Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[Darkstorn]

Then prove it. Otherwise you have a belief.

It is your thread. You are demanding "debate." Common decency would dictate that you prove any of your statements, especially those in the OP, seeing as you are the first one to make such claims, before getting the right to expect to demand others to prove their claims.

You haven't proven a single claim of yours. Not by any standard.

Your thread, you prove your claim first. Then you get to demand others to prove their rebuttals to your claims.

Hell, you'll demand me prove you wrong. That is not reasonable or rational. FIRST you have to prove yourself right.

Otherwise you're just proselytizing.

Anyway, good night. I don't think this thread needs me or anyone else for that matter to argue your claims. You can't even argue your claims yourself. Had we your OP, it would need no rebuttal. Your argument was dead before you started because you didn't read the damn article you linked and made an assumption.

Your statement of faith is false bravado.

All your statements are statements of faith if you get to call any and all opposing viewpoints that. First you have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that your views are facts like you keep treating them as.

 

[metis]

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

^^ignore list^^ [reason: you only have insults and demeaning others to offer]

 

[Darkstorn]

Also, dad: Quality, not quantity.

You post a lot. But i see no valid content. Just trash.

 

[dad1]

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?
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.

Your link is nothing but bold faced unsupported (in the least) story telling. From your link, for example

" Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years."

They did not show why the millions of years were claimed, let alone offer any evidence or support. As for fossils of man, they don't even know what a man fossil is half the time. Since man was not claimed to even be here that long, they must be referring to supposed ancestors of an as men...etc etc etc. Pure fable.

. It shows conclusively that they aren't lying. They backup their claims with evidence.

Point out this evidence. Where, what?

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?

The fundamental forces and laws govern how atoms behave. Science cannot prove these forces existed as we know them in the far past. I can support this anytime by having anyone try to show they were.

Hoo ha.

 

[dad1]

^^ignore list^^ [reason: you only have insults and demeaning others to offer]

Teaching lies is abuse. We all need to be careful who we trust children to.

 

[dad1]

Also, dad: Quality, not quantity.

You post a lot. But i see no valid content. Just trash.

Science was wrong all along. The reason is that the nature of the past they use for models is unsupported. Rather than post wasted words you ought to be trying to defend your religion.

 

[Darkstorn]

Your link is nothing but bold faced unsupported (in the least) story telling. From your link, for example

" Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years."

They did not show why the millions of years were claimed, let alone offer any evidence or support. As for fossils of man, they don't even know what a man fossil is half the time. Since man was not claimed to even be here that long, they must be referring to supposed ancestors of an as men...etc etc etc. Pure fable.
Point out this evidence. Where, what?.

Newly discovered human-like footprints from Crete may put the established narrative of early human evolution to the test. The footprints are approximately 5.7 million years old and were made at a time when previous research puts our ancestors in Africa -- with ape-like feet.

^^ This is from the link in your OP you were trying to use as your Ultimate Attack against Evil Evolutionism. Problem:

It's agreeing with what you paraphrased here. So: Are you still not taking into account that you keep arguing against the points you yourself made earlier in this very same thread?

WHAT is your argument? What is your position? All i see is moving the goal posts and backpedaling. This is like the funniest thread i've ever seen. You refute your own arguments with your other arguments. In dumdum speak: Why are you hitting yourself?

Science was wrong all along. The reason is that the nature of the past they use for models is unsupported. Rather than post wasted words you ought to be trying to defend your religion.

You don't know my religion. You simply assume i'm something you want me to be. This basically shows your character.

Nothing i've posted so far would discount me being religious. ALL my posts draw attention towards, is your complete inability to make sense.

 

[Polymath257]

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 ?

First of all, time dilation only is meaningful when comparing two reference frames, not in a single reference frame.

Second, it was NOT the case that in the early universe everything was moving at the speed of light. Quarks certainly were not. Nor were electrons, muons, all the gluons, etc. As massive particles, they can *only* move slower than light, at at that speed.

