Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[Darkstorn]

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

If this assumption was true, then what would it do to your claims in the OP?

I'd say it would completely destroy them.

Remember, your original claim was:

"Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt."

 

[leibowde84]

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

Then, how does it contradict any aspect of the theory of evolution by natural selection?

 

[dad1]

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

You need more? Well, since there is none from science either way, just leave it at you do not know!

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?

You went on a misguided, misinformed adventure painting beliefs onto every evidence in sight, and making a house of cards. Nothing outside of your circular religion confirms what you say.

What evidence do you have to support creationism?

I don't need to! Once we see it is not science after all, but godless beliefs alone that oppose creation, it resumes the default position.

 

[Darkstorn]

You need more? Well, since there is none from science either way, just leave it at you do not know!

Dishonesty.

You went on a misguided, misinformed adventure painting beliefs onto every evidence in sight, and making a house of cards. Nothing outside of your circular religion confirms what you say.

More dishonesty.

I don't need to! Once we see it is not science after all, but godless beliefs alone that oppose creation, it resumes the default position.

My default position is that you're the antichrist.

 

[dad1]

If this assumption was true, then what would it do to your claims in the OP

I'd say it would completely destroy them.

Remember, your original claim was:

"Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt."[/QUOTE]

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?

IF the footprints that are like modern ones, are from man, that would do er.

 

[dad1]

Dishonesty.



More dishonesty.



My default position is that you're the antichrist.

Happy blabbering I guess.

 

[Darkstorn]

IF the footprints that are like modern ones, are from man, that would do er.

But they're not and you even backpedaled earlier into making claims that you never claimed to be talking about the modern man. Forgetting that it says so right in the topic title.

I say you don't even understand your own argument, and you have no position, beyond one of shifting goal posts. Sad joke.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Good! Then you should reject creationism and adopt actual science.

But you can't actually post it?

Sure! Are you ready to solve the Schrodinger equation? How much experience with PDEs have you had?

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

I propose standard science. Look in any chemistry or physics textbook.

 

[Polymath257]

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

We know the tracks were made by something upright and bipedal with a big toe that was not separated strongly from the smaller toes. That makes it a hominid. Given the time and characteristics of the prints, it was certainly NOT a modern human.

 

[leibowde84]

You need more? Well, since there is none from science either way, just leave it at you do not know!

Then why would you believe that it happened? If there was a flood, there would certainly be evidence of it. Shouldn't the default position for anything that isn't supported by evidence be that it didn't happen (until evidence is found, at least)?

You went on a misguided, misinformed adventure painting beliefs onto every evidence in sight, and making a house of cards. Nothing outside of your circular religion confirms what you say.

I'm not sure what you mean here specifically. Can you explain what you are getting at here? What specific pieces of evidence am I painting my beliefs into? What are the main pieces of evidence in the house of cards?

I don't need to! Once we see it is not science after all, but godless beliefs alone that oppose creation, it resumes the default position.

Why would belief in anything supernatural be the default position unless there is evidence to back it up? Shouldn't the default position always be to withhold belief until sufficient evidence is found?

 

[Polymath257]

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.

But the effect is the same. Historical records and scripture only go back so far. The geological record goes back much, much farther.

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

Go take an introductory physical anthropology class. It will go back much farther than 4400 years ago.

For that matter, we have Sumerian records from before that. We know of cities that go back 10,000 years and cave paintings from over 20,000 years. And these are *recent* events in geological terms. You are proposing Last Thursdayism, only with 4400 years ago in place of last Thursday. The lack of reason is identical.

 

[leibowde84]

IF the footprints that are like modern ones, are from man, that would do er.

Let's say it is a man-like ancestor of human beings that no longer exists? How would that contradict the theory of evolution by natural selection?

 

[Polymath257]

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

n

How do you deal with Egyptian and Sumerian records from prior to your flood? With continuous inhabitation since then?

How do you deal with Jericho, which has been inhabited for about 10,000 years?

 

[Darkstorn]

Let's say it is a man-like ancestor of human beings that no longer exists? How would that contradict the theory of evolution by natural selection?

I say it supports evolution by natural selection, and demolishes HIS original claims.

Which is why this seems so futile. He'll have to invent an alternate reality where his claims are not contradictory to his later claims...

 

[dad1]

The theory of evolution has been tested thousands of times by thousands of scientists.

Show us just ONCE!? Bring it.

All evidence supports the theory as being accurate,

None at all does, only your beliefs foisted ruthlessly on evidences does in your own made up mind.

in the general sense (that being evolution by natural selection). It has been repeatedly confirmed by experimentation, observation and verifiable evidence.

Example?

So, where do you get the false notion that it is a lie?

Soon as we see your examples that will become manifest.

Do you have any evidence that the 98% of scientists are being dishonest?

.Have you any that 100% of origin science folks know what they are talking about?

 

[dad1]

How do you deal with Egyptian and Sumerian records from prior to your flood? With continuous inhabitation since then?

How do you deal with Jericho, which has been inhabited for about 10,000 years?

Easy. It is all post flood! Your dates are ALL based on a belief the past was the same. Period. 100%

 

[dad1]

Science is a tool.

So is the bible.

 

[dad1]

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?

Of course I claim the entire theory is a lie and wrong. As for the article, it shows prints were found before man existed in their minds. So, prove it was not the prints of a man or you have a problem.

 

[dad1]

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.

It is a shock to the system when one starts to realize everything they were taught is wrong. Seen it many times.

 

[Darkstorn]

Show us just ONCE!? Bring it.

Technically, you count as an example. I think it's been evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt that you descend from a common ancestor of all apes. In this case, from a particularly simple ape it seems.

None at all does, only your beliefs foisted ruthlessly on evidences does in your own made up mind.

Why do you make claims of others while at the same time showing those claims to better apply to yourself? Serious question here.

Example?

Bacteria. They evolve to counteract antibiotics.

Soon as we see your examples that will become manifest.

Okay i'm getting a bit sick of this. This is an internet forum. You really go to an internet forum to challenge other internet users into providing you evidence to counteract YOUR claims, when you have refused to support them yourself. In addition to that, you refuse to educate yourself in the matter in the least. You expect everything to be done by others. Fair enough, your demands should be rewarded every time while you treat everyone like ****. Excuse my french.

Have you any that 100% of origin science folks know what they are talking about?

Just for the hell of it, read this:

Evolution - Wikipedia

You not reading it and dismissing it out of hand doesn't reinforce your point. Except perhaps in your eyes. But i remind you: Public forum. And you haven't been able to convince anyone so far. And you ignoring examples will not convince anyone either.

Of course I claim the entire theory is a lie and wrong.

But you haven't shown your claim to hold true. THIS is the issue here. You make a claim. But you have shown that you don't possess the capacity to actually verify your claim. You just make a claim, and expect us to accept it by faith.

THAT is your debate.

It is a shock to the system when one starts to realize everything they were taught is wrong. Seen it many times.

The only thing "shocking" here is the fact that you seem to hold yourself in such a high regard to think you're changing the world by showing everyone how clueless you are?