Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[Polymath257]

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

NO, it is NOT an assumption. It is an observation that the *hypothesis* that the laws were the same in the past fits the evidence we have today. The hypothesis that they were different is either untestable (last thursday again) or have actually been shown wrong (radioactive decays at different rates).

You have to show there actually was a flood. You have to show the mechanisms for the changes in the physical laws and how those changes produced evidence that 'looks like' the world is older. And this has to be done *in detail*. For example, what were the changes in the laws that make it so that Jericho looks like it has been around since far before when the flood is supposed to have been according to your version? Details.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Look within. Your religion is wrong. What you were taught by creationists is wrong.

 

[leibowde84]

Show us just ONCE!? Bring it.

Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
This is a great, quick source of a variety of evidence, predictions, experimentation and observations that all support the theory of evolution by natural selection. How can you explain this evidence?

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

See Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program, which seems to prove you dead wrong here. All the evidence fits with the scientific theory, and there truly is no other way to explain the fossil records and other observations in nature.

Example?

Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Soon as we see your examples that will become manifest.

Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program ... in your face. It shows conclusively that they aren't lying. They backup their claims with evidence.

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

Yes. The link Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program shows exactly why it is proven that these scientists know what they are talking about and back it up with evidence.

You have claimed before that the behavior of atoms and molecules have changed throughout history, which is why we cannot trust scientific methods like dating and such. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

This is what the theory says about human ancestors at that time (4-5 million years ago). What makes you think the footprint was made by this ancestor, providing even more supporting evidence for human evolution?

 

[leibowde84]

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

What kind of evidence would make you believe that the theory of evolution by natural selection is true? Or at least make you doubt your current creationism beliefs?

 

[Darkstorn]

What kind of evidence would make you believe that the theory of evolution by natural selection is true? Or at least make you doubt your current creationism beliefs?

1. Write a book.
2. Say the book was either by deities / angels / unicorns, not by ancient goat herders.
3. Say that around the 8th day, whatever you chose as your favoured deity, mine is Bearded Space Wizard, created evolution.

 

[Jose Fly]

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

Yes, I've seen the desperation to avoid that "shock" in just about every Christian creationist I've interacted with. But as sad as it is, it also helps explain their bizarre behaviors.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

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.

I can't be bothered to look up something suggested by a Google user.

 

[Darkstorn]

I can't be bothered to look up something suggested by a Google user.

Ooo, aren't you edgy and non-conformist.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ooo, aren't you edgy and non-conformist.

But if you follow their discussion, @leibowde84 copied and pasted the relevant material into his post. What does that tell you about the nature of @Lucian Hodoboc 's approach to this subject?

 

[Darkstorn]

But if you follow their discussion, @leibowde84 copied and pasted the relevant material into his post. What does that tell you about the nature of @Lucian Hodoboc 's approach to this subject?

Won't read because it was posted by a google user.

Debating works like this you know?

 

[Jose Fly]

Won't read because it was posted by a google user.

Debating works like this you know?

Seems like whenever I think Christian creationists can't get any worse, they somehow manage to find new ways to disappoint me.

 

[gnostic]

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

Of course, there are room for doubts.

The only times I only see serpent or donkey can talk is through tv or film using animations or cartoons. But in reality, they don't talk in human language.

Since ancient people can record in writing, their written religion texts, included myths, fables and fairytales of their gods and people, and included (A) either animals being able to languages of humans, or (B) humans being able to speak or understand the languages of animals.

The bible, like Genesis 3 and Numbers 22, are no different in that respect, with talking animals, hence ancient fables.

One of the stories of talking animals, is the story called today as the Epic of Etana. It is story about a Sumerian king of Kish, Etana, but the story begin with the eagle and snake, who lived in the same tree.

The eagle talked to the snake, and recommended that they become friends and allies, sharing their food they catch. They agreed and hunt and share food, until the eagle betrayed the snake, and ate her youngs. The snake took its revenge by disabling the eagle, cutting the tendons or sinews of the eagle's wings, and left the eagle to die in the pit.

Etana could not produce a son and heir, because his wife and queen was barren. The sun god Shamash, sent the king to find the eagle, because the eagle could help the king to find herb, that could cure his wife's barrenness.

