Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[dad1]

Man came at creation in the flesh and blood. But before this, man was spirit.

Let me try to say this clearly and gently to you. No one is asking tou to repeat strange claims. We are asking you to provide the chapter and verse.

When Prophet Daniel was speaking to Gabriel, Daniel called Gabriel a man.

While angels do appear as men, that does not mean they are men.

"Yeah, while I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel" Daniel 9:21.
Therefore Daniel called Gabriel a man, But yet Gabriel was a spirit being, with substance that could be seen.

Angels can appear as men...or any other disguise they like. That does not make them man kind, sorry.

 

[dad1]

The beginning of scientific thought lies in speculation.
(The trick is to not leap to belief prematurely.)

The beginning of scientific thought is not what is being foisted on the populations of earth. What is being force fed is a deep set of demonic doctrines disguised as science that are sold as actual, advanced, mature science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Already done..the claim science doesn't know is demonstrated often here.

You have backed up nothing. Anywhere. You've made a ton of claims, but still haven't backed any of them up. Nice try.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nothing. They don't know.
Bingo.
?
The bible tells us what went on, and how man was created. No what iffing needed.
Man was flesh. Woman was made from a bone...not a ghost.
Get a grip.

What reason do we have to believe the claims of the Bible are true?

 

[dad1]

That's where your definitely wrong at, The bible does support there was life on earth Millions of years ago.before the creation of Adam and Eve.

Creation was probably some 6000 years ago.The flood of Noah probably somewhere about 1600 years after that or so. Where do you dig up millions of years in the bible?

There is no where in the first week of creation in Genesis 1:2-5, That it is written the earth being created in that first day.

Note Genesis 1:1- "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

It does not say when God created the heaven and the earth. Only in the beginning, Whenever that was.

Well, the stars were created for us as signs. The plants and all things were created in the six day creation. The term 'beginning' was used by Jesus referring to when Adam was created. You just can't invent untold imaginary ages and insert them where you like to try and justify some misbegotten idea of what you think science demands we do.

Notice in Genesis Verse's 2-5, There is no where there Written that God created water. So where did this water come from in Verse 2 ?

In the NT it clarifies the earth was created standing in and out of the water actually.
Verse one says the heaven and earth was created. Then the net verse proceeds to tell us the details. Since the waters were part of heaven and earth, we know they had been created.

Notice in Verse 6 "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the middle of waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters"
Ok, So where did this water come from, There is no where in Verse's 2-5 that makes mentioning of God creating water.

It was created. The reason He lists all the various things in order is to show what came when. The space came after the earth, and later the stars were put in that space or firmament. There was water under space and also out beyond the end of space. Some sort of portals were opened that allowed the waters from outside space to come to earth in the flood, the windows of heaven.

So this takes us back to Genesis 1:1 --"In the beginning, Ok so when was the beginning ?
That God created the heaven and the earth?

It was part of the creation when earth and water were made. That sets the scene, because you can't talk about birds being created when as yet there is no earth to live on etc. So He starts with what came first in chapter one.

Show just one Verse in Genesis 1:2-31, As to where God created water?

The earth and water was already there, for the Spirit of God to move upon the face of the water. Genesis 1:2.[/QUOTE]

Looking at the Hebrew I see this.
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

Part of what was created then (heaven and earth) was water! Because verse two, talking about the heaven and earth that WAS CREATED included water. Now.....(in other words, now that the heaven and earth were here and created...this is what happened next....

 

[dad1]

You have backed up nothing. Anywhere. You've made a ton of claims, but still haven't backed any of them up. Nice try.

You don't understand...what is backed up is that you cannot support your claims that are supposed to be science. I have nothing I need to support. I already know where earth came from and man. I have no intention of trying to get horses to drink after they were led to water here.

 

[dad1]

What reason do we have to believe the claims of the Bible are true?

First things first here. What reason do we have to believe that there was a same nature in the past on earth as science believes? Once we see that all we have is a choice of beliefs, we can then look at what beliefs are of more merit. Long as people realize the fables of so called science about origins are mere unsupportable fables, then they can look around and decide what they want to believe.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You don't understand...what is backed up is that you cannot support your claims that are supposed to be science. I have nothing I need to support. I already know where earth came from and man. I have no intention of trying to get horses to drink after they were led to water here.

No, you apparently still don't understand burden of proof. You've made a ton of claims. And continue to do so. If you want to be taken seriously at all, you'll need something to back up those claims. Especially since you expect the same from anybody coming from a scientific viewpoint (or any other viewpoint, for that matter).

