Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[dad1]

Ok. I thought for a second I might have detected the emergence of intellectual honesty among creationists. No such luck. As you were.

Be it as it may, you cannot defend the dates and they are based on assuming there was our nature along with it's radioactivity and decay in the past.

 

[dad1]

I am neither biologist, nor medical doctor, nor palaeontologist.

But as I understand it, some specialists can through science, determine the age of person, when they die, by examining bones and teeth.

Those people who they look at are from the present nature. You see, Noah and co are long gone and they left no remains. In the former times and nature it seems like we returned from the dust we were created too fast to leave remains, as we now can do in this nature!

I am sure someone else in this thread can explain this better than I can, but science are able to determine the age, by examining the enamels of a tooth.

That is great, but does not apply to pre flood era mankind.

It is sort of like people who study tree rings can determine its ages, I think they can do something similar with tooth enamels.

A tree grew in weeks in the former nature, so a ring at that time did not represent a season as it now does. Rings can't help you either.

Humans living less than 10,000 years ago, their skeletal remains have less chance to fossilise.

Science has no idea what real years are. They deal in imaginary time only. Example the flood was possibly around 4500 real years ago, but around 70,000,000 of their imaginary years ago.

There is no dating beyond about 4500 years ago that is valid. You have no way to call any dates at all beyond that.

But at whatever periods, Neolithic periods or the Bronze Age (Early Bronze Age or the wnd half of 3rd millennium BCE, would be the supposed time for Noah’s Flood, based Iron the calculations of Masoretic-based source Old Testament), examining the teeth will show the general life expectancies are not very high.

False. There are no remains of pre flood man. You also have the dates wrong for 3000 BC. The best you could get close to accurate dates for would be around 2500 BC.

Only those who lived like royal, few would reach the age of 100.

That was long after the nature change, so it doesn't matter.

No one 2000 years ago or 5000 years ago, lived over 130 years of age. And the further back in time you, it should show even shorter life span, not the mythological 200-plus (eg Enoch, aged 365) or 900-plus years (eg Adam, 930 years, Seth, 912, Methuselah, 969, and Noah, 950).

Abraham lived I think it was 175 years.

I would say that looking at how long people lived is a far better indicator of actual dates than tree rings or radioactive decay. It follows a pattern. Before the flood they lived almost 1000 years. Right after in the days of Peleg, it dropped to about 230 years or so. Then we had Abraham at 175 a bit later. Then it leveled off to close to today's norms.

If scientists found a tooth of person that lived to 200 years or more, the news would spread like wildfire, and everyone would know about.

There are no remains probably of people from before the nature change. We do not know what changes in teeth may have taken place. Some speculate that early man may have been able to constantly grow teeth, rather than just the two sets we have today?! So then the issue would become how long a particular set of teeth were in a man's head, rather than how old the man was!

Now, got any tough ones?

 

[gnostic]

Those people who they look at are from the present nature. You see, Noah and co are long gone and they left no remains. In the former times and nature it seems like we returned from the dust we were created too fast to leave remains, as we now can do in this nature!

That’s pure conjecture.

Unless you present some evidences that back your claims, those conjecture are baseless.

Archaeologists have remains from last century to the start of Neolithic period (which was also the end of the last glacial period) 11,500 ago.

And there are no evidences that biology are differences between 4000 and 5000 years ago (Early Bronze Age), with 2350 BCE (4350 years ago) being the approximate date of the supposed Flood.

There are also no differences to physics and chemistry, no differences in the geographical properties of rocks.

What you are claiming is nothing more than fairytales, or worse, your delusions.

If you have evidences for your claims, then present them. Because you have not presented any. You just keep make the same claim, over and over again, which don’t help your argument, because you are evading repeated requests to substantiate your claims, about nature being different before Noah’s Flood.

 

[gnostic]

Abraham lived I think it was 175 years.

Genesis say that.

You don’t have Abraham’s body to determine his age.

As I said, earlier, scientists can determine the age of a person by his tooth...teeth which you don’t have.

So you have no evidences as to Abraham’s age, and no evidences that he even exist.

