Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[sayak83]

Not at all. They are.

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!



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

Completely false. There are lots of fossils from the past and biologists have determined that the rates at which animals are observed to be fossilized in the past is the same as is the case now. It's called the science of taphonomy and provides very accurate estimates based on currently observed physical processes regarding which ancient rocks are going to be fossil rich or fossil poor. You seriously don't think that paleontologists run around the globe and come across fossils by blind luck do you. Here is an excellent example as to how physical processes today unerring guide scientists to discovering evidence regarding the past showing the uniformity of laws of nature through time.

Taphonomy & Preservation
preservation

Book on taphonomy
Taphonomy

 

[gnostic]

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

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?

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


"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.
Don't recite fables here. Utter rubbish.
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?
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.
Who cares?

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

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.
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.
Says you. Water from the flood was from space and deep under the earth!
Great...so?
Is this supposed to lead to some point??

The only fables I see is talking serpent and talking donkey in the bible.

You do know what a "fable" is, don't you?

Fable is a narratives of animals that can talk, or exhibit human traits or behaviours. The themes of most fables, are ones where there are moral meanings to the stories.

In the case of myth of Adam and Eve, the fable is in where Eve was persuaded to eat the forbidden fruit. The moral to the story or fable is - you cannot to disobey God's commandment without consequences.

Fables can be found in myths and fairytales.

Genesis falls under the category of myths (because of creation and Flood myths) and fable (because of talking animals).

Rubbish is actually believing in a living breathing man can made from dust.

Rubbish is believing in that people spoke only one language than hundreds of different languages after god disrupted the building of the Tower of Babel.

Rubbish is believing water come from out of space. Water or H2O don't exist in space. Making such a claim is just...well, there's no other word for it - it is stupid, because of zero evidences.

Rubbish is believing that the Flood can covered the entire earth as well as the highest mountains, and then vanished.

You want to talk about myths and fables, then you are pretty much blind if you don't see it been filled with them in Genesis.

 

[Looncall]

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

Specious claptrap. Don't you lot realize how silly you sound? Anything that changed in the past would leave traces in the present. None such are found.

Don't you find it telling that you need to go to such depths of nonsense to support your superstitions?

Scoundrels are making a good living convincing rubes of nonsense.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

Adjust your timeline?

Headline: Creationism in crisis! Entire hypothesis turned on it's head. God is dead! Evolution ruled in.

 

[Polymath257]

Proof?

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

Well, the alternative is to go to Last Thursdayism. Do you know what that is?

It is the position that the universe with all of our memories was created last Thursday. There is no way to prove this is NOT the case since all we do happens after last Thursday. There simply was no Last Wednesday or any time previous to that. All evidence we *think* comes from the past was actually created in the form we see it last Thursday, and so it is unreliable as a way of investigating the past.

So, the question is whether we have to take Last Thursdayism seriously. I maintain that we do not. To maintain this position is to say that there is no way of doing any historical science at all. If you take this position, you have thereby stepped outside the confines of reason.

But, once we reject Last Thursdayism, we *can* say that the evidence we see now is from the past and tells us about conditions in the past. In particular, it tells us that we can use the present and the physical laws we find now to investigate the past.

Since your position is the rejection of this, you are essentially promoting a version of Last Thursdayism and are deciding that reasonable discussion is impossible.

 

[metis]

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

Such a disingenuous way to avoid answering what I posted, but it really doesn't surprise me one iota that you would do that. You demand evidence from others and yet won't provide evidence yourself.

BTW, do you honestly believe being so sarcastic and insulting towards others is really how a Christian should act? Most observant Christians that I know don't act like you are acting here.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Time 'speeds up or slows down' only in very specific situations and from the point of view of specific frames of reference.

Yes, to avoid Last Thursdayism, we assume the laws that apply now also applied in the past.

As for C14 (why is it that creationists only seem to know about C14??), and other radioactive decay rates, we have extensively investigated when and why decay rates change. For example, for nuclei that undergo electron capture, very high pressures can affect the decay rate. The largest such effect is less than 1%. Very high temperatures can affect decay rates if they are high enough that the atoms are ionized completely and that nuclear reactions can happen. This takes upwards on tens of millions of degrees. Chemical environment can also affect decay rates, but again the effects are quite small and don't affect the types of decay used in dating methods. Very nigh neutron fluxes can cause nuclear transformations (they don't actually change the decay rates), but fluxes that high also affect other, stable nuclei and such effects are detectable easily.

So, no, we *don't* simply assume the decay rates are the same as in the past. We look actively at how the decay rates are affected by known phenomena and see to what extent that can change our analysis. In all cases relevant to dating methods, the effects are much smaller than 1% and so are less than other procedural sources of uncertainty.

 

[Polymath257]

Proof?

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!

