Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[dad1]

"70 million years" is "70 million years".

"4500 years" is "4500 years".

Actually, 70 million imaginary years based on a belief in a same state past that cannot be proven is more like 'fairy time'.

Year as a measure of time is cycle of one period to take for the earth orbited around the sun, unless you belonged to a culture that measurement by the lunar calendar.

The 70 million pretend years of false science have no relation to actual time. Get over it.

But even if you were to use lunar calendar, 4500 years still doesn't equal to 70 million years.

That's what you get when you compare apple to oranges. Fantasy time does not correlate well with actual time.

To be clear, the millions of years science claims is all bogus. Fraudulent. Religious nonsense. Made up. Not real. Fake. Baseless dream dates.

 

[dad1]

Based on your performance here I rather doubt that anyone is particularly concerned with being able to bask in the warmth of your beliefs. Solipsism doesn't cut it and is indefensible.

What you chose to believe is your problem. Your fail to support it here is all that matters. What, you thought anyone cared a whit about your little attitude?

 

[dad1]

Yeah.

Not.

It is news to you that the timelines of the religion of evolution routinely get 'adjusted' sometimes by millions of years?? Ha. Such is the nature of fables.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually, 70 million imaginary years based on a belief in a same state past that cannot be proven is more like 'fairy time'.
The 70 million pretend years of false science have no relation to actual time. Get over it.
That's what you get when you compare apple to oranges. Fantasy time does not correlate well with actual time.

To be clear, the millions of years science claims is all bogus. Fraudulent. Religious nonsense. Made up. Not real. Fake. Baseless dream dates.

Care to demonstrate how and why you have determined this?

 

[SkepticThinker]

All issues were answered in posts. We see you do not quote any of my replies and try to raise some issue.
Instead, we get this pretentious nonsense.

I quoted your posts in their entirety. I see no reason to go back and re-address all of your "nuh-huh" responses to issues that have already been addressed.

Provide your evidence to back up your claims that fly directly in the face of all known science, or just face the fact that they are baseless claims.
Beyond that, responding to your posts at this point has become a waste of time for me and anyone who values evidence and reason.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually, 70 million imaginary years based on a belief in a same state past that cannot be proven is more like 'fairy time'.
The 70 million pretend years of false science have no relation to actual time. Get over it.
That's what you get when you compare apple to oranges. Fantasy time does not correlate well with actual time.

To be clear, the millions of years science claims is all bogus. Fraudulent. Religious nonsense. Made up. Not real. Fake. Baseless dream dates.

Go ahead and demonstrate that then. Again, the burden of proof is yours.

 

[dad1]

Care to demonstrate how and why you have determined this?

Sure. The reason that dates are assigned is because of radioactive decay. In other words, they assume that the laws/nature/state/physics/forces were the same in the distant unknown past.

 

[dad1]

I quoted your posts in their entirety. I see no reason to go back and re-address all of your "nuh-huh" responses to issues that have already been addressed.

No idea what you are talking about, cite one post where you addressed what I said.

Provide your evidence to back up your claims that fly directly in the face of all known science, or just face the fact that they are baseless claims.

What can one provide in the face of baseless belief systems? I merely point out that science has a basis in belief. Nothing built on that house of cards has any more value than the foundation beliefs.

 

[metis]

Religion: belief & faith (objective evidence not required)

Science: evidence (belief & faith irrelevant).

They ain't the same.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sure. The reason that dates are assigned is because of radioactive decay. In other words, they assume that the laws/nature/state/physics/forces were the same in the distant unknown past.

Do we have any reason to assume the physical laws changed somehow?

 

[McBell]

Do we have any reason to assume the physical laws changed somehow?

um...
Because if they didn't it would mess with the world views of millions of people?

 

[dad1]

Do we have any reason to assume the physical laws changed somehow?

Yes, the clear record of the ancient Scripture and earliest history suggest it was not the same. Additionally, there is no science that says otherwise. It has only been assumed.

 

[dad1]

um...
Because if they didn't it would mess with the world views of millions of people?

If they did it messes with the beliefs of science.

 

[dad1]

Religion: belief & faith (objective evidence not required)

Science: evidence (belief & faith irrelevant).

They ain't the same.

The evidence is only by faith for science. Nothing else for the origins issues. Scripture is accumulated human experience, and tested and tried and demonstrated fact.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, the clear record of the ancient Scripture and earliest history suggest it was not the same.

There's scripture from billions of years ago?

Additionally, there is no science that says otherwise. It has only been assumed.

Actually, there's lots of science that says otherwise. The Universe we observe is a Universe that clearly displays characteristics of a Universe with consistent physical laws over a period of billions of years.

 

[Looncall]

The evidence is only by faith for science. Nothing else for the origins issues. Scripture is accumulated human experience, and tested and tried and demonstrated fact.

Nah. Scripture is folk tales and tribal and religious propaganda. The only reason it is revered is that scoundrels have conned people into doing so.

Scripture is deleterious to the human intellect, as is so often demonstrated in this forum.

 

[metis]

The evidence is only by faith for science. Nothing else for the origins issues. Scripture is accumulated human experience, and tested and tried and demonstrated fact.

False on both counts, but if you want to blindly believe as such, go for it as it makes no difference to me. I was brought up in a fundamentalist Protestant church to also believe as such, but then I did something very evil-- I studied.

 

[McBell]

If they did it messes with the beliefs of science.

Another bold empty claim.

Not that anyone is the least bit surprised.

 

[dad1]

There's scripture from billions of years ago?

The record from the creation of the universe is in Scripture.

Actually, there's lots of science that says otherwise.

It says it to the folks who believe it's untenable, and unsupportable belief based premises. In reality, only their beliefs are talking to them, not the eviences they molest with the beliefs.

The Universe we observe is a Universe that clearly displays characteristics of a Universe with consistent physical laws over a period of billions of years.

Since you base everything on what is seen from fishbowl earth, your so called consistency is ridiculous.

 

[dad1]

Nah. Scripture is folk tales and tribal and religious propaganda.

Daniel was told the kingdoms that would follow, others were told about the captivity and how long it would be, the birth and life and Resurrection and death of Jesus was laid out centuries before in stunning detail. Etc etc. Calling it 'folk' tales merely shows ignorant denial.

Scripture is deleterious to the human intellect, as is so often demonstrated in this forum.

The lies of so called science are not a demo of anything except story telling, selective choice of interpretive criteria, and a contempt for the creator.