• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

dad1

Active Member
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.
The argument that science cannot prove it's claimed nature in the past cannot fail, it is unassailable.
 

dad1

Active Member
]The fact that you have to invent outlandish situations to justify the Bible is evidence that the Bible is wrong.
The bible is not invented, your same state past beliefs are actually.

Correction: As you just assumed. Big difference there. Your assumptions don't mean jack.
You explain how you could live 1000 years and have trees grow in days in this present nature then.

lol, I've already told you how it is testable.
You were wrong. Your points never ever addressed the issues.
 

dad1

Active Member
Prove it.
Within the context of the bible it had to be so. The timeline would not allow anything but a fast continental drift, and we know that men did not die of heat. Now if you want to restrict yourself to the little realm of science, then you do not know. Take your pick. Admit not knowing from science, or step out of the box of science. There are no other options in the origins debate.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Within the context of the bible it had to be so. The timeline would not allow anything but a fast continental drift, and we know that men did not die of heat.
So, in other words, you assume it to be true because you really, REALLY want the Bible to be true.

Now if you want to restrict yourself to the little realm of science, then you do not know. Take your pick. Admit not knowing from science, or step out of the box of science. There are no other options in the origins debate.
Okay then, I go with science, because science has proven itself reliable, whereas the Bible has proven itself false.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
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.


What an idiotic thing to say about permanent disability.

Hey you are the one griping that you were informed of your cock up and continuously repeating the same old denials and excuses. Get over it
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
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.
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.
Not true. Show us how a depth tells us precise years? Show exactly why the number of 25,000 years was used?!
Very funny. Show us HOW the cave was dated. (before the decay dating). You see science is circular reasoning.


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.

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 being the same, and as yet you have provided nothing but opinion to bolster your claim. I do mean NOTHING!

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!!!!

Wow such projection, you have not put forward even a basic premise, yet alone an accurate one.

So provide evidence of an alternate nature within the last 13.8 billion years? Because hats how long science knows this nature has exist.

Bull. Show that an alternative nature existed in which trees grew

No need for dna to exist millions of years ago, its history is encoded in itself.

Your evidence that ice layers formed differently in the past is? Ahh right.

Same for sediment

Same for coral

You have lots of opinion but nothing of any relevance to back it up.

Once again bull, your opinion is not scientific evidence. When you provide evidence for an alternate nature then i will be willing to attempt to educate you on the nature of evidence. Assuming you are willing to learn.

At the claimed time of Noah's flood, 4500 years ago sna evidence exists.

Yes I know how that feels. You started the alternative nature claim which has no evidence. Evidence for nature as it is is encoded in its chemical makeup. Your approval is not required.

Provide evidence of god then you can start making claims about what god does. Until then you are simply assuming the will of a god matches your own silliness.
 

dad1

Active Member
So, in other words, you assume it to be true because you really, REALLY want the Bible to be true.
Maybe originally it was something like that. After finding out the prophesies were 100% true, and that Jesus was still alive and well, it was more like I had to believe it whether I liked it or not.
Okay then, I go with science, because science has proven itself reliable, whereas the Bible has proven itself false.
Go with any belief you like. Fine. Remember the basis for models of the past is not science but only an unproven unsupportable belief.
 

dad1

Active Member
What an idiotic thing to say about permanent disability.

Hey you are the one griping that you were informed of your cock up and continuously repeating the same old denials and excuses. Get over it
If there is some disability you have why not tell us? If looking at capitol letters somehow upsets you, that is another matter.
 

dad1

Active Member
Wow such projection, you have not put forward even a basic premise, yet alone an accurate one.
The precise science uses for all models of the past is present physics and nature. They thought the present was the key to the past..and future. You know, when they prophesy falsely about the universe or sun going dark and dying one day and etc in the future. All based on the same belief as the false models they conjure up about the past.
THAT is the premise brought forward and you can't defend it. My premise is that their premise is only a belief. That is supported in the classic fail here and elsewhere of anyone being able to support that premise.


So provide evidence of an alternate nature within the last 13.8 billion years? Because hats how long science knows this nature has exist.
There is no such time period for this universe. The reasons they thought there were have to do with trying to impose fishbowl earth time on all the universe.

