Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[Polymath257]

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

Evolution doesn't in any way depend on abiogenesis. Even if life was created by some deity at the beginning, evolution (changes of living species over geologic time) still happened.

It is similar to how Kepler knew that planets orbit the sun without knowing the laws of gravity or how planets form. We know that living species change over time (evolution--analogous to planets orbiting the sun). We are figuring out *why* those changes happen (natural selection is a big factor---analogous to the theory of gravity). But how things started is a completely different question (abiogenesis--analogous to how planets form).

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

No. Men thought of it, and everything you believe comes from reading a book.

Fact is, this alleged God isn't around to prove anyone wrong, and there's nothing you or any pastors or clergy can do about it.

If you are silent, then God is silent. When you talk, then it's you doing all the talking. Cut the strings and God falls down.

It's very easy and obvious to see just who the Puppet Master is.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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

Silly dad1... the scientific method works EXACTLY THE SAME for ALL sciences. There isn't one method for the study of electrons and ANOTHER method for the study of evolution. Do you even know what the scientific method is? From everything you've written it certainly doesn't seem like you do. You REALLY should take some time to educate yourself on these very basic concepts before voicing your contempt and disdain for science.

 

[dad1]

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

You did not see them. So you are in no position to doubt.

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

Origin science stories.

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.

You think you share ancestors with the flatworm, do you not? Ha

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.

History. You can't confirm or deny...just doubt for no reason.
.

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

Definition of fable

1. : a fictitious narrative or statement: such asa : a legendary story of supernatural happeningsMinerva is in fables said, from Jove without a mother to proceed — Sir John Daviesb : a narration intended to enforce a useful truth; especially : one in which animals speak and act like human beings The theme of the fable was the folly of human vanity.c : falsehood, lie The story that he won the battle single-handedly is a mere fable.
   

Science can be shown to be fables regarding origin stories, the bible cannot!
.

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.

Personal incredulity.

Rubbish is believing water come from out of space

Where do you think science says water came from?

. 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.

The wormholes or windows of heaven were opened. The water did not have to exist in space, just come from there! The windows may not have been all that high in 'space'.

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

If I can fill a pot with water and empty it, God could fill a planet and empty it.

 

[dad1]

Adjust your timeline?..

Yes. If you show real evidence that we need to rule out my guess, I can change. Meanwhile...

 

[Darkstorn]

Science can be shown to be fables regarding origin stories, the bible cannot!

This is just wishful thinking on your part, and willful ignorance of the content of this very thread. Even the definition you give in your post doesn't reinforce your point at all. In fact, it demolishes it.

But hey, just for the hell of it, knowing just how much of an effort in futility this is, how are you planning on showing that science can be considered fables, and how are you specifically going to show that the bible cannot be considered a fable, especially in light of the definition you gave?

I mean, i'm sorry to appeal to popularity here, but this is an internet forum. And you are making a fool of yourself in the eyes of others. You keep telling yourself that you've defeated your opposition in the argument, but nothing in this thread shows this understanding of reality to be anything more than a fantasy on your part.
¨
Damn shame you so called Christians have to resort to this kind of dishonesty. You've done nothing to advance your agenda. At best, you've done the opposite. I think you're a Poe.

Yes. If you show real evidence that we need to rule out my guess, I can change. Meanwhile...

*insert internet picture*

Hehehehehe. That is a picture. Just because someone made a picture doesn't mean what the picture contains is factual. It takes some critical thinking to understand this part, sure, but this is just getting tiresome.

 

[dad1]

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.

My position accepts ancient history and Scripture records, while yours denies for no reason. The issue is not last week, the change was probably more like 4300 years ago. Focus.

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.

Great, so do it for 4400 years ago. We wait.

.

 

[dad1]

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.

No. To do that you need time to exist in far space as it does here. You see time is part of parallax distance measure. If time only existed here, and not there the same, then all distances are unknown. Your quest...prove time exists and exists the same as in the solar system area, or ALL distances/sizes are NOT known!

How sweet it is.

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.

See above.
...

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

Nope. Show us any 2 examples of this?

I have looked at much more data than you can even imagine exists.

Have you looked at the state of the past? How about time n the far universe?

 

[Darkstorn]

No. To do that you need time to exist in far space as it does here. You see time is part of parallax distance measure. If time only existed here, and not there the same, then all distances are unknown. Your quest...prove time exists and exists the same as in the solar system area, or ALL distances/sizes are NOT known!

I find it slightly ironic that you sport an avatar of Einstein, yet seem to have absolutely no idea about any of this theories. They would answer your question here, but i doubt in form you could comprehend.

I find it an overly simplistic assumption that time somehow doesn't exist "far away" in space. I mean, it's all relative. Your concept would assume that nothing is.

Dumdum layman's answer: Time is a dimension of this universe. ALL of this universe.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

(from darwin died - Google Search)

Can you give me a bing link? I abhor Google.

 

[Darkstorn]

Can you give me a bing link? I abhor Google.

Go to bing, and type the keywords?

Seriously. Are people so incapable of doing the most basic operations these days?

And i thought giving out google links to lazy idiots was already a concession. Guess not.

 

[dad1]

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.

Can't support your so called science eh?

 

[Darkstorn]

Can't support your so called science eh?

Stop being intentionally dishonest. You are using science to type that message.

 

[leibowde84]

Can you give me a bing link? I abhor Google.

It's a hyperlink. You can just click on it.

 

[Darkstorn]

It's a hyperlink. You can just click on it.

Hipsters don't use google.

Lazy hipsters demand others to make the link for them to another search engine.

 

[dad1]

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

We don't want refreshed beliefs from the bogus bargain bin.

Sure we do! The physics is rather simple (based on quantum mechanics, though).

But you can't actually post it?

Unless you have an alternative proposal that is testable, you are just proposing obstacles without any reason behind them.

How can anyone have a counter proposal until we see what you propose?

 

[dad1]

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.

No.

 

[dad1]

Ummm, we do use both side of our brain.

Maybe not as fully as before?

 

[Darkstorn]

No.

Can't support your so called science eh?

You are being dishonest. You accuse others of being unable to support their claims, when they've quite obviously done so to everyone who's read the thread.

Then you refuse to support your claims just like that.

You are a sinner.

 

[dad1]

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?

You have no idea of the actual ages, and don't even know if it was man or beast that laid the prints. Ha.