Anyone can write a book, and put age to a man, but if the person is mythological or fictional, then there are no way to prove it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Those people who they look at are from the present nature. You see, Noah and co are long gone and they left no remains. In the former times and nature it seems like we returned from the dust we were created too fast to leave remains, as we now can do in this nature!
That is great, but does not apply to pre flood era mankind.

A tree grew in weeks in the former nature, so a ring at that time did not represent a season as it now does. Rings can't help you either.
Science has no idea what real years are. They deal in imaginary time only. Example the flood was possibly around 4500 real years ago, but around 70,000,000 of their imaginary years ago.

There is no dating beyond about 4500 years ago that is valid. You have no way to call any dates at all beyond that.
False. There are no remains of pre flood man. You also have the dates wrong for 3000 BC. The best you could get close to accurate dates for would be around 2500 BC.


That was long after the nature change, so it doesn't matter.
Abraham lived I think it was 175 years.

I would say that looking at how long people lived is a far better indicator of actual dates than tree rings or radioactive decay. It follows a pattern. Before the flood they lived almost 1000 years. Right after in the days of Peleg, it dropped to about 230 years or so. Then we had Abraham at 175 a bit later. Then it leveled off to close to today's norms.


There are no remains probably of people from before the nature change. We do not know what changes in teeth may have taken place. Some speculate that early man may have been able to constantly grow teeth, rather than just the two sets we have today?! So then the issue would become how long a particular set of teeth were in a man's head, rather than how old the man was!

Now, got any tough ones?

Do you have any evidence of this "nature change"?

 

[metis]

Sun worship in the RCC is as plain as the nose on anyone's face. Denial does not make it disappear.

Oh, I just have to cite this as just one example of just how disingenuous you can be.

I've shown you this before because we discussed this at some length, namely that Catholics worship the Son, not the sun. Even though this information was provided to you before from both Catholic and non-Catholic sources, you double-down on this again and again and...

Here are just some websites, some Catholic and some not, that show just how low you are willing to go with your anti-Catholic bigotry:

Do Catholics Worship the Sun?

Catholics worship the Sun god?

http://www.catholicmilwaukee.com/do-catholics-worship-the-sun-god--.html

Paganism

Saint Worship? | Catholic Answers

And there's many more where this came from.

What you have done is to buy into the anti-Catholic bigotry that's based on anti-Catholic sources, and instead of actually turning to real Catholic sources that cover what the Church actually teaches, you find it all so convenient to believe and parrot the bigotry from anti-Catholic sources.

I've gone to Catholic masses for over 50 years now, and never in that time did any priest ever offer prayers to the sun. And if you would actually read the official "Catechism of the Catholic Church", it tells you that it is forbidden for a Catholic to worship any object-- period!

The above is just one "fine" example of what you do, Deeje, and it is just so nauseatingly dishonest for you to intentionally misportray what the CC actually teaches and does. And you do much the same in some other areas as well.

Yes, Deeje, it seems that you actually have no sense shame.

 

[dad1]

That’s pure conjecture.

Unless you present some evidences that back your claims, those conjecture are baseless.

Actually, unless you provide evidence that nature was the same, you cannot claim it was, or that fossils should exist then for most creatures.

Archaeologists have remains from last century to the start of Neolithic period (which was also the end of the last glacial period) 11,500 ago.

No. They have wrong dates they cannot begin to support, that they apply to various remains!

And there are no evidences that biology are differences between 4000 and 5000 years ago (Early Bronze Age), with 2350 BCE (4350 years ago) being the approximate date of the supposed Flood.

What evidences? Genetics, and how long things would take to change in this nature? Or...what are you alluding to?
Ha

There are also no differences to physics and chemistry, no differences in the geographical properties of rocks.

Why would there be? The rocks are here in this nature. Have you some reason why they would not now behave properly here?? If you have evidences for your claims, then present them.

You cannot pass off your beliefs as science, sorry.

 

[dad1]

Do you have any evidence of this "nature change"?

Science doesn't know either way. Yet they have used the one belief in all models for the past.

We are left with the fact we do not know and whatever one chooses to believe is just that, a belief. Nothing more. Nothing less.

As for reasons to believe the nature was different or the same, both history and the bible afford plenty of reasons to assume it was not the same.

 

[dad1]

Genesis say that.

You don’t have Abraham’s body to determine his age.

