doesn't mean anyone else does. Don't tar the many with the brush of the stupid. There are always those who think the tooth fairy is real and that the elephant got it's trunk in a fight with a crocodile. Sad, really.edit on 7-7-2012 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Awen24
Originally posted by Pressthebutton
I'll just stick to the obvious here, we have so many sites that predate that number! One of the most well known of these I think is Gobeki Tepe,
The site isn't just old, it redefines old: the temple was built 11,500 years ago—a staggering 7,000 years before the Great Pyramid, and more than 6,000 years before Stonehenge first took shape.
Thanks
I'm not really seeking a significant contribution to the topic here, but this much I can address.
What you'll find is that the majority of our dating methods are reliant on the concept of uniformity. Uniformity is demonstrably false, however. Take, for example, the speed of light. The commonly accepted viewpoint up until the mid-19th century was that light was instantaneous. Not only was that theory then proven to be false, but in the intervening years, subsequent results have shown that the speed of light is slowing down.
Now, with this being the case, numerous other assumed constants are called into question, including (notably, on this topic) decay rates for various substances. Let's use C-14 dating as an example, given that most people are familiar with it. If we assume that C-14 has a uniform half-life, then we can safely measure the age of any given rock with some accuracy. If, however, the half-life of C-14 does not follow a uniform pattern, or if, like the speed of light, the decay rate has slowed down on an exponential scale, then suddenly the time frames we're talking about are not only incorrect, but they are potentially SIGNIFICANTLY incorrect.
Now, I'm not suggesting that everything your friend has posited on facebook is correct (I disagree with some of the comments you've relayed, on multiple levels), but it's not black-and-white wrong as you seem to think it is.