Etana found the eagle, nursed the eagle back to health. The eagle had the strength to carry his new friend, and fly to heaven, where they will meet a goddess who possesses the healing herb.

The story is fascinating, but it is obvious a fable and myth, where the eagle, snake and king can talk in one language. Although the surviving tablets were written in Old Babylonian (20th - 16th centuries BCE), the story is obviously known to 3rd millennium BCE Sumerians, because a figurine of a man (Etana) mounted on eagle have found, dated to the 24th or 23rd century BCE.

You don't even know what "fable" mean, when you associated science. Scientists are not the ones who believe in talking animals, religious and superstitious people are, especially ones who think animals can talk.

If anyone believed in talking animals, it would be you, since it is obvious that you believe in story of Adam and Eve, literally.

 

[metis]

Can't support your so called science eh?

I and some others have continually done that, but one has to open his eyes in order to see. And being nasty and insulting isn't likely to win any over to your position.

Here, maybe read this: Human evolution - Wikipedia

 

[metis]

Seems like whenever I think Christian creationists can't get any worse, they somehow manage to find new ways to disappoint me.

I hear ya, but I also have to sometimes wonder if at least some of these people are really Christian or just using a label they want to attach to themselves. Some seem to believe about Jesus but not in what he taught, especially about love, compassion, and justice (fairness). Anyone can say they're "Christian", but it's a lot tougher to actually be one.

 

[shmogie]

Variable, but dependent on relative speeds and gravitational fields.


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.


Not according to relativity, it didn't.



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.



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.



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.

Actually, there is a formula to be used re time dilation that I will find and post from a prominent artheist astronomer, you will see that dilation has a much larger impact than you concede. Of course in the very early universe, where everything was moving at the speed of light, time did not advance, unless you are now proposing that time does not stop at the speed of light. What do you mean the speeds of these particles is not relative to the issues art hand ? The issue at hand is my statement that time is variable to which you took issue. I repeat my statement, time is variable, the perception of time can vary, and time can stop. This is what you took issue with, and you have not proven in the least that what I have stated is in error. So, am I in error, or not ? If so, how ?

 

[dad1]

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.

Great, so evidence this. How about your prime example of evidence. I didn't mean glib vague statement FYI.

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

We must ask those offering science based claims to support them. My claim is that they do not know, I do support that, as you show.

Bacteria. They evolve to counteract antibiotics.

Yes they do. So? That has what to do with you sharing an ancestor with a worm? Focus. Remember the origins issues involve the past!

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.

You get called out to actually provide an example and we get this juvenile whining?

Just for the hell of it, read this:

Evolution - Wikipedia

Don't spam links. Say in your own words what your point is, and use links for support.

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.

The claim is science doesn't know. It doesn't. What about it? You failed to so much as give the lousy little examples asked of you.

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?

I hold baseless fraudulent science claims in low regard. You failed to show they were anything more so far. Work on that.

 

[dad1]

I hear ya, but I also have to sometimes wonder if at least some of these people are really Christian or just using a label they want to attach to themselves. Some seem to believe about Jesus but not in what he taught, especially about love, compassion, and justice (fairness). Anyone can say they're "Christian", but it's a lot tougher to actually be one.

Maybe it is compassionate to abuse children with unsupported lies against the bible? Good luck with that.

 

[dad1]

NO, it is NOT an assumption. It is an observation that the *hypothesis* that the laws were the same in the past fits the evidence we have today.

Then prove it. Otherwise you have a belief.

The hypothesis that they were different is either untestable (last thursday again) or have actually been shown wrong (radioactive decays at different rates).

Untestable by modern science, just as it is untestable that it was the same. That is your problem, not mine. Come up with a better line next time.

You have to show there actually was a flood.

No. I don't.

You have to show the mechanisms for the changes in the physical laws and how those changes produced evidence that 'looks like' the world is older.

Show something you think makes it look old, and I can deal with it.

And this has to be done *in detail*. For example, what were the changes in the laws that make it so that Jericho looks like it has been around since far before when the flood is supposed to have been according to your version? Details.

Easy peasy. Show something there that made you think it was old! Then I will point out you were wrong. ZZzzzz

 

[dad1]

Look within. Your religion is wrong. What you were taught by creationists is wrong.

Your statement of faith is false bravado.