Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[Polymath257]

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.

Then you don't understand relativity. To make time 'variable' requires either very high relative speeds (comparable to that of light) or very high gravitational fields (much larger than on the surface of the sun). Both can be discounted on the Earth.

 

[sayak83]

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

In the abiogenesis thread to which I linked. I try to keep my replies aligned with the OP topic so that I can find them easily for reference later.

 

[Desert Snake]

In the abiogenesis thread to which I linked. I try to keep my replies aligned with the OP topic so that I can find them easily for reference later.

A practical argument for evolution includes a theory on abiogenesis. This isn't some scientific discussion limited by parameters.

 

[sayak83]

A practical argument for evolution includes a theory on abiogenesis. This isn't some scientific discussion limited by parameters.

This thread was created by another claiming that discovery of a set of footprints had upended the scientific picture of human evolution. I have already refuted that claim. So, as far as I am concerned, this thread's subject matter has concluded.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No? So the word of God is not evidence? How about a layer deep down where there is a lot of stuff that is known to come from space and deep under the earth (where flood waters came from)?

Please demonstrate that there is a god.
Please demonstrate that this god is the specific one you believe in.
Please demonstrate that this god wrote anything, ever.
Please demonstrate that there was a worldwide flood.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Overruled. Jesus and the NT make it clear the words are from God. If all you chose to see are the men He used, you can't see the spirit and life of the words. Period.

So how can we go about verifying that? Surely, we're not just taking the Bible's word for it, right? That would be an exercise in circular logic.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Blasphemy is not a belief. Science is a belief.

Science is a tool.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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


So? What has that to do with footprints?
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.
Hey, it is in my back pocket actually. Like a little lap dog. When you post some science we can talk.

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!


Correct. Also sometimes referred to as Flores man.

Flores Man ‘hobbits’ found in Indonesia were NOT direct relatives of modern humans, scientists confirm
What you grasp tells me more about you than the post.

Exactly. You cannot begin to prove or support that. How do you think 'the audience' feels about that!?
Full stop. You can explain it all using the tooth fairy also. So? The issue is what do you KNOW
Why do you think we care if you care? Really?

Ummm, we do use both side of our brain.

 

[shmogie]

Then you don't understand relativity. To make time 'variable' requires either very high relative speeds (comparable to that of light) or very high gravitational fields (much larger than on the surface of the sun). Both can be discounted on the Earth.

I do understand relativity, and because of it time and the perception of time are variable. Right after the BB time existed, but it wasn't functional since photons travel at the speed of light, at that speed time stands still. The temperature of the universe was beyond that at which matter could be produced, so particles and anti particles, quarks and anti quarks, were forming from the photons that travel at the speed of light and destroying one another, this speed of light universe functioned without elapsed time, time stood still. Only after the universe cooled down by the expansion of the universe to the point where quarks are confirmed trapped in protons and neutrons of which all matter is composed, did time begin to elapse. So, time can stop at the speed of light, and it certainly can slow down at lesser speeds.

Now to the measurement of time. Consider a galaxy a vast distance away in the distant past, emitting pulses of light one second apart. Eon';s later the light reaches us. However as the light traveled the space the distance between pulses was stretching because of the universes expansion. When received on earth the pulses could be hundreds, thousands, or millions years apart, time dilation. If imprinted on the pulses is the information that the pulses started one second apart then measuring the pulse rate as received tells how time has become dilated from the perspective of the emitter. If we on earth don't have that information then the time of the light pulse travel is completely different from that of the person who fired the laser, to him the pulses are one second apart, to us many many years, time dilation makes us both right from our perspectives. Think on that

 

[leibowde84]

Some modern man like footprints have been found. This could easily be pre flood man prints. Man would have evolved since the flood, so changes in heel or feet could be expected. Yet science fantasizes only about some supposed ancestor to man. Besides showing their stories were wrong, it shows they have a very limited pool to draw water from intellectually.

