Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[Darkstorn]

We do know your dates are wrong.

How exactly do we know this? Are you planning on supporting ANY of your claims?

Stuff like this just shows your complete lack of understanding regarding any basic biology:

and gestation could have been 3 rather than 9 months as now

 

[dad1]

The issue was still your unsupported claims, as per my previous post. I have made no other arguments. Here's how it went down:
You made scientific claims in your OP:



First, you need to support them. Then you need to read your own link enough to understand that it's actually arguing against what you're trying to achieve here.

The article you quoted made the claim. My claim was that they did not know what made the prints that were like modern man's prints. In fact I asked for evidence the prints were not made by man. No one gave any evidence they were not.

You provided absolutely no support for your claims, no evidence, and no proof. Therefore it can be dismissed without support, evidence or proof. Basic debating.

I don't know what made the prints and the point was that neither do they. Nothing on my end to dismiss.

And i repeat it here, even though it's futile since you never got it the first time. Or the second. I am not arguing any of your claims in this thread. I am not arguing for origin sciences as you put it. I AM arguing about your utter disability to argue your own case effectively. You are quite literally making a fool of yourself.

On the OP, I have no case. I simply point out they don't know. If the prints were from men, that destroys their evo timeline for man.

In the case of the claimed same state past you and others reference so often here, you can't prove it existed.

What can you do??

And do note: You making any claims about science falls within the realm of "science claims." You WILL need to support that statement as well.

No. A science based claim is one that is from science and supported by science. Not any sentence where one says the word science!]

 

[dad1]

How exactly do we know this?

Because I know you can't prove that the present state existed in the far past.

Are you planning on supporting ANY of your claims?

If you or anyone tries to support your claim of what state the past was, I will show them wrong.

Stuff like this just shows your complete lack of understanding regarding any basic biology:

Basic biology is only in the present. The biology of the former nature is above your paygrade.

 

[Darkstorn]

My claim was that they did not know what made the prints that were like modern man's prints.

You're still missing the point. You haven't supported this claim.

I don't know what made the prints and the point was that neither do they. Nothing on my end to dismiss.

You're still missing the point. You don't know that they don't know unless you can somehow support your guess.

Not to mention you made an open claim in the OP, and have made many other claims. MY only argument like i've been trying to tell you multiple times is that you haven't supported your claims and are demanding others to prove you wrong. This is not how a debate works. YOU started the entire argument. You must support your arguments. Otherwise you have meaningless trash.

On the OP, I have no case.

Yes, you do:

"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."

Stop lying.

I simply point out they don't know.

You don't know this unless you can support this statement somehow.

If the prints were from men, that destroys their evo timeline for man.

No it doesn't. You don't even understand your own link.

In the case of the claimed same state past you and others reference so often here, you can't prove it existed.

I haven't referenced to anything like that. You are inventing your premise here. I'm ONLY arguing about your lack of support for your own claims. THAT is it. You are still making assumptions about my beliefs and views. That is just plain dishonest and there is no way around that.

What can you do??

Keep pointing out the fact that you have nothing to support your claims. That's all i'm here for.

No. A science based claim is one that is from science and supported by science. Not any sentence where one says the word science!

You are making claims of science: Specifically, what you think it is. That is a direct science based claim: You are even openly making the claim that the science is WRONG. THAT also is a science based claim.

Because I know you can't prove that the present state existed in the far past.

That's not logical at all.

If you or anyone tries to support your claim of what state the past was, I will show them wrong.

Show yourself right first, then i might believe this threat. Right now it's just hot air.

Basic biology is only in the present. The biology of the former nature is above your paygrade.

But not yours, surely?

 

[Looncall]

Because I know you can't prove that the present state existed in the far past.
If you or anyone tries to support your claim of what state the past was, I will show them wrong.
Basic biology is only in the present. The biology of the former nature is above your paygrade.

That's a remarkable "Get Out of Jail Free" card you have there. You claim that others cannot study the past using present evidence, then you make wild assumptions about the past without any evidence whatever. All in support of silly superstition.

It's hilarious! Creationism is such a clown act; better than any circus!

 

[Darkstorn]

Note that the "funny" smiley i gave you is non-ironic. I feel there needs to be a disclaimer whenever i use that smiley now in light of the new rules.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why would I discuss religion with pagans?

What difference does it make who you're talking to? You don't have to back up your assertions when speaking to "pagans?"

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think it makes sense that languages started at Babel. Why? Something seems to have changed when people no longer could communicate widely!

Though I have no idea why you think that happened, I don't know what it has to do with my question or what we were talking about. Could you elaborate?

 

[Polymath257]

That's a remarkable "Get Out of Jail Free" card you have there. You claim that others cannot study the past using present evidence, then you make wild assumptions about the past without any evidence whatever. All in support of silly superstition.

It's hilarious! Creationism is such a clown act; better than any circus!

It really is no different than Last Thursdayism. Either you accept that the present evidence can give information about the past, or you refuse to engage in serious debate. it really is that simple of an alternative.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No. In the former nature there was rapid re-population. Reproduction could be very fast in that day.




Nope. People may have had babies at 10 for all we know then, and gestation could have been 3 rather than 9 months as now, etc. You assume that the present nature existed.
Hey, how many people even were needed to be a 'nation' in that day!

We don't know. I would assume hundreds.
For Mizraim Nah. People had concubines and all sorts of things back then. What happened in Egypt...stays in Egypt.
False. Women were not counted, so if each son had a few wives or even one wife, there could be lots and lots of kids real fast at the time. Possibly the incidence of sextuplets and twins etc would be real real high. Basically you don't know.