Third, for time in the early universe, the ages are always given in the co-moving frame. Do you know what that means? it means that such time dilation factors are not relevant because the frame is fixed.

Fourth, I bet you are thinking of the Fitzgerald contraction formula, which only applies in special relativity, not in general relativity.

Fifth, the whole question of contraction factors for the early universe is irrelevant to considerations of radioactive decay in dating event on the Earth (the original topic). Why? Because the Earth didn't even form until 5 billion ago when the universe started expanding about 13.8 billion years ago. The nucleosynthesis era happened in the first few *minutes* of the expansion. By the time the Earth formed, these factors had played out completely.

 

[Polymath257]

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 ?

No, the issue I took was with the claim that this is relevant to dates of events on the Earth. Nothing to do with radioactive dates of events on the Earth is affected by these time dilation effects.

Time 'varies' because of high relative speeds and high gravitational fields. Time doesn't actually stop at the speed of light, but primarily because nothing with mass can ever go that speed. Technically, light goes on null-geodesics. Nothing massive can do so.

 

[dad1]

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.

No. The sure don't. What has that got to do with creation week? You claim it was the same as now?

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.

They all record spirits. Science does not even know how to see or detect spirits. You thought that meant there were none?

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

In our nature animals do not communicate like that. (conversely we no longer have the ability to communicate with them). That doesn't mean it was the same always.

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.

One cannot say that, because pagan stories have no known value, all records have no value. Sumerians also claimed long lives. Egypt claimed spirits lived on earth with us. The bible agrees in large measure. You cannot toss it all out simply because of the weakness and inability of physical only modern science to deal in the spiritual.

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.

I posted the actual definition actually. I was mainly defined as a story that was not true. Your hang ups with animals were not really a big factor.

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

Communication could have had to do with more than just verbal utterances at the time.

 

[Polymath257]

Your statement of faith is false bravado.

Not false and not bravado. Simply a position supported by the facts.

 

[dad1]

Time 'varies' because of high relative speeds and high gravitational fields. Time doesn't actually stop at the speed of light, but primarily because nothing with mass can ever go that speed. Technically, light goes on null-geodesics. Nothing massive can do so.

You cannot tell us what time does outside the area of the solar system.

 

[dad1]

Not false and not bravado. Simply a position supported by the facts.

Facts you cannot, conveniently post. Strange, that.

 

[Darkstorn]

You cannot tell us what time does outside the area of the solar system.

Judging from your ability, you probably cannot tell us what time does outside your immediate thought process.

 

[Polymath257]

You cannot tell us what time does outside the area of the solar system.

Sure it can. We can see outside of the solar system.

 

[Desert Snake]

WHAT is your argument? What is your position?

^

You don't know my religion.

^

 

[dad1]

First of all, time dilation only is meaningful when comparing two reference frames, not in a single reference frame.

You cannot show the entire universe is one frame.

Second, it was NOT the case that in the early universe everything was moving at the speed of light. Quarks certainly were not. Nor were electrons, muons, all the gluons, etc. As massive particles, they can *only* move slower than light, at at that speed.

Fable. You then try to apply earth rules to imagined particles and events.

Third, for time in the early universe, the ages are always given in the co-moving frame. Do you know what that means? it means that such time dilation factors are not relevant because the frame is fixed.

As above you are in no position to declare one frame for the universe.

Fifth, the whole question of contraction factors for the early universe is irrelevant to considerations of radioactive decay in dating event on the Earth (the original topic). Why?

In both cases we need radioactivity to exist.

Can you show it did in either case?

 

[dad1]

Sure it can. We can see outside of the solar system.

You can't see time though. Thought you could?

 

[Darkstorn]

^





^

I guess you see something there i don't. Care to enlighten me, o great sage?

You are welcome to guess my religion if it's about that. I guess it really is hard to believe that people who understand that things work according to known evidence sometimes, would also sometimes be religious.

 

[dad1]

^





^

Origin science is religion. If you embrace that we know your beliefs.