Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[McBell]

That only works when the simple minded are the target audience
So you failed once agian.

 

[gnostic]

How would you know say, if that much water existed near the KT layer?

The Tertiary period is no longer used by stratigraphers and palaeontologists.

Tertiary has been replaced with the Paleogene and Neogene periods.

So these days, experts rarely use KT or Cretaceous-Tertiary layer, rather it is now K-Pg or Cretaceous-Paleogene layer. It denotes the time of extinction of dinosaurs at the end of Cretaceous period, about 66 or 67 million years ago, known as K-Pg extinction event.

If the flood was dated 70 million years ago, how would the prints shatter anything if they are just 5 million!? Gong.

Wait a minute...

Are you saying the Genesis Flood occurred during the K-Pg extinction?

There are no Homo species or even Australopithecus species 66 million years ago.

As sayak83 have pointed out a number of times, the prints would have been made by the bipedal Orrorin. The footprints would have nothing to do with with any Homo species.

The Homo genus began with the species Homo habilis 2.4 million years ago, where as modern humans or the Homo sapiens only have began to appear around 200,000 years ago.

There is 60-61 million-year gap between K-Pg extinction and that of the footprints discovered.

That gap poses a huge problem with your claim, not only to the footprints in Crete, but also to Genesis Flood and Noah.

Second, i don't know if you are a American, Canadian, British or Australian, and that I don't know which bible you regularly read, so I assuming that you would be reading any OT translation of the Masoretic Text (MT) - eg KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NJPS, or even the Watchtower bible from JW.

If it is MT-based, as opposed to the Greek Septuagint, then calculating backwards from the time of Fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE, all the reigns of kings in 1 & 2 Kings, passages of 1 Kings 6:1 (480 years) and Exodus 12:40-41, and the generations in Genesis, you would get about 2340 BCE - or 4357 years ago.

So there are huge gap between Noah's Flood and 5 million years old footprints, and even larger gap between Noah and K-Pg extinction event.

We know that what killed the dinosaurs were the asteroid and not any global flood, because the evidences show that K-Pg layer of clay stone has high concentration of iridium.

Iridium are not naturally found on Earth, and can only be found in the localities of asteroid impacts on Earth. The impact would cause debris and dust of iridium to cover some areas.

If you were to calculate the generations within Genesis (again MT- based), from Adam to Abraham, there is only 292 years between the Flood in Genesis (1656 AM) and the birth of Abraham (1948 AM).

Side note: AM means Anno Mundi, calculation of time from creation of Adam. So when Seth was born, for example, Adam was 130 years old, hence 130 AM. And when Enosh was born, Seth was 105 years old, so Enosh was born in 235 AM (thus 130 years + 105 years = 235 AM)...and so on.

Noah was born in 1556 AM.

The Flood occurred when Noah was 600 years old, hence 1656 AM. Abraham was born in 1948 AM. Therefore 292 years between Flood and Abraham.

 

[dad1]

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.

Long done deal. In this thread we look at science and what support it has for the origin issues. Pony up.

 

[dad1]

That only works when the simple minded are the target audience
So you failed once agian.

No. If we comprehend something we can teach it. What's your problem?

 

[dad1]

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.

You pretend to know what you cannot post. Sure.

 

[dad1]

The Tertiary period is no longer used by stratigraphers and palaeontologists

I know. and Pluto is no longer a planet. You know what we mean though.

So these days, experts rarely use KT or Cretaceous-Tertiary layer, rather it is now K-Pg or Cretaceous-Paleogene layer. It denotes the time of extinction of dinosaurs at the end of Cretaceous period, about 66 or 67 million years ago, known as K-Pg extinction event.

Most probably know that. You should know there is iridium in the layer. The flood waters came from space and under the earth. Guess where Iridium comes from?

Wait a minute...

Are you saying the Genesis Flood occurred during the K-Pg extinction?

Somewhere near that time is my current guess. I could adjust if needed, any reasons to do that?

There are no Homo species or even Australopithecus species 66 million years ago.

There was no 66 million years ago either! The KT layer was about 4500 years ago in actual time. Man was here for a god 1600 years before that.

As sayak83 have pointed out a number of times, the prints would have been made by the bipedal Orrorin. The footprints would have nothing to do with with any Homo species.

"The 20 specimens found as of 2007 include: the posterior part of a mandible in two pieces; a symphysis and several isolated teeth; three fragments of femora; a partial humerus; a proximal phalanx; and a distal thumb phalanx. [4]" ..wiki..

Please show how you have footprints from this thing?! Ha. Get a grip.

The Homo genus began with the species Homo habilis 2.4 million years ago, where as modern humans or the Homo sapiens only have began to appear around 200,000 years ago.

Don't recite fables here. Utter rubbish.

There is 60-61 million-year gap between K-Pg extinction and that of the footprints discovered.