Yes, we can. For example, a supernova in the Large Magellanic cloud, which is 168,000 light years away produced light that was reflected by nearby dust. We can use simple trigonometry to determine how far that dust cloud was from the sueprnova and thereby determine how fast the light was moving at that time in the past.

Unless you think the light was created in route to us, the conclusion of both an age of 168,000 years and that the speed of light was the same then and now is unavoidable.

But if you assume that the light was created in route to us, then you are essentially proposing Last Thursdayism and rejecting that any historical science is possible at all.

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.

Well, we see the effects of radioactivity in the past: isotopes that are only produced by radioactive decay of shorter lived isotopes, for example.

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

I have looked at much more data than you can even imagine exists. You work from a position of ignorance and that encourages ignorance. I reject that whole heartedly.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Try to produce any evidence that they do. You are the one making the extreme claim.

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe other folks beside you read posts.

Maybe other posters have read the books on the subject and don't need a basic refresher course.

Yeah right. Run along.
You have NO idea how atoms or molecules or genes worked in the former state.

Sure we do! The physics is rather simple (based on quantum mechanics, though). Unless you have an alternative proposal that is testable, you are just proposing obstacles without any reason behind them.

 

[sayak83]

Well, the alternative is to go to Last Thursdayism. Do you know what that is?

It is the position that the universe with all of our memories was created last Thursday. There is no way to prove this is NOT the case since all we do happens after last Thursday. There simply was no Last Wednesday or any time previous to that. All evidence we *think* comes from the past was actually created in the form we see it last Thursday, and so it is unreliable as a way of investigating the past.

So, the question is whether we have to take Last Thursdayism seriously. I maintain that we do not. To maintain this position is to say that there is no way of doing any historical science at all. If you take this position, you have thereby stepped outside the confines of reason.

But, once we reject Last Thursdayism, we *can* say that the evidence we see now is from the past and tells us about conditions in the past. In particular, it tells us that we can use the present and the physical laws we find now to investigate the past.

Since your position is the rejection of this, you are essentially promoting a version of Last Thursdayism and are deciding that reasonable discussion is impossible.

It's quite easy to prove that laws of physics have been the same since the Big Bang. Scientists used the laws of nuclear physics as understood from synchrotron experiments on earth to predict the element balance of the universe as well as the existence and nature of the Cosmic Background Radiation decades before observations confirmed those predictions. That's an ironclad proof. Please write a good post on this to put this ridiculous claim by "dad" to rest.

 

[shmogie]

Time 'sppeds up or slows down' only in very specific situations and from the point of view of specific frames of reference.

Yes, to avoid Last Thursdayism, we assume the laws that apply now also applied in the past.

As for C14 (why is it that creationists only seem to know about C14??), and other radioactive decay rates, we have extensively investigated when and why decay rates change. For example, for nuclei that undergo electron capture, very high pressures can affect the decay rate. The largest such effect is less than 1%. Very high temperatures can affect decay rates if they are high enough that the atoms are ionized completely and that nuclear reactions can happen. This takes upwards on tens of millions of degrees. Chemical environment can also affect decay rates, but again the effects are quite small and don't affect the types of decay used in dating methods. Very nigh neutron fluxes can cause nuclear transformations (they don't actually change the decay rates), but fluxes that high also affect other, stable nuclei and such effects are detectable easily.

So, no, we *don't* simply assume the decay rates are the same as in the past. We look actively at how the decay rates are affected by known phenomena and see to what extent that can change our analysis. In all cases relevant to dating methods, the effects are much smaller than 1% and so are less than other procedural sources of uncertainty.

I think your c 14 and other possible decay rates is wrong, I will look into it to be sure. The point is, when the laws of physics allow the possibility of variables, unobserved phenomena in the past cannot be assured to be compliant with phenomena today. At best, you can say we believe. That's called a theory, not fact.

 

[Polymath257]

It's quite easy to prove that laws of physics have been the same since the Big Bang. Scientists used the laws of nuclear physics as understood from synchrotron experiments on earth to predict the element balance of the universe as well as the existence and nature of the Cosmic Background Radiation decades before observations confirmed those predictions. That's an ironclad proof. Please write a good post on this to put this ridiculous claim by "dad" to rest.

If he is simply denying that time existed back then, then it forms a retreat to Last Thursdayism.

Otherwise, the agreement between the modern analysis of nuclear cross sections and the observations of light element abundances is quite conclusive that the laws were the same at least back to the nucleogenesis epoch.

The basic problem with claiming the laws could be different in the past is the consistency of our observations *about* the past with our current physical laws. If the laws were different in the past, many remnants would be quite different NOW. So, if the past existed at all, then the laws were at least very similar. If time *didn't* exist, then we essentially have Last Thursdayism and the claim that it just 'looks like' there was a past.

 

[sayak83]

If he is simply denying that time existed back then, then it forms a retreat to Last Thursdayism.

