Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[dad1]

So, two quick questions.

1. What is "present state energy" that you refer to?

What is energy like in heaven? What was it like at creation? We don't know today. We only see and experience energy as it is now.

2. What evidence is there that the laws of nature were different at any point throughout history?

What evidence is there that the laws of nature were the same at any point throughout history? We can't just have you believing. The records of history and Scripture indicate big differences. Unless you have real proof to the contrary why would I believe you?

Why would you jump to the conclusion that they were without any evidence suggesting it?

Science doesn't know either way. Who cares why ot how we suggest if science doesn't know? Use the tooth fairy if you like, just don't pretend you know or that science knows.

 

[Polymath257]

What is energy like in heaven? What was it like at creation? We don't know today. We only see and experience energy as it is now.

Prove there is a heaven.

What evidence is there that the laws of nature were the same at any point throughout history? We can't just have you believing. The records of history and Scripture indicate big differences. Unless you have real proof to the contrary why would I believe you?

On the contrary, the only way to have information about the past is to assume that it maintains continuity to the present. For example, you assume that scriptures read the same now as they did in the past. But, if you claim the laws of physics could be different enough to negate radioactive dating methods, it is also possible that all the ink means something different now than it did in the past. or that it moved around according to wildly different physical laws and changed meaning while doing so.

Science doesn't know either way. Who cares why ot how we suggest if science doesn't know? Use the tooth fairy if you like, just don't pretend you know or that science knows.

What sort of evidence could convince you that the laws were the same? Let's face it, there is NOTHING that could convince you of that. It isn't a *scientific* position, but a philosophical one: that we can learn about the past using what we know about the present.

But that is a position that is absolutely required to even *talk* about the past. if you truly deny that, then *nothing* said about the past has any relevance because htings could have been so different that all evidence is twisted into meaninglessness. And that includes all 'evidence' from your scriptures or history.

So, to avoid solipsism or 'brains in a vat' or 'the past is so different than the past, we can't know anything about it', we assume that what happens now is a good approximation for at least the recent past and *test* to see whether we get consistent results. If we do, and continue to do so, then that consistency *defines* the past.

In other words, your whole position is such that it eliminates any possibility of learning about the past. I deny that is a reasonable and logical position.

 

[Looncall]

Your religious projections you deceitfully call observations tell us only how you insist on believing things.
There ARE no independent systems! The ONE system you use willy nilly on all evidences is BELIEF in a same state past.
Obviously someone who claims a same state past but cannot prove one would think like that. Don't blame us.

My, my, what a lot of guff for a single post. Are you sure your superstitions are worth all this shameful behaviour?

 

[shmogie]

Of course the evidence is circumstantial. When we're looking into any event from pre-history, all the evidence for it will be circumstantial. But as we know from geology, archaeology, genetics, and many other fields of science, just because we're dealing with circumstantial evidence doesn't mean we can't draw reasonable conclusions. If we couldn't, then we'd have to acquit everyone who committed crimes for which there were no eye witnesses.


Where in the world did you get the idea that microevolution is evolution within a taxonomic class?

Also, if you believe microevolution is evolution within a class, why do you keep asking for transitional fossils between reptiles and mammals, and fish and amphibians? They're all within the class Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish and terrestrial vertebrates), so according to what you posted above those would be merely microevolution, correct?


Why? Isn't that just microevolution (according to your made-up definitions)?

And to be honest with you, the way you've dodged my questions while at the same time accusing me of dodging......something, I'm hardly inclined to go through the effort of looking up, posting, and explaining any scientific information for you. You've made it quite clear that you're not asking questions in good faith and from genuine curiosity, but instead are asking them as a sort of "stump the evolutionist" game, so that whatever we post you'll just make up some silly excuse to wave it away (e.g., calling evolution within a class "microevolution).

I asked a very direct question, you failed to answer it, you didn't address it. Taxonomy isn't a product of nature, it is a human convenience tool, nothing more. A class is just a human term. The facts are that all of your chosen examples are fundamentally the same, and you haven't documented them evolving into something fundamentally different, whatever you choose to call it. Insects, are still insects, bacteria are still bacteria, and on it goes.

 

[shmogie]

Finches comprise family Fringillidae, not a single species.

The Carduelinae subfamily of finches contains 183 species divided into 49 genera Finch - Wikipedia

You can review that list of genera and species here: Carduelinae - Wikipedia

Another branch of the family of finches is the smaller subfamily Fringillinae, which contains four species of finches: Fringilla coelebs, Fringilla polatzeki, Fringilla teydea, Fringilla montifringilla.