Bull. Show that an alternative nature existed in which trees grew
The bible record does that. Science cannot confirm or deny.
No need for dna to exist millions of years ago, its history is encoded in itself.
Big claim, but it is very fatally flawed. If there was no DNA as we know it then it would not be possible to have early pre present nature genetics encoded...at least in any way we would recognize! What is IN the modern DNA encoded would only be whatever was encoded since there WAS modern DNA.
Your evidence that ice layers formed differently in the past is? Ahh right.
Science doesn't know, would you like bible..or remaining ignorant?

At the claimed time of Noah's flood, 4500 years ago sna evidence exists.
That would probably be 70.000.000 years ago in science dream time. After something like 3500 to 4200 years ago, the dates rendered by same nature in the past techniques go wildly wildly wrong. Now if you have some other way to day something 5000 years ago let us know!
. Evidence for nature as it is is encoded in its chemical makeup.
Assuming that makeup was caused in this nature...circular.

Name some chemical makeup that shows what you say!?
 

dad1

Active Member
Considering I told you from the outset your deliberate ignorance tells reams about you
I didn't see any mention of mental handicap. If you have one maybe don't post here if capitol letters set you off. I sometimes use them. I seem to recall you mentioned something about 'netetiquette'..not mental challenges.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
If there is some disability you have why not tell us? If looking at capitol letters somehow upsets you, that is another matter.

I have given several reasons why using all caps is frowned upon, do you want your noser rubbing in it again?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
The precise science uses for all models of the past is present physics and nature. They thought the present was the key to the past..and future. You know, when they prophesy falsely about the universe or sun going dark and dying one day and etc in the future. All based on the same belief as the false models they conjure up about the past.
THAT is the premise brought forward and you can't defend it. My premise is that their premise is only a belief. That is supported in the classic fail here and elsewhere of anyone being able to support that premise.


There is no such time period for this universe. The reasons they thought there were have to do with trying to impose fishbowl earth time on all the universe.

The bible record does that. Science cannot confirm or deny.
Big claim, but it is very fatally flawed. If there was no DNA as we know it then it would not be possible to have early pre present nature genetics encoded...at least in any way we would recognize! What is IN the modern DNA encoded would only be whatever was encoded since there WAS modern DNA.
Science doesn't know, would you like bible..or remaining ignorant?

That would probably be 70.000.000 years ago in science dream time. After something like 3500 to 4200 years ago, the dates rendered by same nature in the past techniques go wildly wildly wrong. Now if you have some other way to day something 5000 years ago let us know!
Assuming that makeup was caused in this nature...circular.

Name some chemical makeup that shows what you say!?

Bull

Bull

What bible records? And bull

Bull

Carbon
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
What someone has some health issue that capitol letters triggers!?
An
Within the context of the bible it had to be so. The timeline would not allow anything but a fast continental drift, and we know that men did not die of heat. Now if you want to restrict yourself to the little realm of science, then you do not know. Take your pick. Admit not knowing from science, or step out of the box of science. There are no other options in the origins debate.
Since no one else follows your particular interpretation of the Bible this clearly is not so. And that fast continental drift must be true for your myths to be true is not good enough. You need to find actual evidence to support your claims, but then you do not understand that concept.

If you understood the concept you would see that you have no evidence.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I didn't see any mention of mental handicap. If you have one maybe don't post here if capitol letters set you off. I sometimes use them. I seem to recall you mentioned something about 'netetiquette'..not mental challenges.


Wtf has a mental handicap to do with it?

Yes, net etiquette was one reason it is impolite to use all caps on the www.

See our discussion is having an effect, you brain had started remembering things
 

dad1

Active Member
An

Since no one else follows your particular interpretation of the Bible this clearly is not so. And that fast continental drift must be true for your myths to be true is not good enough. You need to find actual evidence to support your claims, but then you do not understand that concept.

If you understood the concept you would see that you have no evidence.
Well, I looked into it and so unless you have some point about fast continental separation to debate here and defend, not sure why you feel some strange compunction to type meaningless words?
 

dad1

Active Member
Wtf has a mental handicap to do with it?

Yes, net etiquette was one reason it is impolite to use all caps on the www.

See our discussion is having an effect, you brain had started remembering things
Fine, if there is no mental issues, forget it. I will use big letters any time I feel like it. Try to deal with it the best you can.
 
Top