Or you...to question it! By the way his body lies in a tomb in the area of Israel. Too bad all the forces of hell and heaven guard that so you can't get the science ghouls to dig it up eh?

As I said, earlier, scientists can determine the age of a person by his tooth...teeth which you don’t have.

It was pointed out that if men grew multiple sets of teeth in the former nature, as would make sense, that looking at any particular set of teeh in a man's head would not represent how old he was. The teeth would only represent the age that they were in the head! Hoo ha.

Even if we happened to find some remains of very early post flood man from when we started to be able to leave remains in this nature, there is the question of the transition period. How long would human bodies now living in this present nature take to fully adapt to it? Obviously the record shows there was some adapting going on, because the life spans took a while to normalize to current levels!

Why would I ignore this evidence just to wave in your little unproven same state past??

So you have no evidences as to Abraham’s age, and no evidences that he even exist.

Correction, science doesn't. But that is no unusual thing. I have all the evidences of Scripture. Even the Muslim world have records of Abraham. Your strange denial of history for no reason at all shows a religious fanaticism for your belief set.

You don't get to wave away last week or anything you like just because it is not under your little nose.

 

[gnostic]

Actually, unless you provide evidence that nature was the same, you cannot claim it was, or that fossils should exist then for most creatures.

Don’t talk about fossils, dad1, because you don’t understand how fossils form.

If you did understand, you would know that fossils cannot form under 10,000 years.

There are no fossils in the Bronze Age (started 3100 BCE in the Middle East). You also won’t fossils, where humans or creatures died during the Neolithic period, 10,000 - 3100 BCE.

4400-year is too short a time for remains to turn into fossils.

And even older remains, those older than 10,000 years ago, fossilisation don’t often occur.

Any human fossils found, are in the Upper Palaeolithic period or earlier (Middle and Lower Palaeolithic periods).

If we look at Jericho’s earliest settlement as examples, where people inhabited this area, between 9600 and 9000 BCE, the most common funerary practices in this period was to bury their dead under the floors and foundations of their homes. 279 of such burials have been found.

None of the body remains, including skulls, uncovered, were never “fossilised”.

By 9400 BCE, as many as 70 homes were have been found, which would mean as many 1000 people living around this time, the first Neolithic “town”.

Even more remarkable, is stone fortified wall, 3.6 metres high, surrounding this settlement, and a stone tower were discovered, the first of its kind. The walls were built mostly likely to prevent the Jordan from flooding the town, not as defence in war.

City walls are rare this early in the Neolithic period. Building city walls didn’t become more common in the Middle East during the Neolithic period until the 4th millennium BCE.

Even the earliest settlement discovered in Damascus, dated to about 9000 BCE, don’t have that many people living there and didn’t build city wall.

Around 9000 BCE, Jericho was abandoned, and the 2nd settlement wasn’t built over the first until around 6800 BCE.

Anyway, no fossils can be found, where humans died less than 10,000 years ago.

 

[gnostic]

Actually, unless you provide evidence that nature was the same, you cannot claim it was, or that fossils should exist then for most creatures.

Dad1.

I think the datings presented by scientists are the “evidences”. I

If you are saying those dates are ALL WRONGS, then you are the one who need to back up your claims with evidences that science is wrong.

Do you have evidences that dates to those discoveries are wrong?

You haven’t presented any evidence that science are wrong and you are right.

Where are your evidences that timeline are wrong?

 

[dad1]

Don’t talk about fossils, dad1, because you don’t understand how fossils form.

The only issue here is how they did or could not form in the former times. Not how they would or could form now in this nature.

If you did understand, you would know that fossils cannot form under 10,000 years.

In this present nature, ...so what? Not an issue whatsoever to the former nature. You are, as always left with the task of proving this same nature existed in the past, if you base things on the idea and premise that it did.

There are no fossils in the Bronze Age (started 3100 BCE in the Middle East). You also won’t fossils, where humans or creatures died during the Neolithic period, 10,000 - 3100 BCE.

False. Your dates are wonky. In real time, your 70,000,000 years is about 4500 years. When you start talking 600 years before the flood where you try to place the flood before that time, you are really talking about post flood. The only issue is your wonky unsupported dates. All based on a same state past imagined decay. (or in some cases imagining things like tree tings to have grown in this nature etc)

4400-year is too short a time for remains to turn into fossils.