Fossil footprints challenge established theories of human evolution

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170831134221.htm

This doesn't put human evolution in doubt in general, it merely puts the currently accepted timeline in doubt.

These footprints are over 5 million years old, so it is possible that there was some other ancestor of ours back then I guess.

How does this evidence your claim of a worldwide flood? When do you think the flood happened?

 

[leibowde84]

I think you've confused scientific theory with conjecture.

How so?

 

[leibowde84]

What if it doesn't fit in? What if they find modern human footprints dating from before the "missing link" era?

What is the "missing link" era? Many so-called "missing links" have been found, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. The "missing link" claim is mere myth, as it merely means that we haven't found it yet.

Also, even if they did find humanlike footprints doesn't mean they were made by homo sapiens. It could have been another of our ancestors that have since died off.

 

[leibowde84]

Didn't Darwin talk about one?

Whether or not Darwin mentioned a "missing link" is inconsequential. He died in 1882. Relatively little had been found by that time in regards to physical fossils/evidence of man's ancestors and human evolution from a common ancestor with modern apes. The term "missing link" is often misused and, arguably, acts to spread ignorance and confusion on the issue.

An immense amount of transitional fossils have been found connecting modern humans with our evolutionary ancestors. And, the find mentioned in the OP doesn't shake the general idea of human evolution in any way. It merely affects the time line.

It's the nature of science. Scientific understanding is constantly being improved upon.

(from darwin died - Google Search)
A missing link would possess the "in-between" evolutionary properties of both the ancestors' original traits and the traits of the evolved descendants, hence showing a clear connection between the two.

"Missing link is an outmoded term in biology, which I have to say most of us think should be forgotten and never used," paleoanthropologist John Hawks at the University of Wisconsin at Madison told Life's Little Mysteries. "On the one hand, it's a truism we can never recover every individual that contributed genetically to today's species, so we should expect 'links' to be missing. On the other, it implies total ignorance, where we usually know quite a lot about transitional forms."

 

[leibowde84]

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.

So, what evidence is there of the flood beyond mere claims in scripture?

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

Seeing how every piece of evidence (thousands upon thousands of pieces of evidence) found thus far confirms the general theory of evolution by natural selection, why do you call it a fairy tail?

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.

What evidence do you have to support creationism?

 

[Polymath257]

I do understand relativity, and because of it time and the perception of time are variable.

Variable, but dependent on relative speeds and gravitational fields.

Right after the BB time existed, but it wasn't functional since photons travel at the speed of light, at that speed time stands still.

Again, you clearly do NOT understand relativity. Time was not 'standing still'. What is relevant is *relative speeds* because *absolute speeds* are not meaningful. the expansion of the universe, however, does not contribute to this effect.

The temperature of the universe was beyond that at which matter could be produced, so particles and anti particles, quarks and anti quarks, were forming from the photons that travel at the speed of light and destroying one another, this speed of light universe functioned without elapsed time, time stood still.

Not according to relativity, it didn't.

Only after the universe cooled down by the expansion of the universe to the point where quarks are confirmed trapped in protons and neutrons of which all matter is composed, did time begin to elapse. So, time can stop at the speed of light, and it certainly can slow down at lesser speeds.

You have effectively shown that you do not understand what you are talking about here. Time was not 'standing still' before nucleogenesis. The 'speeds' of which you are talking are simply not relevant to the issues at hand. We are talking about the age in a co-moving reference frame. So even relative speed effects are irrelevant.

Now to the measurement of time. Consider a galaxy a vast distance away in the distant past, emitting pulses of light one second apart. Eon';s later the light reaches us. However as the light traveled the space the distance between pulses was stretching because of the universes expansion. When received on earth the pulses could be hundreds, thousands, or millions years apart, time dilation.

Not if the galaxy is 168,000 light years away. Again, the effects for this distance are negligible. For larger distances, there is an effect along the lines of what you are talking about here. But you have to get to billions of light years away for this to be anything significant.

