Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[shmogie]

Bible believing Christians are free to populate such societies, but their religion was not an inspiration in their creation.

Those freedoms come from the humanist advances that characterized the Enlightenment, the onset of modernity, and the advent of the modern, liberal, democratic state with its enumerated and guaranteed personal, individual freedoms. There is nothing in the Bible about freedom of religion or speech, but there are commands to worship only the Christian god and threats regarding blaspheming it. God, the mind reader offers no right to privacy. I just read on another thread that heaven is not a democracy. God doesn't count hands. You won't be able to appeal your conviction on judgment day, and the Bible makes no case for church-state separation. The Bible commands resting on the sabbath, another affront to freedom.

Incidentally, the happiest of those societies, most in western Europe, are now principally atheistic.

The empowerment of the individual, the value of the individual, the equality of women, came from Christianity. 1700 years before "humanism". Christianity burst into a world where people, especially the poor were insignificant and ignored. The individual was simply a part of the state as Rome ceased to be a Republic. As such, they could be used or missed at the will of the state. Women had a lower status, although there were some successful women in Rome. Christianity was opposed to the degradation of prostitution and concubinage things that were ultimately harmful to women. The radical new concept a hospital, was the result of Christianity, the first one being built c. 100AD by the Church, to be followed by one in virtually every city. During the dark ages, it was the Church, once again who cared for the poor, ministered to the sick, and held disintegrating western society together.

Your vaunted humanists have done nothing but put a spin on Christian idea's ; The ultimate value of the individual, the free will and thus freedom of the individual, the importance of all people equally, regardless of sex, race or, yes, religion. These are all Christian ideals, they are there to be read by any who choose.

Now, as is your wont, I expect from you a barrage of examples of alleged Christians doing terrible things, or rantings against "faith in a myth". All of that is totally irrelevant to the issue.

Your humanists and their ideas's were preceded by Christianity, almost 2000 years ago. You won't admit it, no matter, whether you agree or not, the truth is still the truth.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your vaunted humanists have done nothing but put a spin on Christian idea's ; The ultimate value of the individual, the free will and thus freedom of the individual, the importance of all people equally, regardless of sex, race or, yes, religion. These are all Christian ideals, they are there to be read by any who choose.


Now, as is your wont, I expect from you a barrage of examples of alleged Christians doing terrible things, or rantings against "faith in a myth". All of that is totally irrelevant to the issue.

I'm going to enclose my response in a spoiler since we have been wandering off topic, but I wanted to respond anyway.

Spoiler

No, history and the facts are not irrelevant. They are evidence and support the counterargument. You seem to be preemptively trying to exclude them from my rebuttal.

And humanists did more than put a spin on equality and the value of the individual. They made the first move to make it a reality at the American constitutional convention 1787-89.

The problem your these claims is that they are just words that were not rendered in practice, whereas with humanism, they were. We need only compare the Middle Ages, or the Age of Faith, with modernity, or the Age of Reason. Equality doesn't impose itself on man. Man must make that happen himself. And it's not going to happen in a world dominated by the doctrine of the divine right of kings. It didn't. It had to wait for the advent of the The Enlightenment and the creation of the modern, liberal democratic state in the image of humanist values, with specifically enumerated individual rights guaranteed in writing and backed by the force of government.

Where is the equality or value of the individual in admonishing subjects to submit to kings that are above the law, or slaves to their masters, or wives to their husbands? You can call equality a Christian ideal, but if so, that's all it is. Where is the freedom of speech in calling blasphemy an unforgivable sin? Where is the freedom of and from religion in commanding that people worship a specific god and observe a sabbath? Where's the right to privacy in an ideology that teaches that all of your thoughts are monitored? The Middle Ages is when the church had the most authority, yet people were dragged away without charges or arraignment or counsel or trial or notification of their families at the pleasure of the king with nary an objection from the church

As is so often the case with Christianity, we see it make claims for itself that aren't borne out by history or personal experience. Christianity also claims for itself to be a religion of love grounded in the Golden Rule that brings people together and instills them with moral excellence, but that's not what we see.

