Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[leibowde84]

Great. So they are starting to realize some signs may precede quakes, sometimes. Maybe. The deeper causes of why plates move remain unknown.

Not true. We know why tectonic plates move. They move because they are floating on top of the liquid mantle. The mantle itself moves due to convection currents: hot rock rises, gives off some heat, then falls. This creates vast swirls of moving liquid rock under the crust of the earth, which jostles the plates of crust on top.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Nope. Faith that something will occur that hasn't is exactly the same in both cases. "justified belief" can only apply to past events.

So I take it that you have no opinion about whether the sun will light up the sky tomorrow, or when or even whether Halloween will be celebrated? I'll bet that you do have beliefs in both of those areas, and if you said yes and October 31st, your beliefs are justified notwithstanding the fact that your beliefs apply to future events.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There are thousands of reasons to doubt the scientific method. it has been applied to the cure for cancer for two centuries, and hasn't worked.

Sure it has. Some cancers are now curable, and many more can be meliorated and life expectancy extended.

What has the church, the Bible, or faith contributed to the effort? Prayer?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The deeper causes of why plates move remain unknown.

Not to me or anybody else familiar with earth science.

Here, let me Google that for you (click on link)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Show me reasonable transitional fossils to show that fish became amphibians some other land dwelling creature.

Google is your friend.

Also, since evolution is supposed to be and ongoing dynamic process, where are the transitional creatures crawling out of the sea ?

Why would they be? The environment for creatures attempting that now is not nearly as accommodating as the one present when that occurred in the past. There are creatures on the shoreline waiting for you now.

Do you have any evidence it decayed at all? Or, is this pure speculation?

Google it. I doubt that anybody here feels an obligation to teach creationists. I've learned that that is impossible.

I am asking why evolution seems to be in stasis now, and for a long time in the past.

It's not.

Your unsupported belief that there was no flood is not something known.

Yes, it is known, but apparently not by everybody.

If the flood was, as I suspect, somewhere near the KT layer, then name any civilization before this?

Why bother? This is your reverie.

What you suspect is irrelevant. What can you demonstrate?

 

[leibowde84]

Do you have any evidence it decayed at all? Or, is this pure speculation?

So, you don't have any evidence to support your claim that carbon decayed at a different? The evidence that carbon decays at a consistent rate is that it has always decayed at the same rate since we have been looking at it. It has never changed.

That has about as much merit as saying, since I saw a car coming down the highway, cars always came and at the same speed.

That's a ludicrous comparison. Since we have been measuring the decay rate of carbon it has never changed and we have found absolutely no indication that it would ever change. It is pure speculation that at any time in history it decayed at a different rate, unless you can provide some evidence to support your claim. As of yet, you have not provided anything beyond mere speculation.

The issue is not 'history'. The issue is pre history. Science measuring rates for a few hundred years is very recent.

I agree, but throughout the time we've been measuring the decay rate, it has never changed. And, we have found no indication or reasoning to back up any claim that it would have changed at all.

You seem to assume decay existed. Evidence?

We see it happen every time we look for it. It also lines up with the chemistry.

Here is a pretty good explanation of why carbon 14 undergoes radioactive decay.

So, 1) we have direct evidence that carbon 14 undergoes radioactive decay and has decayed at the same rate since we were able to measure it, 2) we understand why carbon 14 decays at a consistent rate, and 3) there is absolutely no evidence, none whatsoever, that would even lead us to consider the possibility that carbon 14 would not have decayed millions of years ago at the same rate.

 

[sayak83]

What exactly are you trying to say ? If you take the animal, and compare them to the classifications, seems easy to me. A particular reproductive strategy doesn't change that,

I am saying that classifications themselves are not as clear cut as you believe.

 

[Sapiens]

Do you have any evidence it decayed at all? Or, is this pure speculation?
That has about as much merit as saying, since I saw a car coming down the highway, cars always came and at the same speed. You have not measured decay very long.

The issue is not 'history'. The issue is pre history. Science measuring rates for a few hundred years is very recent.


You seem to assume decay existed. Evidence?

Carbon14 analysis is precisely supported by dendrochronology.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You seem to assume decay existed. Evidence?

Are you still asking for evidence? Why? What have you done with all of the evidence already presented you apart from ignoring it or dismissing it out of hand?

Did you think that other posters here still think that evidence might be involved in how you make decisions? Is that the impression you hope to create?

Don't bother. I believe that I speak for most here when I say that none of us needs to be disabused of that notion.

 

[Looncall]

Do you have any evidence it decayed at all? Or, is this pure speculation?
That has about as much merit as saying, since I saw a car coming down the highway, cars always came and at the same speed. You have not measured decay very long.