I allow for a margin of interpretive error of a few hundred years. That alone would do it! Add the planned rapid reproduction of God in that time after the flood, as well as the amazingly different state in the past, and there is no problem.
History started after the flood! Archaeology looks at layers that are post flood only! What would we expect other than this!?


Your dates are wrong and solely based on assuming a same state past. The error curve is the dates gets wildly wrong very fast as we near the time of the nature change.

All post flood.
All post flood, so why would it? Yet early Sumer records long lifespans and Egypt recorded spirits living with man. I also notice that the poor post flood Egypt folks had to resort to almost drawing pictures to communicate! Just as expected after Babel! With the now shorter lifespans they also made lots of tombs!
The huge stones make sense more if the former state was in place, and maybe there was another force that counteracted gravity, at least at times, or something! Who knows? They continued to use the hieroglyphics, but possibly many meanings changed over time.
As above, the dates are wrong, It is all radioactive decay based dating! I hope you bring up the king lists, that would be a laugh for dating.


Notice in one king list that they list spirits as the first kings? Want to stand behind that?
I would not doubt kings did live. Now whether some were at the same time, or some were remembered from before the flood and added, or..whatever we don't know. We do know your dates are wrong.
Dates = wrong.


Hoo ha

Hey, anything can be whatever you want, when you're making it all up!

 

[Jose Fly]

People may have had babies at 10 for all we know then, and gestation could have been 3 rather than 9 months as now, etc. You assume that the present nature existed.

Ah Christian creationism.......what would the internet be without it?

 

[dad1]

You're still missing the point. You haven't supported this claim.

With the claim being they do not know what left the footprint, just read the article...or any other paper. Then get back to us with what it was if you know. No sense pretending. If you claim they know post the goods. Obviously you don't.

You're still missing the point. You don't know that they don't know unless you can somehow support your guess.

They claimed to know? They ruled out the prints being human? Show us how.

Not to mention you made an open claim in the OP, and have made many other claims. MY only argument like i've been trying to tell you multiple times is that you haven't supported your claims and are demanding others to prove you wrong. This is not how a debate works. YOU started the entire argument. You must support your arguments. Otherwise you have meaningless trash.

Claiming they do not know when they do not and the article does not claim they do know is not something requiring any other support than you failing to show they do know.

Yes, you do:

"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."

Stop lying.

?? How would you know what pre flood man was like? Claiming there was no man requires evidence. Claiming that if man was different than modern man, he was not a man requires evidence.

You don't know this unless you can support this statement somehow.

The bible is clear man was always here. I assume we were. Any article that assumes otherwise is a belief unless they prove...or offer real evidence.

No it doesn't. You don't even understand your own link.

Name what you think is not understood in the article.

You are making claims of science: Specifically, what you think it is. That is a direct science based claim: You are even openly making the claim that the science is WRONG. THAT also is a science based claim.

False.

However we can look at the reasons science makes claims, such as in the OP and discuss the premises. Since you are not apparently able, no wonder you play la ti da games instead.

 

[dad1]

That's a remarkable "Get Out of Jail Free" card you have there.

Thanks.

You claim that others cannot study the past using present evidence, then you make wild assumptions about the past without any evidence whatever. All in support of silly superstition.

No. I use belief in something to guess what the unknown past was like.Science may do that also. They must remember to be honest that they are just story telling based on beliefs, not any fat or knowledge.

 

[dad1]

Noew I know that you are just utter fool.

We know that these king lists were compiled during the New Kingdom period, and these king lists don't provide any dates.

Bingo.

But what make it all archaeologically and historically factual and accurate, is that they matched those names inscribed inside royal tombs, pyramids, mastabas, and mortuary temples. And these sites and any artefacts found in them, can be dated.

Sorry, but I have no more times for creationist id###, who cannot even bother to do a little research.

How about the spirit rulers? If you offer the king list that comes with the list. Ha. Who cares what names are on a list that is not good for dates?

You are left with having to defend radioactive decay dates.

 

[dad1]

What difference does it make who you're talking to? You don't have to back up your assertions when speaking to "pagans?"

The difference is that I see no point in trying to change a made up mind with religion.

 

[dad1]

Though I have no idea why you think that happened, I don't know what it has to do with my question or what we were talking about. Could you elaborate?

If nature changed at that time (Babel) then it would affect life processes of man. The way we process info in the brain is part of that. It seems possible that something changed quickly, that affected the way we process info. That could have resulted in a different sized cranium being needed over time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The difference is that I see no point in trying to change a made up mind with religion.

Who said anything about changing minds?
What I'm asking of you is the same I ask of anyone, regardless of religious affiliation - back up your claims.

 

[dad1]

Hey, anything can be whatever you want, when you're making it all up!

Except you have no idea what the past was like, so have no way of knowing from science. I have the records of God in black and white with details. Now we could simply admit not knowing, or being able to know by science...or we could use beliefs. We all choose our beliefs.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If nature changed at that time (Babel) then it would affect life processes of man. The way we process info in the brain is part of that. It seems possible that something changed quickly, that affected the way we process info. That could have resulted in a different sized cranium being needed over time.

Can you demonstrate this?

 

[dad1]

Who said anything about changing minds?
What I'm asking of you is the same I ask of anyone, regardless of religious affiliation - back up your claims.

Belief and religion are not claims. In this thread the thing needed is to back up science claims.