Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[dad1]

You still haven’t proven this claim.

All that needs proving is the way you arrive at the dream dates, Can you dispute that it is by radioactive decay ratios?

70 million-year is “70 million-year”, not your 4500-year.

Don't compare cartoon dates to real time. Mickey mouse dates do not equal real dates.

You still have cite a single source from any scientist that agree with your delusion.

Nor have I included Catholic bishops or Imams that agree. Science is a belief system that necessarily includes the belief in an unproven same state past. I would not ask them. Their job is to blindly believe. What I would ask of them is to provide us proof that the nature on earth was indeed as they claim!

So you don’t think any of these pyramids and other tombs exist in Egypt. I didn’t think you were that ignorant.

Once man no longer lived 1000 years but started to die after a hundred ot two...yes, tombs were all the rage! What you cannot do is offer dates for the tombs based on the same nature in the past belief.

Even the so-called biblical archaeologists don’t deny the age of these Bronze Age sites.

How would they know? They use the same way to get dates as the next guy.

You still have cited a single source that agree with you, not even from creationists.

If any does not agree, let them talk, and show reasons, from the bible or otherwise. You think they would dare try and use the bible??! My case is rock solid.

But I shall ask you again:

1. Where did any scientist claimed that KT occur in the midst of Bronze Age?

??

Why would men of the science cloth stray from their rigid little belief set? They believe a same nature existed for no reason. They now must scramble to find a reason. You thought they got to vote on what nature existed??

1. 
   

   [*]Where are your sources?

   The source that matters is the facts and evidences we have. We KNOW how science has gotten dates. It is a one trick pony, they always use the same state past belief system. Nothing else. Ever. THAT is what they offer. That is their basis.

To get real dates one would need to find another way. They can't do that. They are stuck forever till death do us part in their little religious rut. They can't come into the promised land of reality and truth. They are weighed down in the valley of dark ignorance by their heart felt beliefs that have no merit or proof.

Now, if one want to actually know dates, one could avail themselves of Scripture. There are good clues there. Same thing with the nature on earth that existed, it has good details and hints and facts. However if one chooses to deny and reject and ignore that...one cannot know any actual dates. Period. Evermore. So so not ask for any source in science, they are kaput. Bankrupt. Busted. Exposed. Finito. The ONLY option is ignorance till death. No hope of knowing. That is science and it's value and potential on dating and knowing the real nature and history and issues of origins!

 

[gnostic]

All Egypt is post flood I suspect. Get over your same state past dream dating fetish.

And yet, you haven’t shown any evidence that the a global flood happened. Nor that of Noah or his Ark exist.

As to the dating method, you haven’t shown that it is inaccurate.

And you are the one making wild claims with that KT extinction occurred in the Bronze Age, that “70 million years ago” = “4500 years ago”. Where are your sources that scientists say this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Name any date beyond say 5000 years that is not BASED on the assumption that radioactive decay was here in the far past also? We wait. Till then your dates are moot.

dad, you have been shown that evidence countless times at the site you were recently banned from. Or did you forget?

Do you know or care why they do not believe humans existed then? In case some lurker cares, here is the big reason...the fossil record does not include man early in the record.

If the former nature did not allow man and most animals TO be able to fossilize then, pray tell, why would we expect man in the early record exactly??

Yes, we do know why. Your hand waving may cool you off on a hot day, but it is not a valid method of debate.

When you are ready to learn people here will help you. And the lurkers that you address can't fail to notice that you refuse to learn. This tells them that even you know that you are wrong.

 

[gnostic]

Nor have I included Catholic bishops or Imams that agree. Science is a belief system that necessarily includes the belief in an unproven same state past. I would not ask them. Their job is to blindly believe. What I would ask of them is to provide us proof that the nature on earth was indeed as they claim!

So basically you have no evidences of any of your wild claims. You just make up more claims more delusional and more dishonest than the ones before.

Ok, I am done with this thread. Not because you have won the debate in this topic, but you are a troll, with never having intentions of being serious, not offering a single source to where you getting your personal opinions from.

All you are doing is making one unsubstantiated and unscientific claim after the other.

Goodbye, troll.

 

[ChristineM]

Name any date beyond say 5000 years that is not BASED on the assumption that radioactive decay was here in the far past also? We wait. Till then your dates are moot.


Do you know or care why they do not believe humans existed then? In case some lurker cares, here is the big reason...the fossil record does not include man early in the record.

If the former nature did not allow man and most animals TO be able to fossilize then, pray tell, why would we expect man in the early record exactly??