The last subfamily, the Euphoniinae, contains over thirty species of finches arranged into two extant genuses.

And that, is what creationists call macroevolution.

No, finches are, guess what ? finches, and yes, they are also birds. Now, show them becoming something else, can you ?

 

[gnostic]

He did mention two other examples

The other two examples - dogs/wolves and dinosaurs/birds are not forgeries.

The studies of fossils and remains, both past and present, show that it is highly probable that both dogs are descendants of the older species of the grey wolves or Canis lupus. Evidences showed that wolves were hunting with man, millennia before the first appearance of domesticated dogs (Canis lupus familiaris).

Dogs just didn't appear suddenly; they didn't come out of thin air, via magic or like Genesis 6th day. There are no evidences to show dogs existed before 15,000 years ago.

Some wolves remain wild, while those that remained with man, hunting with them, were selectively breed for specific purposes, became dogs.

Evidences showed that grey wolves have a longer history than dogs. The grey wolves have been around as early as the Middle Pleistocene (starting around 800,000 years ago), the oldest skeletal fossils, dating to between 700 and 600 thousand years ago.

As to dinosaurs and birds, i don't know much about, but as I understand it still actively undergoing been researched, and the evidences are there that the earlier species of birds did originate from certain genus and species of dinosaurs.

You need to understand bird-like creatures did exist before the Cretaceous period (which started around 145 million ago). No true birds exist before 120 million years ago, which is when you would find the earliest fossils of birds.

This actually put a crimp into Genesis 1, because according to Genesis 1:20-23, birds were created at the same time as fishes and other marine life, on the 5th day, before any land animals that walk or crawl.

But according to fossil evidences, the first dinosaurs appeared in the Triassic period (started around 250 million ago).

Not only that. The first true mammals appeared in the Triassic period too.

And the fossils to the earliest reptiles or the proto-reptiles, appeared around 312 million years ago, which put it in late Carboniferous era (Carboniferous started about around 359 million ago).

So the appearance of land animals, like the reptiles and mammals, over hundred millions of years before birds, only demonstrated that Genesis is wrong that bids exist before "land animals".

 

[shmogie]

And clearly such changes have happened. There were no primates 100 million years ago. Now there are. They came from somewhere. There were no canines or felines 40 million years ago and there are now. There were no modern horses even a few million years ago, but there are now. But there *were* horse-like mammals. So where do you think the horses came from? Or the primates? or the felids if not from the species that *were* around prior to them showing up?

The problem is that the 'kind' or 'type' of creationists is *way* too variable. Are all mammals a common type? Why or why not? Are all butterflies? All bacteria?

The thing is, that to account what what we see in the fossil record, the changes in the 'types' has to be macro-evolution by anyone's standards. The changes from one era to the next are just that large in many cases (not all--some species stay fairly stable).

And this was gone over a couple of hundred years ago. The first people to study paleontology *expected* to verify the Biblical account. But the observations simply do not fit (and didn't even very early in the studies0. So, they initially proposed 'Catastrophism' where there were multiple 'catastrophes' like the Biblical flood to explain the variety and changes in the species over time. But even that didn't fit the evidence:too many different 'catastrophies' were required with contradictory properties. Eventually, even before Darwin, it was realized that species change gradually over time. All Darwin did was present a possible mechanism for such change.

Eventually, maybe, the creationists will catch up.

Your entire dating scenario cannot be readily established, based upon the geology. I have already pointed out that the geology is not at all as clear cut as you seem to think it is. Serious problems exist, that cannot be readily explained.

 

[shmogie]

The other two examples - dogs/wolves and dinosaurs/birds are not forgeries.

The studies of fossils and remains, both past and present, show that it is highly probable that both dogs are descendants of the older species of the grey wolves or Canis lupus. Evidences showed that wolves were hunting with man, millennia before the first appearance of domesticated dogs (Canis lupus familiaris).

Dogs just didn't appear suddenly; they didn't come out of thin air, via magic or like Genesis 6th day. There are no evidences to show dogs existed before 15,000 years ago.

Some wolves remain wild, while those that remained with man, hunting with them, were selectively breed for specific purposes, became dogs.