Shall I refute any or all of those claims for you?

You have to see past the claims and look at the reality. It's as easy to claim that you are all of those fine things as it is to claim that you will make a country great again or that its citizens will be winning so often that they will be tired of winning. Look at the reality. With Christianity, the reality is that equality isn't even a minor issue.

Where is the value of the individual in slavery and institutionalized misogyny?

If some Christians were abolitionists or supported the modern civil rights movement, it wasn't because their Bibles told them that slavery and second-class citizenry are forms of equality, and those Christian abolitionists and civil rights activists had to fight other Christians to win that equality. They had to get those ideas from somewhere else.

If some Christians supported women's suffrage or the modern feminist movement, it wasn't because their Bibles told them that gender equality was a worthy goal, and they had to fight other Christians all of the way to prevail. Once again, enlightened and loving Christians had to get those ideas from somewhere else.

And where was that somewhere else? From the use of reason and compassion, not holy books. And what do we call the use of reason and compassion in ethical philosophy? Rational ethics, which characterizes the humanist take on ethical theory.

Does the church support equality among same sex couples? No. It bitterly opposes it.

Does the church promote church-state separation, which guarantees religious equality? No. It continually attempts to pierce that wall and impose Christian values on non-Christians using the force of government.

Sorry, but history doesn't support your claim that equality or the sanctity of the individual are Christian values.

 

[dad1]

Sorry to disappoint you, but science of evolution accepts the evidence from the science of physics that the laws of nature have remained constant for the last 13 billion years since the Big Bang.

They believe. No proof at all. You cannot defend it. I kid you not.

If you have objections to the established conclusions of physics regarding this matter, please create a separate thread explaining your reasons. I will comment there and refute your reasons. In evolutionary biology, scientists simply use the conclusions made by the more fundamental science of physics to establish dates.

May do tha one day. However, do OT use that belief in any post here if you cannot defend it. Ha.

As the article regarding Ororin shows, bipedal hominins were living 6 million years ago and hence were one of the candidate living species that could have made those prints. What makes it a transitional species between humans and apes is the fact that it contains a mixture of ape-like and human-like skeletal features.

Meaningless, since we do not know what man or even most animals were like then. The fossil record can't tell us that.

Thus, as Wikipedia says, it's teeth were a mixture of ape features and human features. It was bipedal on ground but climbed trees like apes.

Meaningless. Some monkey had a skull somewhat like modern man's. Whoopee do. You read into that a plethora of fables.


Same with your other little ape thingies you post about.

No, it was not made by man. Again the footprint itself shows this. As the paper says:-
"compared to a modern human sole print it is proportionately shorter, with a narrow tapering heel, and lacks a permanent arch.. the tracks would represent a small, primitive, habitually bipedal hominin with hominin-like pedal digits and ball combined with an ape-like sole lacking a bulbous heel. "

Your whole idea seems to be that modern man must represent man of all ages. No. There may have been some differences. Bottom line is that YOU DO NOT KNOW!

Pre flood man feet may have lacked an arch for all we know. No? The soles may have been slimmer also. Who knows?

So we have a small bipedal animal whose feet had a mixture of ape and human features.

Flores man was small. So size is not a definitive factor.

And do we know such animals existing 6 million years ago

You have so called dates based solely on an unsupported belief that the state was the same, therefore radioactivity existed the same..etc. Meaningless.

. YES. We know that Ororin, a hominin, was such a creature.. transitional between modern man and ancient ape, as shown earlier.

No. All we know is that some creatures used to exist that were similar in some ways to creatures that exist today. You do not know about some connection of man to ancestors other than man.

As the comparison between hominin fossils and footprints shows, these add to the evidence for early bipedalism evolution of hominins like Ororin and strengthens the evidence for established science of human evolution.

All it shows is that they have a narrow pool of beliefs from which they leap to godless insane conclusions actually.

Please create a separate thread providing your reasons for your claim that laws of physics were different in the past and I will respond.

Please start one with reasons it was the same! There are no reasons worth a dime that it was the same. It is just assumed, believed. Period. Try and support the idea and learn.