Otherwise, the agreement between the modern analysis of nuclear cross sections and the observations of light element abundances is quite conclusive that the laws were the same at least back to the nucleogenesis epoch.

The basic problem with claiming the laws could be different in the past is the consistency of our observations *about* the past with our current physical laws. If the laws were different in the past, many remnants would be quite different NOW. So, if the past existed at all, then the laws were at least very similar. If time *didn't* exist, then we essentially have Last Thursdayism and the claim that it just 'looks like' there was a past.

No he is saying laws of physics and "flow" of time was different back then. He said something like "trees sprang up in hours and animals rose from and crumbled to dust in a day" and other such nonsense.

 

[shmogie]

Specious claptrap. Don't you lot realize how silly you sound? Anything that changed in the past would leave traces in the present. None such are found.

Don't you find it telling that you need to go to such depths of nonsense to support your superstitions?

Scoundrels are making a good living convincing rubes of nonsense.

You certainly live up to your name. Many things can change without leaving any trace today. As an example, the atmosphere of the alleged early earth, and that in which the alleged primordial soup produced life, is totally unknown, with no trace left of what it was. Virtually all early life investigators agree with this.
Friend, I am no "rube", and I suspect that my academic achievements are superior to yours. Your problem is that your faith stands in the way of being you objective. I was once just like you, but I came to a point where I looked at different idea's. Your bloated self superiority doesn't impress me one whit.

 

[Polymath257]

I think your c 14 and other possible decay rates is wrong, I will look into it to be sure. The point is, when the laws of physics allow the possibility of variables, unobserved phenomena in the past cannot be assured to be compliant with phenomena today. At best, you can say we believe. That's called a theory, not fact.

And simply claiming there *might* be some phenomenon that was different in the past with no way to test it is ultimately denying that historical science is possible. I firmly reject that. Unless you can *demonstrate* some inconsistency with modern laws applying in the same way in the past, or make a testable prediction that can show how things were different tin the past, there is no reason to think the laws were different in the past.

You claim some 'unobserved phenomenon in the past' that could invalidate the radioactive dates. The problem is that nuclear reactions are high energy reactions. They are *much* higher energy than simple chemical reactions because have to overcome the coulomb barrier of the nucleus. ANY reaction that is that energetic will have *other* consequences that are easily observed.

 

[Polymath257]

You certainly live up to your name. Many things can change without leaving any trace today. As an example, the atmosphere of the alleged early earth, and that in which the alleged primordial soup produced life, is totally unknown, with no trace left of what it was. Virtually all early life investigators agree with this.

Not completely true. For example, the weathering of the rocks depends on the chemical composition of the atmosphere. That's how we know that the *very* early Earth didn't have a lot of free oxygen in the atmosphere (it had some, but not nearly what exists today).

Also, completely irrelevant to issues of radioactive dating. The *dates* won't change simply because of differences in atmosphere.

Friend, I am no "rube", and I suspect that my academic achievements are superior to yours. Your problem is that your faith stands in the way of being you objective. I was once just like you, but I came to a point where I looked at different idea's. Your bloated self superiority doesn't impress me one whit.

And I suspect my achievements are superior to yours. This amounts to an ad hominen unless you can *demonstrate* a problem with the current understanding. In which case, I expect to see a link to your scholarly paper (or someone else's) showing this deficiency.

 

[shmogie]

If he is simply denying that time existed back then, then it forms a retreat to Last Thursdayism.

Otherwise, the agreement between the modern analysis of nuclear cross sections and the observations of light element abundances is quite conclusive that the laws were the same at least back to the nucleogenesis epoch.

The basic problem with claiming the laws could be different in the past is the consistency of our observations *about* the past with our current physical laws. If the laws were different in the past, many remnants would be quite different NOW. So, if the past existed at all, then the laws were at least very similar. If time *didn't* exist, then we essentially have Last Thursdayism and the claim that it just 'looks like' there was a past.

Time has existed since the big bang. Since then, it has not existed. My point simply is that E= MC squared shows that time is variable and can be modified, this has been by experiment proven. The physical laws are consistent and haven't changed, nevertheless, using them as a tool of measurement today may be in some cases measuring a subject that acted differently within the given laws in the past.

 

[Polymath257]

I think your c 14 and other possible decay rates is wrong, I will look into it to be sure. The point is, when the laws of physics allow the possibility of variables, unobserved phenomena in the past cannot be assured to be compliant with phenomena today. At best, you can say we believe. That's called a theory, not fact.

The *production* rates of C14 in the atmosphere depend on the amount of radiation from the sun and are known to vary. That is why we have to calibrate C14 to some other method for accurate dates (which also gives evidence of solar flux thereby).

Other radioactive methods don't have this issue.

 

[shmogie]

Please reply there.

Where ? I am in this thread, just as you were