In your so called dating which is solely based on the belief the state of the past was the same. In reality, the footprints could be something like 4300 years old or whatever. So we may be looking at post flood man. (or some post flood ape creature). Too bad you don't know what it was eh?

That gap poses a huge problem with your claim, not only to the footprints in Crete, but also to Genesis Flood and Noah.

None at all. Your fantasy dates are only as good as the same state past they are based on. Prove there was a same state past. Otherwise you have religion.

Second, i don't know if you are a American, Canadian, British or Australian, and that I don't know which bible you regularly read, so I assuming that you would be reading any OT translation of the Masoretic Text (MT) - eg KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NJPS, or even the Watchtower bible from JW.

Who cares?

If it is MT-based, as opposed to the Greek Septuagint, then calculating backwards from the time of Fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE, all the reigns of kings in 1 & 2 Kings, passages of 1 Kings 6:1 (480 years) and Exodus 12:40-41, and the generations in Genesis, you would get about 2340 BCE - or 4357 years ago.

Great. So? I use round numbers, and allow for a hundred or two years either way due to possible interpretive error.

So there are huge gap between Noah's Flood and 5 million years old footprints, and even larger gap between Noah and K-Pg extinction event.

None at all. From the KT till now would only be some 4300 - 4500 years. The prints would be less. Don't be confused by your religious date attempts.

We know that what killed the dinosaurs were the asteroid and not any global flood, because the evidences show that K-Pg layer of clay stone has high concentration of iridium.

Nope. You do not. You think. You believe. You assume. You have grasped at straws and sought explanations that fit into the same state past belief.

Iridium are not naturally found on Earth, and can only be found in the localities of asteroid impacts on Earth. The impact would cause debris and dust of iridium to cover some areas.

Says you. Water from the flood was from space and deep under the earth!

If you were to calculate the generations within Genesis (again MT- based), from Adam to Abraham, there is only 292 years between the Flood in Genesis (1656 AM) and the birth of Abraham (1948 AM).

Great...so?

Side note: AM means Anno Mundi, calculation of time from creation of Adam. So when Seth was born, for example, Adam was 130 years old, hence 130 AM. And when Enosh was born, Seth was 105 years old, so Enosh was born in 235 AM (thus 130 years + 105 years = 235 AM)...and so on.

Noah was born in 1556 AM.

The Flood occurred when Noah was 600 years old, hence 1656 AM. Abraham was born in 1948 AM. Therefore 292 years between Flood and Abraham.

Is this supposed to lead to some point??

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

Again, your post is both sad and funny. As you sit before a computing device, a testament to the scientific method's ability to help us comprehend and manipulate electrons that enables you to communicate over the Internet, you have the unmitigated audacity to claim that that the scientific method has no support at all. Your world is surrounded by advances made due to the scientific method, yet you hold it all in contempt and disdain.

I suppose that there is no cure for such willful ignorance.

 

[sayak83]

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.

You are the one doing the wild speculation here. Where are the skeletons of this supposed "man" with big brains like ours and ape-like feet? On the other hand we do have multiple skeletons of ancient transitional two-legged hominins with mix of ape-like and human-like features throughout the body. It's you who have no evidence for your speculations while we have lots of evidence for our conclusions.

 

[sayak83]

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 ?

Please see my posts in the thread below and respond there.
Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

 

[Polymath257]

No. If we comprehend something we can teach it. What's your problem?

Teaching to those who don't want to learn is a futile task.

Sorry, but some subjects are just complicated if you want to go into detail. Most are simple enough on the surface, but dig a bit and you *have* to deal with technicalities.

So, for example, the basic ideas of chemistry are quite simple: molecules are collections of atoms and chemical reactions rearrange the atoms to form different molecules. The details can get quite involved, though.

 

[Polymath257]

No idea what you are talking about. Have you heard that nature was different in the past?

Yes, nature was different, but the basic physical laws were the same.

We can, for example, test that the speed of light was the same hundreds of thousands of years ago by the data from supernovas in other galaxies.

We can tell that radioactive materials had the same decay rates by looking at the images of other galaxies today, because the light took millions of years to get here.

And no, there is no consistent way to make the speed of light change and keep consistent with the data we have.

You claim that the laws might have been different in the past. But if the data we are able to collect NOW about the past is consistent with those laws acting the same in the past, then there is no reason to suspect that they have changed. And there is such consistency.

 

[Polymath257]

The dates are based on a belief the past nature and laws were the same. You must prove they were or you may not use that belief for dates.

OK. How would the laws have been different in the past in such a way as to affect the dates we determine? If the rates of radioactivity were different, then the fundamental physics would have also had to be different (since those rates are determined by such physics). But that would then affect the stability of other elements such as oxygen and nitrogen, making them decay into other isotopes. But the remains of such decays would be preserved today. They are not found.

The problem, you see, is that different laws in the past would have produced effects quite different that what we see today, but those changes would have been preserved, producing situations that could not be explained with the modern laws. But what we see *is* explainable by the modern laws, so we can conclude that the laws did not change significantly enough to affect our dates.