 

[dad1]

Yes, maybe now that you have some understanding where you are, maybe you can start over with the right foot.

Yes.

 

[sayak83]

They believe. No proof at all. You cannot defend it. I kid you not.

May do tha one day. However, do OT use that belief in any post here if you cannot defend it. Ha.
Meaningless, since we do not know what man or even most animals were like then. The fossil record can't tell us that.
Meaningless. Some monkey had a skull somewhat like modern man's. Whoopee do. You read into that a plethora of fables.


Same with your other little ape thingies you post about.



Your whole idea seems to be that modern man must represent man of all ages. No. There may have been some differences. Bottom line is that YOU DO NOT KNOW!

Pre flood man feet may have lacked an arch for all we know. No? The soles may have been slimmer also. Who knows?


Flores man was small. So size is not a definitive factor.
You have so called dates based solely on an unsupported belief that the state was the same, therefore radioactivity existed the same..etc. Meaningless.

No. All we know is that some creatures used to exist that were similar in some ways to creatures that exist today. You do not know about some connection of man to ancestors other than man.
All it shows is that they have a narrow pool of beliefs from which they leap to godless insane conclusions actually.

Please start one with reasons it was the same! There are no reasons worth a dime that it was the same. It is just assumed, believed. Period. Try and support the idea and learn.

Your current reply is typical and generic evolutionary denialism. I am least bothered by that. I have shown that the footprints bolsters rather than refutes what science says about human evolution. Thus basically no conclusions about human evolution needs to be altered based on this paper.

Your claim that this set of footprints creates doubts about human evolution is refuted.

 

[dad1]

Your current reply is typical and generic evolutionary denialism. I am least bothered by that. I have shown that the footprints bolsters rather than refutes what science says about human evolution. Thus basically no conclusions about human evolution needs to be altered based on this paper.

Your claim that this set of footprints creates doubts about human evolution is refuted.

Nope. Sorry. You do not know if they are human prints (no one cares if they are not modern human ones) or not!

Work on that. If they are human, then your timeline is devastated. If not, well your dates are religion, and supposed ancestors also.

 

[shmogie]

Your current reply is typical and generic evolutionary denialism. I am least bothered by that. I have shown that the footprints bolsters rather than refutes what science says about human evolution. Thus basically no conclusions about human evolution needs to be altered based on this paper.

Your claim that this set of footprints creates doubts about human evolution is refuted.

The footprints are truly irrelevant to the concept of macro evolution. Two very, very serious problems exist with it that put the lie to those who say it is "proven fact" ( yes, some in this forum do). 1. Where are the fossils of those intermediary organisms that must exist for the theory to be sustainable. They should be everywhere in great numbers, they are not 2. Though evolutionists distance themselves from it now, in my youth they totally embraced it, abiogenesis. The "miracle" that started the whole ball rolling, supposedly. Without that mercurial first organism, no alleged evolution could take place. Abiogenesis is becoming less and less a possibility as research advances, not more. So, since it is the beginning of the process, evolutionists should be able to explain how chemicals randomly mixed could create a living, replicating organism. I haven't seen that explanation, have you ?

 

[metis]

So, since it is the beginning of the process, evolutionists should be able to explain how chemicals randomly mixed could create a living, replicating organism.

Possibly through replicating molecules that "break" along uniform lines, matched with the fact that some molecules tend to absorb energy from other sources.

 

[QuestioningMind]

The flood likely occurred somewhere around the KT layer. That is some 70 million imaginary years. The state or nature on earth was likely different than it is today, so that radioactive dating won't work for real time. Gilgamesh was post flood.

Nor does it disprove the tooth fairy, so? There is no proving or disproving a fairy tale.



The idea is to show they always contradict themselves and are fund liars and wrong. The years are all wrong anyhow, but within their own little belief system, the prints do not fit.

I rated this post as funny, but wish I could also rate it as terribly sad. Your ignorance of the TOE and the scientific method in general is truly pathetic. I realize that you won't since it will force you to question the legitimacy of your religious fairy tales, but you really should educate yourself before making such laughable posts.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

They believe. No proof at all.