If imprinted on the pulses is the information that the pulses started one second apart then measuring the pulse rate as received tells how time has become dilated from the perspective of the emitter. If we on earth don't have that information then the time of the light pulse travel is completely different from that of the person who fired the laser, to him the pulses are one second apart, to us many many years, time dilation makes us both right from our perspectives. Think on that

Yes, of course. Time is relative. But the size of th effect you are talking about isn't anywhere close to what is required to affect the dating of things on Earth (which was the original issue). It also doesn't affect the estimates for the age of the universe because we always use the co-moving frame for such ages.

 

[leibowde84]

Trying to lump the lie in with actual science eh?

The theory of evolution has been tested thousands of times by thousands of scientists. All evidence supports the theory as being accurate, in the general sense (that being evolution by natural selection). It has been repeatedly confirmed by experimentation, observation and verifiable evidence.

So, where do you get the false notion that it is a lie? Do you have any evidence that the 98% of scientists are being dishonest?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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 way that the assumptions and pronouncements of science are confirmed is by how well they let us predict and at times control outcomes. That's really all we need out of theses ideas. Philosophical musings about absolute truth are irrelevant. Does the hypothesis get us to the moon and back, or prevent smallpox? If yes, the ideas are good ones.

The basis of this thread is atypical creationist attack on science based on a finding that was unexpected. At other times, it's based on what has never been seen or what isn't yet explained.

Empirical adequacy is the term used to describe an idea that unifies observations, offers an explanatory mechanism, makes predictions that are never falsified about what can and cannot be found in nature if the theory is correct, and has technological applications that improve the human condition. That's as good as it gets or can get, and evolutionary theory rises to that standard with flying colors. Religion does not.

Why on earth would we toss out an idea that can do so much and replace it with one that is sterile - that explains nothing, offers no mechanism, has no supporting evidence, predicts nothing, and has no practical application?

Here's the problem with all of the "you can't be absolutely sure" arguments:

As Descartes explained, we don't know for sure that there is a world outside of our minds. But if we assume that there is, or behave as if there were such a world, and experience the results that we would expect to experience if we really had a body that was really in an a world of other objects operating under what seem to be the rules of an actual universe, then that is all we need to proceed as if our assumptions are valid.

Even when we know that a model such as Newton's formulation of gravity is incomplete, we still use it except when dealing with the extremes under which the variation between prediction and observation are too great. Newton's work was sufficient to get man to the moon and back.

This is what the empiricist is focused on, not whether it can proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the laws of physics apply everywhere at all times since the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang, or that there is indeed an actual world out there revealed to us by our senses. If an assumption leads to conclusions that work for us, then that's good enough, and confirms the assumption as best as it can be confirmed.

You can't sell alternative ideas that can't do that unless you're talking to somebody that doesn't care if his ideas are useful.

 

[leibowde84]

Some modern man like footprints have been found. This could easily be pre flood man prints. Man would have evolved since the flood, so changes in heel or feet could be expected. Yet science fantasizes only about some supposed ancestor to man. Besides showing their stories were wrong, it shows they have a very limited pool to draw water from intellectually.

Fossil footprints challenge established theories of human evolution

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170831134221.htm

The article points to potential specific misunderstandings regarding the timeline of human evolution. Where are you getting the idea that this challenges the theory of evolution by natural selection in general? Or are you not actually claiming that?

 

[David T]

Ahhhh, the Vulcans. Of course! I am soooo relieved that you didn't say Klingons because that would have been entirely illogical and just downright silly.

exactly!!! As the saying goes "when in rome...the antichrist is everywhere!!! Or something like that" said the cheshire cat. .

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

Absolutely. Assuming that @dad1 isn't a troll/Poe, his posts provide a window into the absurd world that is modern Christian creationism. Through his posts we get to see the reflexive denialism, insecurities, simplistic binary thinking, and childishness of it all.

When dealing with advocates of ridiculous beliefs, oftentimes the best strategy is to simply give them the stage and let them demonstrate through their own actions and words exactly what those beliefs are, and what lengths one has to go to in order to advocate them.