You are talking about now in this nature. Irrelevant. For the few creatures pre flood that could leave such remains, we do not know how long that would take in the former nature. Nor do we know what the genetics were like, nor do we know what the processes of evolution were like. You merely seek to look at how things now work and apply that.

Any human fossils found, are in the Upper Palaeolithic period or earlier (Middle and Lower Palaeolithic periods).

By the time men started to die in this present nature and be able to leave remains that is where we were in the geologic record. Before that we were here also, but could not leave remains.

If we look at Jericho’s earliest settlement as examples, where people inhabited this area, between 9600 and 9000 BCE, the most common funerary practices in this period was to bury their dead under the floors and foundations of their homes. 279 of such burials have been found.

Your dates are wrong. The actual dates are probably (in real time) closer to about 3900-4150 years ago..

None of the body remains, including skulls, uncovered, were never “fossilised”.

Why would they be, it was this nature!?

Even more remarkable, is stone fortified wall, 3.6 metres high, surrounding this settlement, and a stone tower were discovered, the first of its kind. The walls were built mostly likely to prevent the Jordan from flooding the town, not as defence in war.

It's funny looking at this article, you seem to be wrong.

The Walls of Jericho

City walls are rare this early in the Neolithic period. Building city walls didn’t become more common in the Middle East during the Neolithic period until the 4th millennium BCE.

Your dates were arrived at...how? If by radioactive decay 'dating' they are wrong!
So your whole sequence is wrong.

Anyway, no fossils can be found, where humans died less than 10,000 years ago.

Being in this nature...we expect it to be so.

 

[dad1]

Dad1.

I think the datings presented by scientists are the “evidences”. I

If you are saying those dates are ALL WRONGS, then you are the one who need to back up your claims with evidences that science is wrong.

Do you have evidences that dates to those discoveries are wrong?

You haven’t presented any evidence that science are wrong and you are right.

Where are your evidences that timeline are wrong?

Yes I have evidence that you cannot provide proof for the required same nature in the past you need to have radioactive decay exist then. That evidence is in your abject failure to be able to do so.

 

[gnostic]

Your dates are wrong. The actual dates are probably (in real time) closer to about 3900-4150 years ago

Sorry, but where are the evidences that the first settlement of Jericho is only 1800-2150 BCE?

Can you tell me of one archaeologist or one scientist ever giving you this date of 3900-4150 years ago?

Kathleen Kenyon was the archaeologist who uncovered all 20 successive ancient settlements of Jericho. Her datings of each settlements were accurate; and tested and confirmed by other archaeologists after her.

She did find the Middle Bronze Age settlement, which included the fallen wall, but they have been dated to between early 17th century and mid-16th century BCE (or more precisely between 1617 and 1530 BCE, by 1 & 1/2 or 2 centuries earlier than creationist’s that Joshua’s Jericho (about 1405 BCE, based on 2 Kings 6:1 (480 years) and Israelites’ 40 year’s wandering in the wilderness).

One creationist did challenge her dating of the Jericho destruction, but Bryant Wood own datings contain errors and misleading data, that as a YEC creationist, he is incompetent. Instead of being impartial and based his datings on the techniques he allowed his bias, by providing false readings.

Until you do provide verifiable evidences to your claims, that Jericho earliest settlement is much younger, it is merely your warped opinions.

 

[dad1]

Sorry, but where are the evidences that the first settlement of Jericho is only 1800-2150 BCE?

The only issue is your dream dates. They are not supportable and wholly based on a same nature in the past belief. Nothing else.

Can you tell me of one archaeologist or one scientist ever giving you this date of 3900-4150 years ago?

Name one that does not share the same state past religion?

Kathleen Kenyon was the archaeologist who uncovered all 20 successive ancient settlements of Jericho. Her datings of each settlements were accurate; and tested and confirmed by other archaeologists after her.

False. The belief in a same nature with it's decay was used by all. One belief binds them, on belief rules them all.

