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 onthedownlow
I believe that biblical days are refferences to eras of time, not measurements of time. While I don't think dinosaurs existed 6000 years ago, I can't be so quick to discount legends of mythical creatures and dragons in our not to distant path. Truth is, Science relies on constants, but we have a very limited proof of constants and we are unsure of the role atmosheric abnormalities might have in these constants- our biggest window is about three thousand years, yet there is still anomalies in that extremely small span of time. Perhaps the debate should be more phylisophical and less combative?
Originally posted by BagBing
Originally posted by works4dhs
Christians base the 6000 year concept on their understanding of the Bible, as well as what theologians teach.
At this point, i have to interject.
Most christians don't believe any such crap. *Most* Christians have no problem with science and religion. Only the wacko fundamentalists hold such ridiculous views.
You do not represent christianity. Only illinformed Christians.edit on 7-7-2012 by BagBing because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Argyll
Try googling "dinosaurs were made up"
And apparently one of the common google search results is "dinosaurs were made up by the CIA to discourage time travel"
well it made me laugh!
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 (source)
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.
edit on 7-7-2012 by Awen24 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by BagBing
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.
Post ONE paper that agrees with your 'views'. And do it honestly. I bet you can't...
[of course you can't - you're a muppet]
Originally posted by Awen24
Originally posted by BagBing
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.
Post ONE paper that agrees with your 'views'. And do it honestly. I bet you can't...
[of course you can't - you're a muppet]
DAVID, A. (2005, April 12). Speed of light may be slowing, as experts challenge Einstein. Age, The (Melbourne). p. 1.
Luntz, S. (2006, Is light slowing down? Australasian Science, 27, 13-13. Retrieved from ezproxy.utas.edu.au...://search.proquest.com/docview/223707876?accountid=14245
Courtland, R. (2009). Is the universe slowing down?. New Scientist, 202(2703), 6-7.
Merali, Z. (2007). Is time slowing down?. New Scientist, 196(2635/2636), 8.
...your turn.
ABSTRACT The article discusses an analysis of nearby supernovae. It states that the analysis suggests space might not be expanding as quickly as it once was, a hint that the source of dark energy may be more exotic than originally thought. According to the article, the evidence has suggested that dark energy is constant, though its effect on the universe has become stronger as the universe has expanded and the gravitational force between objects weakens with distance.
Originally posted by hxc408
The Bible does not say how old the Earth is, the Catholic Church said it was 6000 years old. So I hardly see why everyone is under the impression that it says that in Genesis or anywhere in the Bible. Ignorance goes both ways.
Originally posted by Pressthebutton
I saw this article on Facebook today, posted by one of my more radical Christian friends. It is supposed to explain how dinosaurs coexisted with humans. I have no problems with religion, I could care less what people believe, BUT that being said, when I see things like this it makes me realize the brainwashing Chistains recieve, and im sure this happens in the other religions as well.
The article is shown here:
What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs?
In the article, I found many things that went against everything I believe and I would say it goes against what a majority of the members on ATS believe. Of these things what I found most interesting is shown here:
According to the Bible: Dinosaurs first existed around 6,000 years ago.3 God made the dinosaurs, along with the other land animals, on Day 6 of the Creation Week (Genesis 1:20–25, 31). Adam and Eve were also made on Day 6—so dinosaurs lived at the same time as people, not separated by eons of time.
That is a red flag right there. It claims that its only been 6,000 years since they roamed the Earth, 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.
Another interesting statement made in the article is this:
After the Flood, around 4,300 years ago, the remnant of the land animals, including dinosaurs, came off the Ark and lived in the present world, along with people. Because of sin, the judgments of the Curse and the Flood have greatly changed earth. Post-Flood climatic change, lack of food, disease, and man’s activities caused many types of animals to become extinct. The dinosaurs, like many other creatures, died out. Why the big mystery about dinosaurs?
I dont think I have to further elaborate on the misguided words of this article, but that is just my opinion and to each his own. I just had to vent my frustration from reading this
Thanks
Originally posted by krazykanuk
Your poor grammar and spelling dicate to me your level of education. Hence, there would be nothing that we could rationally discuss.
Originally posted by solomons path
To get this thread back on topic . . .
I know none of you bible worshipers or science-scoffers will go for this one either, but dinosaurs didn't "die out". While most species of dinosaurs died out during an ELE 65 million years ago, not all did and we see them every day . . . to this day (unless you are locked in a jail cell without windows). They're called birds. Even before the ELE, the fossil record shows us they were transitioning into what we would recognize as birds, today.
Prime example is the Archeopteryx. see link
Archaeopteryx
That certainly wasn't the only species, but probably the best known example. Also, if you look at the bone structure of both it is clear to see. Today, birds are in the same phylogenetic clade as theropods (or two legged dinos).
Also, Crocodilles are the last species remaining from the reptilian dino clade Archosauria.
SO . . . I guess you can say that humans and dinosaurs did "co-mingle" . . . Ah the beauties of evolution!!edit on 7/7/12 by solomons path because: to add
Originally posted by krazykanuk
Religion = Ignorance....You're all a bunch of nutters!
Look at the hard evidence people. Are you still living in the dark ages? Sheesh! i am sure glad all you religious fanatics are not our local detectives, doctors, scientists or heaven forbid politicians....LOL.edit on 7-7-2012 by krazykanuk because: (no reason given)