Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[dad1]

dad, if you don't know what you are talking about you can't argue.

Try again, learn the basics. You just gonged yourself once more.

When asked to show that radioactive decay existed in the far past you post this? Ha. Lurkers take note.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What about them do you think needs explaining?

Once again you gong yourself. If you don't understand a topic you can't debate it.

When you ask politely and properly I will gladly help you to learn. Merely constantly demonstrating massive ignorance only makes you look bad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When asked to show that radioactive decay existed in the far past you post this? Ha. Lurkers take note.

You didn't ask this. And please, you forgot that that has been shown to you in the past.

We can observe radioactive decay in the material ejected by distant supernovae. Once again you gong yourself dad.

 

[Sapiens]

Once again you gong yourself. If you don't understand a topic you can't debate it.

When you ask politely and properly I will gladly help you to learn. Merely constantly demonstrating massive ignorance only makes you look bad.

I think the best thing to do with dad1 is to ignore him. His only response is to spew "prove it" like a small child with an endless chain or "why".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think the best thing to do with dad1 is to ignore him. His only response is to spew "prove it" like a small child with an endless chain or "why".

Good idea. He is his own worst enemy.

Done. A person has to have a special kind of . . . let's not go there. If a person has no ability to reason or support their beliefs and adds dishonesty and arrogance on top of that then I might put that person on ignore.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think the best thing to do with dad1 is to ignore him. His only response is to spew "prove it" like a small child with an endless chain or "why".

Yep. Time to stop feeding the troll.

 

[dad1]

Once again you gong yourself. If you don't understand a topic you can't debate it.

When you ask politely and properly I will gladly help you to learn. Merely constantly demonstrating massive ignorance only makes you look bad.

We understand your posts. Void of content and riddled with delusions of grandeur and secret knowledge that you can't somehow ever post.

 

[dad1]

You didn't ask this. And please, you forgot that that has been shown to you in the past.

We can observe radioactive decay in the material ejected by distant supernovae. Once again you gong yourself dad.

Too bad you do not know the distance to the SN. Too bad you do not know what time is like in deep space. Too bad the decay only is seen here. Etc.

 

[dad1]

I think the best thing to do with dad1 is to ignore him. His only response is to spew "prove it" like a small child with an endless chain or "why".

For those who have no ability to support their claims, that would be a good recourse. Flee. Hoo ha

 

[Sapiens]

Don't feed the troll ... bye.

 

[Valjean]

No. The point is that evolution as the origin of life on earth is what both are about. One starts with things earlier in the evo imagination than the other!

But evolution has little to do with origins.

Raise rate of decay??? What are you talking about? Why would there have been any decay in the former nature exactly? Proof?

Radioactive decay. Do you think there was no radioactivity or nuclear energy in the beginning?

It could be anything you imagine or need eh? Cute.

But our knowledge of ancestors isn't based on need or imagination. That's not how science works.

 

[dad1]

But evolution has little to do with origins.

One example is that in an article I saw recently, they said a living flatworm was man's oldest living relative. They claimed man and the flatworm species shared some common ancestor. That is not biogenesis.

Radioactive decay. Do you think there was no radioactivity or nuclear energy in the beginning?

I don't know. I do think that it is possible that the forces and nature of that day worked on atoms in a different way.So that what is now a daughter isotope, in that day may have been involved is a process that was something else other than a process of decay. Whatever was here changed, and we were left with the current processes and way things work. Was there some other forces or force also at work that is now absent in the mix? Who knows? When the fundamental forces are involved, even a small change can have big effects. One electron more or less...one stronger or weaker spin...etc etc..

But our knowledge of ancestors isn't based on need or imagination. That's not how science works.

Yes it sure is and that is precisely how it works with science. The so called ancestor of man and other creatures never existed for example. Totally invented and imaginary. Also, since probably most life on the planet, including mankind could not leave remains like fossilized remains in that former nature, the fossil record of life is NOT a record of life on earth. It is a hopelessly partial record of some of the life on earth, and some kinds of life.Trying to deduce what lifeforms came from what becomes an impossible exercise...especially when science is not aware that life started by creation with created kinds before any evolution started at all. How could we expect them to know what came from what?

Then there was the pre flood world/former nature, where creatures evolved fast fast fast fast and did so in that different climate and conditions of the former nature. Then there was the post flood and post former nature world where creatures adapted to the new world and looked different in many cases. Science can't know what was what!

 

[metis]

Trying to deduce what lifeforms came from what becomes an impossible exercise...especially when science is not aware that life started by creation with created kinds before any evolution started at all.

The above simply is not in any way science-- it's religion.

 

[dad1]

The above simply is not in any way science-- it's religion.

Exactly. When science says something came evolved from something we need to look at the evidence. Do they have a good sampling of fossils from which to deduce what evolved from what? Are there enormous gaps in fossilized life that make the connections they try to make wrong? Is the whole exercise of trying to connect little 'simple' lifeforms' to man with a perceived common ancestor basically a statement of faith against creation? etc.

The answer is that they have only a minute sampling of all early life on earth from the fossil record! Trying to connect man to those creatures is like trying to complete a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle with only four pieces. Religion indeed.

 

[metis]

Trying to connect man to those creatures is like trying to complete a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle with only four pieces.

And yet you blindly believe in divine creation even though there's no objectively-derived evidence for it, so maybe take your own advice.

 

[dad1]

And yet you blindly believe in divine creation even though there's no objectively-derived evidence for it, so maybe take your own advice.

Believe. Admit that that is all science does and we can talk. I have nothing against beliefs. I do oppose con jobs where beliefs are offered as science.