Otherwise, I don't see any reason why your claims shouldn't just be dismissed out of hand. Especially given the nature of them and the fact that they apparently fly in the face of all known science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

First things first here. What reason do we have to believe that there was a same nature in the past on earth as science believes? Once we see that all we have is a choice of beliefs, we can then look at what beliefs are of more merit. Long as people realize the fables of so called science about origins are mere unsupportable fables, then they can look around and decide what they want to believe.

Try answering my question please.

 

[Revoltingest]

The beginning of scientific thought is not what is being foisted on the populations of earth. What is being force fed is a deep set of demonic doctrines disguised as science that are sold as actual, advanced, mature science.

A plot by Satan, eh?

 

[Sapiens]

Guess we will submit the bible and all things to you to judge what is rational, eh. Good luck with that.

It would appear that is a more rational approach than anything you have to say, atavistic belief in angels and demons are so medieval.

Let me try to say this clearly and gently to you. No one is asking tou to repeat strange claims. We are asking you to provide the chapter and verse.
While angels do appear as men, that does not mean they are men.


Angels can appear as men...or any other disguise they like. That does not make them man kind, sorry.

The beginning of scientific thought is not what is being foisted on the populations of earth. What is being force fed is a deep set of demonic doctrines disguised as science that are sold as actual, advanced, mature science.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Let me try to say this clearly and gently to you. No one is asking tou to repeat strange claims. We are asking you to provide the chapter and verse.
While angels do appear as men, that does not mean they are men.


Angels can appear as men...or any other disguise they like. That does not make them man kind, sorry.

So what your saying is that Daniel is lieing about Referring to Gabriel as a man.

Daniel is clearly stating what he saw The man Gabriel.
Angels don't appear as they want. Throughout the bible angels have appeared to many, as man.

Notice that even Samson Mother telling her husband about a man, angel, appeared unto her.
Judge 13:9-10

How are you to accept anything else when you can not accept The Angel Gabriel as a man. With all the scripture reference that i can give, but still your in denial.

So what good what it do to go into anything else.

Even Jesus stated in Matthew that at the resurrection we will be like the angels in heaven, So what do you suppose the angels look like. For us to be like the angels in heaven ?
Matthew 22:30
Therefore all angels are man.for they neither marry, nor are given in marriage.and we will be like them.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Creation was probably some 6000 years ago.The flood of Noah probably somewhere about 1600 years after that or so. Where do you dig up millions of years in the bible?

Well, the stars were created for us as signs. The plants and all things were created in the six day creation. The term 'beginning' was used by Jesus referring to when Adam was created. You just can't invent untold imaginary ages and insert them where you like to try and justify some misbegotten idea of what you think science demands we do.


In the NT it clarifies the earth was created standing in and out of the water actually.
Verse one says the heaven and earth was created. Then the net verse proceeds to tell us the details. Since the waters were part of heaven and earth, we know they had been created.



It was created. The reason He lists all the various things in order is to show what came when. The space came after the earth, and later the stars were put in that space or firmament. There was water under space and also out beyond the end of space. Some sort of portals were opened that allowed the waters from outside space to come to earth in the flood, the windows of heaven.

It was part of the creation when earth and water were made. That sets the scene, because you can't talk about birds being created when as yet there is no earth to live on etc. So He starts with what came first in chapter one.



The earth and water was already there, for the Spirit of God to move upon the face of the water. Genesis 1:2.

Looking at the Hebrew I see this.
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

Part of what was created then (heaven and earth) was water! Because verse two, talking about the heaven and earth that WAS CREATED included water. Now.....(in other words, now that the heaven and earth were here and created...this is what happened next....[/QUOTE]

Look 2+2=4, Since the dinosaurs bones date back to Millions of years ago, That would mean the earth is just as old.

But of course you will try to say that carbon dating method is wrong.

But yet scientist and Christians scientist have both proven the carbon dating method is correct.
So let's go to the book of Genesis 1:1--"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Notice ( in the beginning ) so when was the beginning ?
Notice in Verse 2, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water.

If you were to go from Verse 2 to Verse 5, there is No mentioning of God created water? So where did the water come from?

Note God only created Light, But Yet No mentioning of water, But yet the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water.
The only thing God created on the first day was the Light, But yet we find the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water.
So where did the water come from.

Therefore since the water was there, And God only created the Light on the first day.

That means the earth was already there also.

Otherwise show where God said anything about creating water?
From Verse's 2 thru 5.

In Verse 7 all it says is God divided the waters. But still No mentioning of God created the water.
So where did the water come from ?

Then in Verse 9 God said Let the waters under heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear and it was so.

But still No mentioning of God created water. But we find God the dry land appear out of the water.
So this means the earth was there, but the water covered the earth.
But yet No mentioning of God created water.