Evidences showed that grey wolves have a longer history than dogs. The grey wolves have been around as early as the Middle Pleistocene (starting around 800,000 years ago), the oldest skeletal fossils, dating to between 700 and 600 thousand years ago.

As to dinosaurs and birds, i don't know much about, but as I understand it still actively undergoing been researched, and the evidences are there that the earlier species of birds did originate from certain genus and species of dinosaurs.

You need to understand bird-like creatures did exist before the Cretaceous period (which started around 145 million ago). No true birds exist before 120 million years ago, which is when you would find the earliest fossils of birds.

This actually put a crimp into Genesis 1, because according to Genesis 1:20-23, birds were created at the same time as fishes and other marine life, on the 5th day, before any land animals that walk or crawl.

But according to fossil evidences, the first dinosaurs appeared in the Triassic period (started around 250 million ago).

Not only that. The first true mammals appeared in the Triassic period too.

And the fossils to the earliest reptiles or the proto-reptiles, appeared around 312 million years ago, which put it in late Carboniferous era (Carboniferous started about around 359 million ago).

So the appearance of land animals, like the reptiles and mammals, over hundred millions of years before birds, only demonstrated that Genesis is wrong that bids exist before "land animals".

As I have stated elsewhere, and have given examples of, is the problems with the geologic dating system, e,g. extreme folding and fracturing, fossils of alleged creatures separated by millions of years found together, alleged further evolved whale ancestors found under alleged less evolved whale ancestors and there are many, many examples.

 

[dad1]

Prove there is a heaven.

Prove there is nothing but the physical temporal present state?

On the contrary, the only way to have information about the past is to assume that it maintains continuity to the present.

Religious nonsense.

For example, you assume that scriptures read the same now as they did in the past. But, if you claim the laws of physics could be different enough to negate radioactive dating methods, it is also possible that all the ink means something different now than it did in the past. or that it moved around according to wildly different physical laws and changed meaning while doing so.

You think there was ink in Noah's day?? Why is that? You do realize that was before Babel when writing presumably even became necessary?! Well, they started off drawing pictures rather than writing history teaches us...but I digress.

What sort of evidence could convince you that the laws were the same?

What sort do you have?

Let's face it, there is NOTHING that could convince you of that. It isn't a *scientific* position, but a philosophical one: that we can learn about the past using what we know about the present.

Let's face it, you have NOTHING to offer! Hoo ha

But that is a position that is absolutely required to even *talk* about the past. if you truly deny that, then *nothing* said about the past has any relevance because htings could have been so different that all evidence is twisted into meaninglessness. And that includes all 'evidence' from your scriptures or history.

Need we remind you that history was written, well, after we had written words!?

So, to avoid solipsism or 'brains in a vat' or 'the past is so different than the past, we can't know anything about it', we assume that what happens now is a good approximation for at least the recent past and *test* to see whether we get consistent results. If we do, and continue to do so, then that consistency *defines* the past.

As much as it may rock your world, we cannot stomp our feet and reject everything just because it turns out you didn't know it all after all.

In other words, your whole position is such that it eliminates any possibility of learning about the past.

Only when you fanatically, doggedly and ritualistically insist on using the present state to be the basis of the past, as you are wont to do.

I deny that is a reasonable and logical position.

I deny you could recognize one of those positions if it snuck up and bit you.

 

[dad1]

My, my, what a lot of guff for a single post. Are you sure your superstitions are worth all this shameful behaviour?

I can prove it. Here. Now. Try and show us ONE of the many methods of dating that are not sitting on the belief that there was a same state past!!!!!!!

Unless you can, the truth marches on and over your shrill protests. And it laughs as it goes.

 

[Looncall]

I can prove it. Here. Now. Try and show us ONE of the many methods of dating that are not sitting on the belief that there was a same state past!!!!!!!

Unless you can, the truth marches on and over your shrill protests. And it laughs as it goes.

You are claiming that disparate processes, such as sedimentation in lakes, formation of tree rings, deposition of layers in cave formations, layer formation in glaciers, growth of corals, shifts in the earth's magnetic field and radioactivity, were all different in the past exactly so as to appear not to have changed at all.

That is not credible. If you insist on it, you need to provide explanations.

On the other hand, it is very clear where your notions come from; cynical scoundrels conning gullible folk.

 

[Polymath257]

No, finches are, guess what ? finches, and yes, they are also birds. Now, show them becoming something else, can you ?