The issue is not 'history'. The issue is pre history. Science measuring rates for a few hundred years is very recent.


You seem to assume decay existed. Evidence?

A large number of dating systems, such as tree rings, lake sediments, coral layers, and a wide variety of radiometric systems, give consiliant results. That is, their results agree. This has been tested to long before any possible biblical time.

You clowns have lost the dating game. It is time you put aside your hilarious lies.

It is clear that the main proponents of creationism are con men, making a living by scamming religious rubes. Believing their guff may make one feel special, it does not make one right.

 

[shmogie]

I am saying that classifications themselves are not as clear cut as you believe.

Oh, I totally agree. Man made distinctions, and they could have been done other ways. Nevertheless, a mammal is different from a fish, an octopus is different from a lizard, etc.

 

[shmogie]

Google is your friend.



Why would they be? The environment for creatures attempting that now is not nearly as accommodating as the one present when that occurred in the past. There are creatures on the shoreline waiting for you now.



Google it. I doubt that anybody here feels an obligation to teach creationists. I've learned that that is impossible.



It's not.



Yes, it is known, but apparently not by everybody.



Why bother? This is your reverie.

What you suspect is irrelevant. What can you demonstrate?

You have no idea what the environment of the past was. There are no shoreline creatures that can be considered to be transitional or demonstrated as such. You seem particularly weak in biology/paleontology. Google is YOUR friend, take advantage of it.

 

[sayak83]

Oh, I totally agree. Man made distinctions, and they could have been done other ways. Nevertheless, a mammal is different from a fish, an octopus is different from a lizard, etc.

In many cultures dolphins are also called fish. And some fish are very different from each other, as different as mammals from fish.
Ancient transitional forms were a mix of reptilian and mammalian characteristics. That's the point, showing these classes are man made conveniences for classification purposes.

 

[shmogie]

Sure it has. Some cancers are now curable, and many more can be meliorated and life expectancy extended.

What has the church, the Bible, or faith contributed to the effort? Prayer?

Very few cancers are curable, most are not. Many are becoming more common for inexplicable reasons. You, being a rank materialist don't understand the purpose of Christianity, therefore your question is not applicable.

 

[shmogie]

So I take it that you have no opinion about whether the sun will light up the sky tomorrow, or when or even whether Halloween will be celebrated? I'll bet that you do have beliefs in both of those areas, and if you said yes and October 31st, your beliefs are justified notwithstanding the fact that your beliefs apply to future events.

What is your point ? You illustrated faith, good for you.

 

[shmogie]

You're conflating methodology with results, plus you're ignoring a strength about science, namely that it is self-correcting over time. The same is not true about theism, however.

Notice how you assume much with your theistic beliefs but not with the overwhelming scientific evidence, which I find bizarre since there's far more that can be evidenced by science than with your theism.

Secondly, I also don't accept the theology that basically says God forgives but we have no obligations ourselves. To me, that's what I call "rocking-chair religion"-- just sit back and have nice politically-correct religions thoughts and one will be "saved"! The Sermon On the Mount and the Parable of the Sheep & Goats (Matt. 25) say otherwise.

You extrapolated much from a little, wrongly. Your term "rocking chair religion" nether applies to my post, nor my belief system. Your opinion is noted, but why you expressed it is extremely unclear., Overwhelming scientific evidence, really ? In some cases yes, in most of the big time questions, no. If you think macro evolution has "overwhelming evidence" to support it, you are wrong. That chart you saw in high school is bogus, and any honest evolutionist will tell you so

 

[Jose Fly]

If you think macro evolution has "overwhelming evidence" to support it, you are wrong.

How's your investigation of the foraminifera fossil record going?

 

[shmogie]

It isn't in stasis. Human time scales are very short. We simply don't expect to see large scale changes in mere thousands of years.

Then, how do you know it isn't stasis ? Are you proposing that inexplicable (for the theory) stasis doesn't occur in the fossil record ? Are you proposing that the fossil record does not show creatures seemingly popping into existence fully formed, with no transitional forms, that exist in stasis for very long periods of time, then go extinct without changing ?

 

[shmogie]

How's your investigation of the foraminifera fossil record going?

Tell me, are they all identifiable as foraminifera ? If so, then isn;'t that simply micro evolution , which most who support ID believe in ?

 

[Sapiens]

Tell me, are they all identifiable as foraminifera ? If so, then isn;'t that simply micro evolution , which most who support ID believe in ?

In other words he can't be bothered to look at the actual evidence.