That should be right up your alley, then. You're a faith based thinker, meaning that you not only don't need poof to believe, you don't need any evidence at all.

Some monkey had a skull somewhat like modern man's.

No monkey has a skull even remotely similar to modern man's. Our cranial capacity is about three times that of the apes, whose brais exceep those of monkeys.

How do you think that demonstrating an abject lack of understanding of science is serving you in these discussions?

Your whole idea seems to be that modern man must represent man of all ages.

Actually, we believe that modern man evolved and wasn't represented at all before about 200-300,000 years ago.

Flores man was small.

More bad science. You probably meant Homo floresiensis, the hobbit.

Are you familiar with the term ethos in the discussion of argumentation? It refers to how the speaker or writer's audience perceives the speaker independent of his argument. It includes such perception as whether he knowledgeable about that which speaks, is he fair, does he have any unstated purpose, is he polite, can he be trusted - in short, his character, credibility, competence, and motivations.

How do you think that you are doing with your audience?

You have so called dates based solely on an unsupported belief that the state was the same, therefore radioactivity existed the same..etc. Meaningless.

The assumption that the underlying laws of physics apply in all parts of the universe and at all times after the initial few moments during which they came into being has led to a robust body of useful knowledge. No observation is better explained by assuming that these laws change. What else do we need to know about this matter?

And why do you think that we care what the creationists objections are any more? We understand their values, methods, and agenda, and are very familiar with their track record, which has been sterile of useful ideas and replete with exposed deceptions. Nobody's listening to them except other creationists.

Do you see anybody taking creationism seriously here?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Where are the fossils of those intermediary organisms that must exist for the theory to be sustainable.

That is incorrect. No particular fossil needs to have been preserved, and no preserved fossil need to have been found for the theory to be correct.

Abiogenesis is becoming less and less a possibility as research advances, not more.

Au contraire. We get closer every year to connecting simple organic molecules to the first biological replicator. There are still several links missing in that chain, but it is closer to being a continuous, connecting path than ever before.

How much do you know about that research? Are you qualified to review it for us here?

If not, why are you commenting on what it suggests?

 

[Skwim]

The footprints are truly irrelevant to the concept of macro evolution. Two very, very serious problems exist with it that put the lie to those who say it is "proven fact" ( yes, some in this forum do). 1. Where are the fossils of those intermediary organisms that must exist for the theory to be sustainable. They should be everywhere in great numbers, they are not

That you believe this shows a woeful lack knowledge. I suggest you bone up on fossils, fossilization, and paleontology in general.

2. Though evolutionists distance themselves from it now, in my youth they totally embraced it, abiogenesis.

Using your announced age as 68, I take your relevant youth to be around 1955 to 1965. During that time evolutionists did go along with abiogenesis, just as they do today. However, they also allowed for the possibility of a "hand of god" for the origins of life. So, evolutionists never "totally embraced it, abiogenesis." Thing is, evolution isn't dependent on origins, which is why it doesn't matter. That most evolutionists subscribe to abiogenesis is nothing more than a reflection of their intelligence and education.

Abiogenesis is becoming less and less a possibility as research advances, not more.

In as much as you have little knowledge of fossilization and the abundance of fossils I question your knowledge of abiogenesis. So, we'll need your evidence that backs up this claim.

So, since it is the beginning of the process, evolutionists should be able to explain how chemicals randomly mixed could create a living, replicating organism. I haven't seen that explanation, have you ?

Now you're really showing your ignorance. Here, from Wikipedia.

"Often brought up in the origins debate is how evolution does not explain the origin of life. Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes which take place once life has started up."

.​

 

[dad1]

The footprints are truly irrelevant to the concept of macro evolution.

Macro?

Two very, very serious problems exist with it that put the lie to those who say it is "proven fact" ( yes, some in this forum do). 1. Where are the fossils of those intermediary organisms that must exist for the theory to be sustainable.

Can you prove that man would have even left remains in that former nature? Why would I expect we should find any?