She did find the Middle Bronze Age settlement, which included the fallen wall, but they have been dated to between early 17th century and mid-16th century BCE (or more precisely between 1617 and 1530 BCE, by 1 & 1/2 or 2 centuries earlier than creationist’s that Joshua’s Jericho (about 1405 BCE, based on 2 Kings 6:1 (480 years) and Israelites’ 40 year’s wandering in the wilderness).

All you need to do now is show the basis for your claimed dates. Then all I have to do is show they are based on the uknowwhat belief. I will be able to do that.

One creationist did challenge her dating of the Jericho destruction, but Bryant Wood own datings contain errors and misleading data, that as a YEC creationist, he is incompetent. Instead of being impartial and based his datings on the techniques he allowed his bias, by providing false readings.

Maybe, but so what? The thing that matters is your dates are really beliefs.

Until you do provide verifiable evidences to your claims, that Jericho earliest settlement is much younger, it is merely your warped opinions.

I do not even know, never really looked into it. I do know your dates are of no worth at all and without basis in reality or fact of any kind.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Science doesn't know either way.

Then why do you keep asserting that there was one?

Yet they have used the one belief in all models for the past.

Because all the evidence is consistent with the natural laws not changing.

We are left with the fact we do not know and whatever one chooses to believe is just that, a belief. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Sure, if you ignore the evidence.

As for reasons to believe the nature was different or the same, both history and the bible afford plenty of reasons to assume it was not the same.

The Bible is just a book, so that can be discounted. In what way does history provide evidence that nature was different?

 

[gnostic]

The only issue is your dream dates. They are not supportable and wholly based on a same nature in the past belief. Nothing else.

Man, you are evasive and dishonest as an used car salesman.

I ask you where you get these dates from, but you have completely ignore and evade my questions.

You are the one putting the dates for Jericho first settlement at 3900 and 4150 years ago, which is equated to 1900 BCE and 2150 BCE.

Your wrote:

our dates are wrong. The actual dates are probably (in real time) closer to about 3900-4150 years ago..

I am asking you for the sources of this so-called information of yours.

So where did you get these dates from?

Can you not answer a simple question?

Where did you get these dates from?

 

[metis]

The Walls of Jericho

LOL.

I've been in Jericho and, as a matter of fact, I was involved in a "dig" in 1998 just west of the town.

The "walls of Jericho have fallen many times, largely due to a fault line that runs near it plus expansion of buildings and the town itself. Contrary to what the article says, there's no way that a connection can be made that confirms the Biblical account, although there's no evidence that denies it either.

Instead of using that biased website, maybe check out BAR, which is a far better and more reliable source.

 

[dad1]

Then why do you keep asserting that there was one?


Because all the evidence is consistent with the natural laws not changing.

Only if we look at evidences as if they all came to exist in this state. You look at the fossil record and assume that if man existed we would see remains long ago. That is because you assume our current laws existed. End of story. Pretty lame.

Sure, if you ignore the evidence.

Nothing to ignore. What you lack is evidence that there was a same nature. What you do not lack is beliefs and an overactive imagination that sprays evidences with the beliefs.

The Bible is just a book, so that can be discounted.

Your posts can be discounted, the bible cannot be in any sane way.

In what way does history provide evidence that nature was different?

The first rulers of Egypt were supposed to be spirits. Having spirits among men is a trait of the former nature. The Sumerians recorded very very long life spans ( while we cannot take their records as gospel, the general long lives recorded do count as evidence).

 

[dad1]

Man, you are evasive and dishonest as an used car salesman.

I ask you where you get these dates from, but you have completely ignore and evade my questions.

You are the one putting the dates for Jericho first settlement at 3900 and 4150 years ago, which is equated to 1900 BCE and 2150 BCE.

Once we discount the dream dates based only on beliefs that we have from so called science we are left with not being able to know.

Looking at the bible timeline for people who lived, we can get the close approx dates. For example some say Abraham was a contemporary with Noah. So it all was not that long ago. If the flood was known to be approx 2500 years ago, give or take a hundred or two years depending on interpretive preferences, and the nature change was in the days of Peleg after the flood....we can get dates.

Now since Peleg lived something like 235 years or whatever, and the division (that I assume corresponded with and included the nature change) was in 'the days of Peleg' there is a little leeway as to exactly when it was.


Now you can chose not to believe the Bible, but what matters is that the dates you cite are beliefs only and require belief also.