And birds are an offshoot of feathered dinosaurs. And dinosaurs are an/ offshoot of earlier reptiles. ETC

 

[Polymath257]

Your entire dating scenario cannot be readily established, based upon the geology. I have already pointed out that the geology is not at all as clear cut as you seem to think it is. Serious problems exist, that cannot be readily explained.

Do you really think the folding of strata during mountain formation is an issue? Or that tress through multiple layers of flooding is? Those are well-known phenomena and the conditions for formation are understood.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't claim that they should be numerous, Darwin did. Yes Darwins finches in the Galapogos islands are classic examples of micro evolution. Adaption to the environment within a species. The issue of the rigidity of geological strata, and thus the fossils found within them is complicated, and there is a lot of apparent mixing of the strata and / or fossils. E.g. fossils from alleged different era's supposedly millions of years apart, found together.

Which can happen when there is erosion of original deposits. Any decent paleontologist can tell when this happens almost instantly.

The strata doesn't seem to be as consistently layered as some propose.

There are situations involving mountain formation that can overturn strata. They can be folded and twisted in some very interesting ways. Do you really think that is an issue? We can tell quickly when this happens and account for it.

Further, there are examples of fossilized trees being vertical in two strata at the same time, supposedly millions of years apart. I don't see it as absolute as many do.

Polystrate Fossils. An easy Google to Wikipedia:

"Upright fossils typically occur in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time - decades to thousands of years long - characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas and other coastal-plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics, global sea-level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors.[4] For example, geologists such as John W. F. Waldron and Michael C. Rygel have argued that the rapid burial and preservation of polystrate fossil trees found at Joggins, Nova Scotia directly result from rapid subsidence, caused by salt tectonics within an already subsiding pull-apart basin, and from the resulting rapid accumulation of sediments.[6][7] The specific layers containing polystrate fossils occupy only a very limited fraction of the total area of any of these basins.[6][8]"


You must really think professional geologists are idiots.

 

[Polymath257]

Prove there is nothing but the physical temporal present state?

I don' need to. There is no evidence otherwise and the burden of proof is on you.

Religious nonsense.

No, the rational approach to studying history.

You think there was ink in Noah's day?? Why is that? You do realize that was before Babel when writing presumably even became necessary?! Well, they started off drawing pictures rather than writing history teaches us...but I digress.

Now you present the religious nonsense. There was no Noah.

What sort do you have?
Let's face it, you have NOTHING to offer! Hoo ha
Need we remind you that history was written, well, after we had written words!?
As much as it may rock your world, we cannot stomp our feet and reject everything just because it turns out you didn't know it all after all.
Only when you fanatically, doggedly and ritualistically insist on using the present state to be the basis of the past, as you are wont to do.
I deny you could recognize one of those positions if it snuck up and bit you.

That you have a *philosophical position* that dictates that we cannot know anything about the past because we have to assume stability, at least to some extent, in physical laws, is *your* problem.

You have consistently failed to show there is an issue. And we have consistently shown that our methods of studying the past are consistent. That is all that is required.

 

[Polymath257]

I can prove it. Here. Now. Try and show us ONE of the many methods of dating that are not sitting on the belief that there was a same state past!!!!!!!

Unless you can, the truth marches on and over your shrill protests. And it laughs as it goes.

Show ONE piece of evidence that it wasn't.

 

[Polymath257]

As I have stated elsewhere, and have given examples of, is the problems with the geologic dating system, e,g. extreme folding and fracturing, fossils of alleged creatures separated by millions of years found together, alleged further evolved whale ancestors found under alleged less evolved whale ancestors and there are many, many examples.

The 'examples' are standard creationist trope. They have been explained and are well-known and understood. Well, except by creationists, who tend not to actually study the subjects they criticize.

 

[gnostic]

You think there was ink in Noah's day?? Why is that? You do realize that was before Babel when writing presumably even became necessary?!

When do you think the Flood and the Tower of Babel occur?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Can you provide a link for this list? I'd love to take a look.

Good luck! I was told I'm not worthy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not being an expert means that I don't have degree's in these fields. My degree's are in another field. Nevertheless, it DOESN'T mean I haven't studied these area's, and understand the flaws in the theory as well as what it states it proves. The fossil record simply does not support your contention of significant large change between in fauna over however many generations of change you care to name. Amphibians becoming lizards as an example. Where are the series of transitional fossils the theory predicts should be numerous ?

How about the genetic/genomic evidence? You know there's much more evidence than just the fossil record, right?