• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

dad1

Active Member
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.

One can study things that are deceptively crafted lies and half truths if one likes. The sin is believing it.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
OK....I looked at the picture of the footprints.
I'm unimpressed with the claim.
Anyone have better pix?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
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.

So, you are assuming that the writings of one very small group of people are more reliable than those of other people *and* the consistency of physical laws? You *assume* the people, in their imaginings of what happened in *their* past, were completely accurate to the place that we should throw away physical laws that give consistent results across the board?

Sorry, the flimsy evidence is in your scriptures, not in the physical laws.
 

dad1

Active Member
So, you are assuming that the writings of one very small group of people are more reliable than those of other people *and* the consistency of physical laws?
No. Our present laws are quite reliable for the moment, and have been for thousands of years. What is unreliable is little pipsqueak would be wise men of so called science trying to tell us about the origins of earth and heaven.

You *assume* the people, in their imaginings of what happened in *their* past, were completely accurate to the place that we should throw away physical laws that give consistent results across the board?
How would I apply our laws to people living 1000 years or trees growing in weeks, and such things as were recorded in the past? As much as you may like to, sorry, it ain't a good fit.
 

dad1

Active Member
Hah!
I'm not that old.
Besides, even if I knew the guy, I wouldn't remember his name from so long ago.

I think there is some question as to whether the prints were made by modern man. Since we do not know what pre flood man was like, we don't know what the footprints would be like either. So how can anyone say it was or was not a man?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I think there is some question as to whether the prints were made by modern man. Since we do not know what pre flood man was like, we don't know what the footprints would be like either. So how can anyone say it was or was not a man?
Could be Sasquatch, since I can't see them clearly.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
The record from the creation of the universe is in Scripture.
But it was not an eyewitness account, was it?

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.
So what theory other than evolution explains the phenomenon of genetic diversity and the divergence we see in the fossil record?

Since you base everything on what is seen from fishbowl earth, your so called consistency is ridiculous.
So humans can't possibly make reliable deductions based on observations? You are aware of how relativity and quantum physics work?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
One can study things that are deceptively crafted lies and half truths if one likes. The sin is believing it.
And you might actually consider that.

Any religious denomination that teaches its congregants to ignore what the overwhelming consensus of scientists in a given area know is real is one that is teaching its congregants to go through life with blinders on, therefore is bogus as it has no interest in Truth. It is teaching ignorance and is acting dishonestly since there's far more evidence for the basic ToE than there is for what they teach their congregants about God. It's really a dumbing-down of Christianity, but fortunately most Christian denominations really don't teach such ignorance and dishonesty.
 
Top