2. Though evolutionists distance themselves from it now, in my youth they totally embraced it, abiogenesis. The "miracle" that started the whole ball rolling, supposedly. Without that mercurial first organism, no alleged evolution could take place.

They have no hope of finding that figment of their imagination.

Abiogenesis is becoming less and less a possibility as research advances, not more

? What research could ever find some ancestor of all things?

. So, since it is the beginning of the process, evolutionists should be able to explain how chemicals randomly mixed could create a living, replicating organism. I haven't seen that explanation, have you ?

Even if they could, that doesn't mean it all slopped together randomly anyhow.

 

[dad1]

I rated this post as funny, but wish I could also rate it as terribly sad. Your ignorance of the TOE and the scientific method in general is truly pathetic. I realize that you won't since it will force you to question the legitimacy of your religious fairy tales, but you really should educate yourself before making such laughable posts.

I actually have an excellent grasp of almost all issues surrounding the origin sciences. I simply hold it all in contempt and disdain. You don't seem to realize that it is truly just a belief system, and one that has no support at all.

 

[metis]

I actually have an excellent grasp of almost all issues surrounding the origin sciences. I simply hold it all in contempt and disdain. You don't seem to realize that it is truly just a belief system, and one that has no support at all.

Then why do you believe in a god?

 

[dad1]

That should be right up your alley, then. You're a faith based thinker, meaning that you not only don't need poof to believe, you don't need any evidence at all.

Faith aside, should not science claims offer more? (regardless of the faith of anyone that may read them)

No monkey has a skull even remotely similar to modern man's.

So? What has that to do with footprints?

Our cranial capacity is about three times that of the apes, whose brais exceep those of monkeys.

That is irellevant to the past. Our brains may have processed differently for all we know. How big would a brain need to be if we used both sides of it!? Stop obsessing only on modern man in the present nature.

How do you think that demonstrating an abject lack of understanding of science is serving you in these discussions?

Hey, it is in my back pocket actually. Like a little lap dog. When you post some science we can talk.

Actually, we believe that modern man evolved and wasn't represented at all before about 200-300,000 years ago.

You believe. Whoopee do. That all you got? In any case, human prints from over 5 million of your imaginary years would be a problem!

More bad science. You probably meant Homo floresiensis, the hobbit.

Correct. Also sometimes referred to as Flores man.

Flores Man ‘hobbits’ found in Indonesia were NOT direct relatives of modern humans, scientists confirm

Are you familiar with the term ethos in the discussion of argumentation? It refers to how the speaker or writer's audience perceives the speaker independent of his argument. It includes such perception as whether he knowledgeable about that which speaks, is he fair, does he have any unstated purpose, is he polite, can he be trusted - in short, his character, credibility, competence, and motivations.

What you grasp tells me more about you than the post.

The assumption that the underlying laws of physics apply in all parts of the universe and at all times after the initial few moments during which they came into being has led to a robust body of useful knowledge.

Exactly. You cannot begin to prove or support that. How do you think 'the audience' feels about that!?

No observation is better explained by assuming that these laws change. What else do we need to know about this matter?

Full stop. You can explain it all using the tooth fairy also. So? The issue is what do you KNOW

And why do you think that we care what the creationists objections are any more?

Why do you think we care if you care? Really?

 

[dad1]

Then why do you believe in a god?

That was proven. Observed. Tested. Repeated. Tried.

 

[metis]

That was proven. Observed. Tested. Repeated. Tried.

Fine, then produce objectively-derived evidence, and your Bible does not qualify since it is not objective. I read it every day, attend services every weekend, but I well know that belief is based on faith, not objectively-derived evidence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The issue is what do you KNOW

What I know is no longer knowable to you, so I have no motive to trouble you with it. Your window of opportunity for such understanding, swallowed up by a lifetime of faith based thinking and scientific ignorance, has expired.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Isn't that the value of a thread like this? Let's let the man speak and show us how his faith has transformed him.

I'd be completely on board with this if there were contributions that contained anything other than denial and insults.