So where did the water come from?

 

[dad1]

No, you apparently still don't understand burden of proof. You've made a ton of claims. And continue to do so. If you want to be taken seriously at all, you'll need something to back up those claims. Especially since you expect the same from anybody coming from a scientific viewpoint (or any other viewpoint, for that matter).

Otherwise, I don't see any reason why your claims shouldn't just be dismissed out of hand. Especially given the nature of them and the fact that they apparently fly in the face of all known science.

The claims you cannot support have nothing to do with the bible. Nor does the bible need any more support from science.

What needs support is the claims of so called science about the far past, and that is all predicated upon a same nature existing then. You cannot support it, don't try to hide behind some bizarre denial of Scripture.

 

[Sapiens]

The claims you cannot support have nothing to do with the bible. Nor does the bible need any more support from science.

What needs support is the claims of so called science about the far past, and that is all predicated upon a same nature existing then. You cannot support it, don't try to hide behind some bizarre denial of Scripture.

My denial of scripture is far from bizarre, it is quite ordinary in fact, relying as it does on the simple falsification of scripture's many bizarre claims.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

"
The new footprints, from Trachilos in western Crete, have an unmistakably human-like form. This is especially true of the toes. The big toe is similar to our own in shape, size and position; it is also associated with a distinct 'ball' on the sole, which is never present in apes."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170831134221.htm


"'What makes this controversial is the age and location of the prints,' says Professor Per Ahlberg at Uppsala University, last author of the study"

^ that's the controversial part if you want to protect conventional evolutionary wisdom, you are better targeting this, nobody really disputes the human form here,


but I'm curious, what do you think made this. if not human?

I agree that......it's interesting.

 

[stevevw]

The title is a bit deceiving because the dating has a range of almost 3 million years. IOW, it could be as late as 3 & 1/2 million b.p.

If it's closer to the latter date, then the finding should be of no surprise as we well know there was a diversity of human groups around that time. However, if it's closer to the older date of 6 m., that would be unexpected as early finds have the foot being somewhat more ape-like, plus, the genome testing puts the likely ape/human divergence as being 6-7 m.

It seems that the 5.7 million year old foot prints are securely dated unless they want to start bringing into doubt other fossils and layers they have dated and used for years which would begin to bring into doubt other layers and fossils and undermine the whole dating method for large amounts of fossils. I guess time will tell,no pun intended.

However, the Trachilos footprints are securely dated using a combination of foraminifera (marine microfossils) from over- and underlying beds, plus the fact that they lie just below a very distinctive sedimentary rock formed when the Mediterranean sea briefly dried out, 5.6 millon years ago.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170831134221.htm

 

[metis]

It seems that the 5.7 million year old foot prints are securely dated unless they want to start bringing into doubt other fossils and layers they have dated and used for years which would begin to bring into doubt other layers and fossils and undermine the whole dating method for large amounts of fossils.

Since the type of dating for specimens that old use various forms of radioactive dating (not like with Carbon14, however), and since we quite well know how radioactivity works, I don't suspect any changes, especially with that relatively large range of the degree of error.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The claims you cannot support have nothing to do with the bible. Nor does the bible need any more support from science.

What needs support is the claims of so called science about the far past, and that is all predicated upon a same nature existing then. You cannot support it, don't try to hide behind some bizarre denial of Scripture.

 

[gnostic]

It seems that the 5.7 million year old foot prints are securely dated unless they want to start bringing into doubt other fossils and layers they have dated and used for years which would begin to bring into doubt other layers and fossils and undermine the whole dating method for large amounts of fossils. I guess time will tell,no pun intended.

However, the Trachilos footprints are securely dated using a combination of foraminifera (marine microfossils) from over- and underlying beds, plus the fact that they lie just below a very distinctive sedimentary rock formed when the Mediterranean sea briefly dried out, 5.6 millon years ago.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170831134221.htm

If the prints are newly discovered, then no, it has not been “securely dated”.

There would also be barrages of more tests, before it can be considered “securely dated”, especially like metis say, if the dating methods have such a huge “degree of error”.

The margin of error should be a lot smaller than the current age given.

You do know what metis is talking about, when he referred to “degree of error”, don’t you?

It is basic science and engineering practices, when measuring anything, to include plus-and-minus value to any measurement, including that measuring the age.

For instance, the age of the Earth would be given as -

4.54±0.04 bya​

The degree of error is “±0.04 bya“ or “± 40 million years”. This is a degree of error at about 1%, which is the norm for scientific researches.

If the age is given “±1 bya”, then the degree of error is way too large.

In your article, the age of 5.6 million years with ±3 million years, there is something wrong with such large degree of error.