First off you misrepresent the accuracy of dating methods. Which are usually given with an error range between 0.1 to 2% depending on the method used and are actually considerably more accurate than the error given . Do you know how long 0.1% of 100,000 year's is or 2% of a billion years? I'll take that accuracy over your totally unsubstantiated bull any day of the week.
Also the majority of radio dating is done using 2 or more methods for validation.

Second, dendrochronology, Mitochondrial dna, ice layers, erosion, sedimentary layers, corel show dates to 25 million years without radiocarbon dating.

See my avatar? Cro magnon skull, 25,000 years old, dated by the depth it was buried, along with other artifacts deep in a cave in south west france, which happens to be geologically stable. No radiocarbon involved until after its dating just to confirm the estimated date was accurate. And how do i know this? I was there when it was discovered.

Wrong, dna analysis shows the history of humans, the fossil record just conforms the dna evidence. And remember, dna does not lie, ask any convict languishing in prison because of dna evidence.

You keep harping on about former nature as yet you have provided nothing but opinion to bolster your claim. You will note that millions of other animals managed to fossilise, man is composed of the same elements that react in the same way. Why would we not expect man in the fossil record if man existed

 

[ChristineM]

Hilarious. So the great offense in your mind was using capitol letters!!! Get serious.

I am serious, and you know why but lie about it, you admit why but lie about it, because you prefer to mock disability because you think god is on your side.

 

[dad1]

And yet, you haven’t shown any evidence that the a global flood happened. Nor that of Noah or his Ark exist.

Then disbelieve it if you like! Whatever you do though do NOT pretend you know it never happened.

As to the dating method, you haven’t shown that it is inaccurate.

Unless you deny it is based on assuming current physics existed you haven't a leg to stand on. Even if you do deny it, I can prove you wrong.

And you are the one making wild claims with that KT extinction occurred in the Bronze Age,

Long before the bronze age man worked with all sorts of metals. The bronze age so called was just some post flood folks who were getting back into some aspects of working with metals!
The flood was long before that.
There was metal working right out of the garden of Eden.

that “70 million years ago” = “4500 years ago”. Where are your sources that scientists say this?

White robed men of the cloth in science do what religious people do..they believe in what they have chosen to believe in.

 

[dad1]

I am serious, and you know why but lie about it, you admit why but lie about it, because you prefer to mock disability because you think god is on your side.

Ok. Well, get over it. There are more grievous matters in life to obsess over than people occasionally using capitol letters. For you to pollute the thread with such obsessive pettiness is wrong.

 

[dad1]

So basically you have no evidences of any of your wild claims. .

The claim I make is that science does not know the state of the past. That is proven in your fail. You cannot but flee.

 

[dad1]

dad, you have been shown that evidence countless times .

What you may have thought was evidence is not. You may not offer beliefs with no support and try to pretend it is evidence.

 

[dad1]

First off you misrepresent the accuracy of dating methods. Which are usually given with an error range between 0.1 to 2% depending on the method used and are actually considerably more accurate than the error given . Do you know how long 0.1% of 100,000 year's is or 2% of a billion years? I'll take that accuracy over your totally unsubstantiated bull any day of the week.
Also the majority of radio dating is done using 2 or more methods for validation.

All accuracy depends on the basic premise being valid. Only if there was this nature would the dating at any error range be accurate. If the nature/forces/laws were NOT the same then the dates are nowhere in the realm of reality at all.

Second, dendrochronology, Mitochondrial dna, ice layers, erosion, sedimentary layers, corel show dates to 25 million years without radiocarbon dating.

Tree rings that grew in the former nature in days cannot be used to date. Obviously. DNA as far as we know did not exist even! Not the same way we know it. So you cannot use genetics at all for the far past, there IS no DNA from that time. Ice layers in the former nature were not formed in the same time and way as now, so looking at them all as if they were is religion. Sediment deposition also in a former nature was just not the same so cannot be gauged by the way things get deposited and formed now. Corals in the former state also cannot be thought to have grown the way they now do. In all ways you use the same one belief. Nothing else...ever.

See my avatar? Cro magnon skull, 25,000 years old, dated by the depth it was buried,

Not true. Show us how a depth tells us precise years? Show exactly why the number of 25,000 years was used?!

along with other artifacts deep in a cave in south west france, which happens to be geologically stable. No radiocarbon involved until after its dating just to confirm the estimated date was accurate. And how do i know this? I was there when it was discovered.

Very funny. Show us HOW the cave was dated. (before the decay dating). You see science is circular reasoning.