There is some possibility that our current descriptions of physical laws were different in the very distant past (close to the time of the Big Bang), but even there, the fact that we can get a consistent picture using what applies today shows that the changes for times we can explore were not too large.

 

[shmogie]

Please see my posts in the thread below and respond there.
Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

Read it. The so called "RNA world" still fails to account for the encoded information that must exist to operate a living organism. The detailed, encoded information, must exist before the organism, else it wouldn't survive. Your task is to show how a random mixture of chemicals can produce this detailed encoded information to operate an as yet non existent life form. Or, to show how this random collection of chemicals can at the same time produce an organism and the detailed encoded information for it to operate. The same problem exists with RNA as it does with DNA, THE INFORMATION PROBLEM

 

[sayak83]

Read it. The so called "RNA world" still fails to account for the encoded information that must exist to operate a living organism. The detailed, encoded information, must exist before the organism, else it wouldn't survive. Your task is to show how a random mixture of chemicals can produce this detailed encoded information to operate an as yet non existent life form. Or, to show how this random collection of chemicals can at the same time produce an organism and the detailed encoded information for it to operate. The same problem exists with RNA as it does with DNA, THE INFORMATION PROBLEM

Please reply there.

 

[shmogie]

OK. How would the laws have been different in the past in such a way as to affect the dates we determine? If the rates of radioactivity were different, then the fundamental physics would have also had to be different (since those rates are determined by such physics). But that would then affect the stability of other elements such as oxygen and nitrogen, making them decay into other isotopes. But the remains of such decays would be preserved today. They are not found.

The problem, you see, is that different laws in the past would have produced effects quite different that what we see today, but those changes would have been preserved, producing situations that could not be explained with the modern laws. But what we see *is* explainable by the modern laws, so we can conclude that the laws did not change significantly enough to affect our dates.

There is some possibility that our current descriptions of physical laws were different in the very distant past (close to the time of the Big Bang), but even there, the fact that we can get a consistent picture using what applies today shows that the changes for times we can explore were not too large.

The laws don't change, but there application very well may. We know that time can speed up, slow down, or stop. We can only assume that the time of the past was the same as today. The same with the decay of carbon 14, we assume that it was absorbed and decays at the same rate as today. There are other examples................. we assume much

 

[dad1]

As you sit before a computing device, a testament to the scientific method's ability to help us comprehend and manipulate electrons that enables you to communicate over the Internet, you have the unmitigated audacity to claim that that the scientific method has no support at all. .

Nothing about any computer or any other invention has anything at all to do with origin sciences.

 

[dad1]

You are the one doing the wild speculation here.

Not at all. They are.

Where are the skeletons of this supposed "man" with big brains like ours and ape-like feet?

In the former nature man and most animals likely could not leave remains. From dust to dust real fast. Only some creatures for whatever reason, could and did. The fossil record is therefore a record of a tiny tiny tiny slice of all the life on earth that lived!

On the other hand we do have multiple skeletons of ancient transitional two-legged hominins with mix of ape-like and human-like features throughout the body. It's you who have no evidence for your speculations while we have lots of evidence for our conclusions.

After the nature change which was probably a little after the flood (1-300 years) we could leave remains.

 

[dad1]

Teaching to those who don't want to learn is a futile task.

Maybe other folks beside you read posts.

Sorry, but some subjects are just complicated if you want to go into detail. Most are simple enough on the surface, but dig a bit and you *have* to deal with technicalities.

Yeah right. Run along.

So, for example, the basic ideas of chemistry are quite simple: molecules are collections of atoms and chemical reactions rearrange the atoms to form different molecules. The details can get quite involved, though.

You have NO idea how atoms or molecules or genes worked in the former state.

 

[dad1]

Yes, nature was different, but the basic physical laws were the same.

Proof?

We can, for example, test that the speed of light was the same hundreds of thousands of years ago by the data from supernovas in other galaxies.

No. You can't. You do not even know the size or distance to any star!! You do not even know if time exists in the far universe!

We can tell that radioactive materials had the same decay rates by looking at the images of other galaxies today, because the light took millions of years to get here.

Hilarious. You don't so much as know if there was any radioactivity. What, we see it now and assume it always was? Do tell.

And no, there is no consistent way to make the speed of light change and keep consistent with the data we have.

Yes. There sure is.

You claim that the laws might have been different in the past. But if the data we are able to collect NOW about the past is consistent with those laws acting the same in the past, then there is no reason to suspect that they have changed. And there is such consistency.

Really don't know what you are talking about I see. Try to post said data and learn.

 

[dad1]

The laws don't change, but there application very well may. We know that time can speed up, slow down, or stop. We can only assume that the time of the past was the same as today. The same with the decay of carbon 14, we assume that it was absorbed and decays at the same rate as today. There are other examples................. we assume much

Yes. Laws change. Try and prove they do not.