 

[Valjean]

One example is that in an article I saw recently, they said a living flatworm was man's oldest living relative. They claimed man and the flatworm species shared some common ancestor. That is not biogenesis.

Exactly. It's evolution -- changes in already extant organisms.

I don't know. I do think that it is possible that the forces and nature of that day worked on atoms in a different way.So that what is now a daughter isotope, in that day may have been involved is a process that was something else other than a process of decay. Whatever was here changed, and we were left with the current processes and way things work. Was there some other forces or force also at work that is now absent in the mix? Who knows? When the fundamental forces are involved, even a small change can have big effects. One electron more or less...one stronger or weaker spin...etc etc..

You're positing a chaotic, mercurial, kaleidoscopic reality with no predictable rules. Throw a ball up and it might never come down. Steel could suddenly become as flexible as rubber. Gasoline might become non-flammable. You might walk through walls.
With no predictable rules all would be chaos.

Yet your computer works. Your house is still in the same place when you come home from work. 2+2 still = 4.
Ice cores, stratigraphy, fossils, DNA, and dendrochronology all agree.

Yes it sure is and that is precisely how it works with science. The so called ancestor of man and other creatures never existed for example. Totally invented and imaginary. Also, since probably most life on the planet, including mankind could not leave remains like fossilized remains in that former nature, the fossil record of life is NOT a record of life on earth. It is a hopelessly partial record of some of the life on earth, and some kinds of life.Trying to deduce what lifeforms came from what becomes an impossible exercise...especially when science is not aware that life started by creation with created kinds before any evolution started at all. How could we expect them to know what came from what?

Science doesn't invent things. It collects, tests and evaluates evidence. it's not capricious, it's not conjecture or wishful thinking.
Religion starts with a proposition and looks for supporting evidence. Religion begins with a preconceived belief. Religion, unlike science, lacks supporting evidence.
You believe magic more reasonable and reliable than observable, testable reality.

Then there was the pre flood world/former nature, where creatures evolved fast fast fast fast and did so in that different climate and conditions of the former nature. Then there was the post flood and post former nature world where creatures adapted to the new world and looked different in many cases.

Please explain. I don't know what you're getting at here. Earth changes. life evolves, and you have no evidence, outside of folklore, of any worldwide flood.

Science can't know what was what!

You don't understand science enough to justify this conclusion. Look at today's technology. We have science and the abandonment of religious dogma to thank for it.

 

[gnostic]

Believe. Admit that that is all science does and we can talk. I have nothing against beliefs. I do oppose con jobs where beliefs are offered as science.

You are joking, aren’t you?

You do realise that are lot more biologists, with theistic backgrounds than there are of atheistic backgrounds, most of whom accept the evolution as "scientific" and "factual", and in the West, those who are "theists", are mostly Christians.

Do you seriously think biologists with Christian are also involved in the conspiracies?

And if you look at the early history of the development of theory of evolution, of the mid to late 19th century, early supporters (Darwin's contemporaries) were mostly Christians, not atheists. Darwin, himself, was a Christian, as well as Alfred Russel Wallace, another biologist, who was on the same path as Darwin's, regarding to the Natural Selection.

But science deal with evidences, not on faith or belief. And science is a tool in acquiring knowledge, not a religion.

You just have warped definition on belief that bordered on the absurdity, and you certainly have limited understanding of science.

 

[dad1]

Exactly. It's evolution -- changes in already extant organisms.
You're positing a chaotic, mercurial, kaleidoscopic reality with no predictable rules. Throw a ball up and it might never come down. Steel could suddenly become as flexible as rubber. Gasoline might become non-flammable. You might walk through walls.
With no predictable rules all would be chaos.

The problem for you is that if there were created kinds, that was the already extant organisms and creatures where any evolving started. To miss that has to lead to a confused groping in the dark as to what was what and what started where! Add to that that if the nature changed, and the way evolving happened therefore changed also, you really get lost and left in the dirt. Then, if most animals and man could not fossilize in the former nature, you get so hopelessly confused and off track, that it becomes utterly absurd.

Yet your computer works. Your house is still in the same place when you come home from work. 2+2 still = 4.

None of this because there was some first lifeform or some common ancestor with the flatworm. Irrelevant.

Ice cores, stratigraphy, fossils, DNA, and dendrochronology all agree.

No, only when you assume they all formed in this nature is there internal agreement inside your head and belief system.

Science doesn't invent things. It collects, tests and evaluates evidence. it's not capricious, it's not conjecture or wishful thinking.

It is precisely bad religion foisted on all it collects. Nothing more in the origins fields.

Religion starts with a proposition and looks for supporting evidence.

Jesus rose from the dead and healed people and walked on water and calmed seas and wind, and ruled fish and animals, and read minds, knew the future, etc etc. Later, we believed. You have it backwards.
[/QUOTE]
Religion begins with a preconceived belief. Religion, unlike science, lacks supporting evidence.[/QUOTE] Pretending there is supporting evidence for wholly made up fabricated fables is nothing but staring with a preconceived belief actually.

You believe magic more reasonable and reliable than observable, testable reality.

The attempt to limit reality to the puny confines of the little fishbowl realm of science is actually purposeful denial.

Please explain. I don't know what you're getting at here. Earth changes. life evolves, and you have no evidence, outside of folklore, of any worldwide flood.

Life evolves because creation came equipped with that ability. You have no evidence against the flood either. In all ways I win.

You don't understand science enough to justify this conclusion.

You pretend you do but your posts betray you.

Look at today's technology. We have science and the abandonment of religious dogma to thank for it.

Gee, thanks for the nukes, I guess?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Every time I see some anti science kook posting their opinions to the internet with a computer I can't help but chuckle a little.