Wrong, dna analysis shows the history of humans, the fossil record just conforms the dna evidence.

No the DNA shows nothing of the sort. Try and support the claim and learn why not. The fossil record does not confirm any genetic record for the far past at all by the way.

And remember, dna does not lie, ask any convict languishing in prison because of dna evidence.

Lie? If there was no DNA as we know it how could it lie, or do anything else? Your problem is how you look at current DNA! (Don't blame the DNA for the lie in that case)

You keep harping on about former nature as yet you have provided nothing but opinion to bolster your claim.

You keep harping on about former nature being the same, and as yet you have provided nothing but opinion to bolster your claim. I do mean NOTHING!

You will note that millions of other animals managed to fossilise, man is composed of the same elements that react in the same way. Why would we not expect man in the fossil record if man existed

Wildly assumptive. God has specialized animals/bugs/bacteria etc in many cases even today that dispose of certain remains! The snot worm for example. You are in no position to claim there was not more and better such creatures that aided the former nature in disposing of certain remains!!!!

 

[dad1]

I am serious, and you know why but lie about it, you admit why but lie about it, because you prefer to mock disability because you think god is on your side.

? Who has this disability related to capitol letters all of a sudden that I supposedly know about??

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you may have thought was evidence is not. You may not offer beliefs with no support and try to pretend it is evidence.

dad, you do not even know what is and what is not evidence. And you run away from offers to help you with the concept. That makes your post worthless.

Are you still afraid?

 

[Subduction Zone]

? Who has this disability related to capitol letters all of a sudden that I supposedly know about??

I believe that she told you about it more than once. Still not paying attention.

 

[Tiberius]

Bingo. So if the flood was near the KT event time, that means what about claims water could not cover it?!

The evidence mounts.

Are you proposing that the Himalayas formed in a few thousand years?

 

[Tiberius]

Who cares what science 'explains' unless it knows what it is talking about and has some sort of evidence? For the foundational premise of ALL far past models it has NO evidence.

HA! Look at all the piles of evidence you've presented!

Oh wait, your evidence is nothing but a pathetic cry of, "But you can't prove I'm wrong!"

Your weak arguments have failed countless times. If you had any brains you would stop using them and educate yourself.

 

[Tiberius]

We all could guess. However it is high time science stopped guessing and start knowing. I have no need to guess since the bible records the way things were with some details.

The fact that you have to invent outlandish situations to justify the Bible is evidence that the Bible is wrong.

The ratios are the way they are for the same reasons I assume that they now are...namely, that they were being used in some process. Now perhaps that process in the former nature was one of reconstitution rather than decay? Who knows? All science can do (poor little ignorant limited thing that it is) is look at how the nature TODAY works and then try to attribute all it sees to THAT!!! Pitiful religion.

Is that the best you've got? You go on and on *****ing about how science can't prove anything, and then you bring out this steaming pile?

As just explained NO. Functional. I assume that the ratios represent activity between the various components that used to go on, determined of course by the fundamental forces and laws in place in that day.

Correction: As you just assumed. Big difference there. Your assumptions don't mean jack.

Absurd. Modern nature only explains what is happening today. The rest is conjecture based on a blind belief nature was the same.

Rubbish. Conjecture is all you've ever used to support your argument.

There IS no test for what nature existed! Nothing to abandon but zealous faith based philosophy. In the bible they call that sort of thing names like...doctrines of devils. I for one do not want to be peddling that.

lol, I've already told you how it is testable. You invent fairy tales to get away from it.

No. I don't. No more than I wonder why a little dog barks. Usually they are afraid.

lol, you make me laugh. You think your weak cries are frightening? Please. Your arguments are useless and empty. You provide no evidence, you think that repeating your claims makes them better. It just shows your pitiful cries as the unsupported nonsense that they are.

 

[Tiberius]

Thanks for dropping by again. Now you should look at posts like my last one there, and learn how to include interesting, substantive, thought provoking content.

Yeah, Subduction Zone. Dad's posts are great for learning how to include interesting, substantive, thought provoking content. Just read what Dad posts, and then do the exact opposite.

 

[dad1]

Are you proposing that the Himalayas formed in a few thousand years?

No. I propose that they formed a few hundred years or some such after the flood. to build to where they are now. I don't know how long they took to build up, but I assume it could have been days or weeks or years. Same thing with the rapid separation of continents. One feature of the former nature was that the laws of thermodynamics we know were not here. so no killing heat with the rapid continental movement!

 

[dad1]

I believe that she told you about it more than once. Still not paying attention.

What someone has some health issue that capitol letters triggers!?