Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[Subduction Zone]

My claim is that science doesn't know the nature of the past. Nothing extraordinary about that.

That is extremely extraordinary since science has a very positive record when it comes to such matters. You, not so much.

When a person only makes wild claims, such as you do, no one listens to him. Have you not noticed how you get into terrible arguments with other Christians that will not accept your rather bizarre interpretation of the Bible?

 

[dad1]

That is extremely extraordinary since science has a very positive record when it comes to such matters. You, not so much.

No. They have no proof whatsoever of the same nature in the past. That is assumed. There is no way around needing to be able to do more than claim it and believe it. Util they do not only is it a baseless and anti bible claim, but it extraordinarily without evidence of any kind.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No. They have no proof whatsoever of the same nature in the past. That is assumed. There is no way around needing to be able to do more than claim it and believe it. Util they do not only is it a baseless and anti bible claim, but it extraordinarily without evidence of any kind.

"Anti bible" claim? Do I really need to ask again why the default position should be that everything in the Bible is true?

You are claiming and believing, while providing nothing to back up your claims. You are projecting this onto science and onto others in this forum. I wish you could see that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. They have no proof whatsoever of the same nature in the past. That is assumed. There is no way around needing to be able to do more than claim it and believe it. Util they do not only is it a baseless and anti bible claim, but it extraordinarily without evidence of any kind.

dad, you do not even know what is and what is not evidence. You are in no position to judge.

When you are ready to learn I am ready to help you.

 

[dad1]

"Anti bible" claim? Do I really need to ask again why the default position should be that everything in the Bible is true?.

The issue is what science knows and can demonstrate is true regarding the basis for the models of the past they construct. What you decide to pick to default to in the way of beliefs is neither here your there.

 

[dad1]

dad, you do not even know what is and what is not evidence. You are in no position to judge.

When you are ready to learn I am ready to help you.

Evidence, perhaps can be defined as that which you never post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence, perhaps can be defined as that which you never post.

dad you know that is not true. As a Christian you should care about the Ninth Commandment. There is no point in posting any evidence for you since you do not understand the concept. I will discuss the nature of evidence with you. Until you learn what evidence is I am merely wasting my time posting any for you. But of course learning would mean that you would find out that you are wrong. It appears that you are very afraid.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The issue is what science knows and can demonstrate is true regarding the basis for the models of the past they construct. What you decide to pick to default to in the way of beliefs is neither here your there.

It is very much "here" when you are asserting that Biblical belief is the default position.

Science has no problem backing up its claims about the past. You're the one having the issues providing any evidence for your many claims here.

 

[dad1]

dad you know that is not true. As a Christian you should care about the Ninth Commandment. There is no point in posting any evidence for you since you do not understand the concept. I will discuss the nature of evidence with you. Until you learn what evidence is I am merely wasting my time posting any for you. But of course learning would mean that you would find out that you are wrong. It appears that you are very afraid.

Clouds without rain.

 

[dad1]

It is very much "here" when you are asserting that Biblical belief is the default position.

Wrong. I say it is my default. You can default to the Easter bunny or whatever if you like. Feel free.

Science has no problem backing up its claims about the past.

The claims all rest n a same nature existing then. That cannot be backed up. All they can do is try and patch up their ever failing and ever changing mental constructs of faith with some seeming cohesion inside their own circular belief set.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Clouds without rain.

Yep, that is all that you have.

When you are ready to learn I am ready to help you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong. I say it is my default. You can default to the Easter bunny or whatever if you like. Feel free.
The claims all rest n a same nature existing then. That cannot be backed up. All they can do is try and patch up their ever failing and ever changing mental constructs of faith with some seeming cohesion inside their own circular belief set.

Sorry dad, but someone refusing to learn how science backs up its claims does not mean that science does not back up its claims. And your default is flawed. You still need to show that the Bible is valid if you want to be honest to even yourself. Shifting the burden of proof will not convince anyone.

 

[dad1]

Sorry dad, but someone refusing to learn how science backs up its claims does not mean that science does not back up its claims. And your default is flawed. You still need to show that the Bible is valid if you want to be honest to even yourself. Shifting the burden of proof will not convince anyone.

Default to whatever you like. Science may not use models based on a nature they cannot prove existed any longer and be considered fact or knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Default to whatever you like. Science may not use models based on a nature they cannot prove existed any longer and be considered fact or knowledge.

Once again, the burden of proof for your fictitious state is upon you. Running away from your claim shows that even you do not take it seriously.

 

[gnostic]

dad you know that is not true. As a Christian you should care about the Ninth Commandment. There is no point in posting any evidence for you since you do not understand the concept. I will discuss the nature of evidence with you. Until you learn what evidence is I am merely wasting my time posting any for you. But of course learning would mean that you would find out that you are wrong. It appears that you are very afraid.

It is not so much dad1 being afraid.

No, it is more to do with his ego and pride.

That’s where all creationists have their failings. They cannot admit they were wrong, and they refused to learn from their mistakes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not so much dad1 being afraid.

No, it is more to do with his ego and pride.

That’s where all creationists have their failings. They cannot admit they were wrong, and they refused to learn from their mistakes.

That's true. It is no "sin" to be wrong. It is a sin not to learn from your errors. I used to oppose the concept of AGW, I used to be able to find scientists that agreed with me. But I was also able to read and understand the arguments against me and I was able to admit that I was wrong. I openly admitted that I was wrong on websites where I had argued against the concept and my "mea culpa's" were accepted without any judgement. Rational people do not hold a grudge when people own up to their errors. But dad's fear goes much deeper than merely a fear of being wrong. I doubt if he will ever change.

By the way, I have often found that I learn far more when I was wrong to start with, but then admit my errors.

 

[gnostic]

That's true. It is no "sin" to be wrong. It is a sin not to learn from your errors. I used to oppose the concept of AGW, I used to be able to find scientists that agreed with me. But I was also able to read and understand the arguments against me and I was able to admit that I was wrong. I openly admitted that I was wrong on websites where I had argued against the concept and my "mea culpa's" were accepted without any judgement. Rational people do not hold a grudge when people own up to their errors. But dad's fear goes much deeper than merely a fear of being wrong. I doubt if he will ever change.

By the way, I have often found that I learn far more when I was wrong to start with, but then admit my errors.

Until I have joined my first forum (back in 2003), I was completely unaware of the clashes between evolution and creationism.

I knew of the bible Genesis and about the Creation and Flood, because a couple of times, I nearly join two different as a teenager, but I didn’t know there were groups of people called “creationists”.

As to evolution, I only have Year 9 science in biology, before I chose to physics and chemistry in the rest of my high school years. Although I remember covering some very basics in genetics, my teachers never got around to teaching evolution. Evolution was probably available in the Year 10 or 11 biology syllabus.

And I knew nothing about Charles Darwin, nor his Natural Selection. Mutations I have heard of before, here and there, mainly from movies or tv, so I’ve never understood what it meant, nor did I grasp its relation to evolution.

So this ignorance of mine, made me search for information from both creation and evolution camps, so I can understand what both sides were talking about.

So in my free time, I took the time to learn about creationism and evolution.

With evolution, I had borrowed my cousin’s old university biology textbook. Of course, this doesn’t make me qualified as biologist, nor expert in evolutionary biology, but at least now I have better handle than I did before.

Likewise, I went and learn some more about the creation and flood stories, though it didn’t take me long to grasp it, since I was already familiar with the bible, including Genesis. It was really the creationists whom I didn’t understand.

I have also been fascinated by astronomy, but never took any subject, because I was too busy with the courses. But in my free time, I got to understand to understand, which led me to learn about astrophysics, relativity, quantum physics, particle physics, and lastly to cosmology, particularly the Big Bang.

It was thirst to know, that led me to do some researches on both sides. So for me, it was curiosity, not fear that drive me to learn.

I just cannot see how dad1 or any other creationists at RF cannot learn evolution, when there are so many people have been explaining the same, over and over again, and still remained ignorant on the subject. You cannot believe how many we have to explain to creationists, that evolution and abiogenesis are not the same things. They cannot learn, and they don’t want to learn, because the fear of God and the fear for their souls.

 

[dad1]

Once again, the burden of proof for your fictitious state is upon you. Running away from your claim shows that even you do not take it seriously.

What then do you claim the footprints were from?

 

[dad1]

It is not so much dad1 being afraid.

No, it is more to do with his ego and pride.

That’s where all creationists have their failings. They cannot admit they were wrong, and they refused to learn from their mistakes.

As proof we are wrong about the creation of God being true as Jesus confirmed, you offer an unsupported same state past nature and the house of cards built up on that foundation. Great will be the fall of that house.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What then do you claim the footprints were from?

The footprints in the article? They were probably from a relative of ours, not necessarily an ancestor. For example you probably have an uncle or an aunt. You are related to them but not (hopefully) descended from them.

That other apes besides man has come out of Africa is not controversial at all.