Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You know there's some potent indoctrination at work when people trust ancient superstition over modern science (yet have no qualms with using medicine and technology developed by the very same methodology that they denounce).

You reminded me of this:

• "You stare into your high definition plasma screen monitor, type into your cordless keyboard then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits.
  
  "This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a super computer on a mass server.
  
  "This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could say, "Science is all a bunch of man made hogwash."- anon.
  

 

[shmogie]

No? So the word of God is not evidence? How about a layer deep down where there is a lot of stuff that is known to come from space and deep under the earth (where flood waters came from)?

How about dinosaur fossils found in one place in large quantities that were very rapidly covered by silt, soil whatever. Much much faster than any sedimentary process. These fossil groups are found throughout the world. How about the Grand Canyon ? If it was carved by a river, why isn;'t it much longer ? The river flowed at the same rate over the same terrain for it,s entire length.

 

[dad1]

God didn't write anything. Man did..

Overruled. Jesus and the NT make it clear the words are from God. If all you chose to see are the men He used, you can't see the spirit and life of the words. Period.

 

[shmogie]

We don't have words known to have come from any god. What we have are words attributed to a god, which are really evidence of nothing except that several somebodies are claiming that a god told them something long ago. We don't even have evidence that they believed what they wrote themselves.

When you open the book and read it, you find evidence within that the god described within could not have existed. It's logically impossible by virtue of it having been ascribed mutually exclusive attributes like the famed married bachelor. Do you think that such a thing can exist? Of course not, not if we mean married and bachelor in the usual sense (not a bachelor married to his work, for example), and we mean in the same person at the same time.

We also find evidence in the book that its authors knew no more about the world than their neighbors, further evidence that those are not the words of an entity with superhuman knowledge or even one with contemporary human knowledge.

What you are asking others to believe is that the author of that book was the same as the source of the universe. Isn't that a bit like asking them to believe that the author of misspelled graffiti sprayed onto the base of a bridge is the same as the designers and creators of the bridge?

Interesting comparison, but wrong. When you always view anything solely based upon your 5 senses, and those of others, you are wrong all the time. Further, you limit yourself. As I have pointed out before, in cosmology there exists the string theory, based upon tiny "strings" so small they can never be seen. So, your reject it solely because you are not able to detect the strings with your senses ? How about a multidimensional universe ? Many physicists and cosmologists believe there are many many dimensions of which we are totally oblivious. Some believe that these dimensions, that are populated, exist in the very same space we occupy. One of those ignorant ancients, Paul, spoke of this when he described "powers, principalities, and prince's unseen" You, and your fellow travelers going back centuries scoffed at him. However, now, do you scoff at the scientific evidence that shows he may have been right ? ( of course I know he is right)

Because you are ignorant of the purpose of the Bible, it appears to you as it does. If one looks at a map, and decides to follow every road represented on it, rather than identifying the road that leads to your destination, and understanding how the other roads relate to your chosen one, you will see the map as you see the Bible, wrongly.

 

[dad1]

How about dinosaur fossils found in one place in large quantities that were very rapidly covered by silt, soil whatever.

You think the only silt in the world was in the one year of the flood??

Much much faster than any sedimentary process.

The issue of how or why things fossilized in the former nature is a big topic.

These fossil groups are found throughout the world. How about the Grand Canyon ? If it was carved by a river, why isn;'t it much longer ?

I never said it was carved by a river.

 

[dad1]

I believe in evolution. You're welcome. Thanks for the assumption.

You believe. Whoopee do.

 

[dad1]

That shouldn't be an obstacle for a faith based thinker. Just believe them by faith. Faith is a reliable method for determining what is true, right?

Don't preach your pagan beliefs to me thanks.

What flood? Houston? That was Texas' former governor's doing. He had the whole state praying for rain. With faith, you can move mountains.

Ignore Scripture all you like.

I know that there was no global flood as described in Genesis.

But you can't prove it, and Jesus disagrees with you.

 

[dad1]

He's a scientist and you're not. If you don't understand the science even at a low level, it's normal that you don't see any support. There are many people who don't see any proofs of mathematics even at high school level, yet there they are for all to see.

Don't pretend you or your pal understand. You don't. Scientists are a dime a dozen. Hire one in court like a lawyer to support one side of a case if you like.

Tell me, what other beliefs can produce things like computers, satellites and nuclear power?

No belief in a same state past produced anything. Actual knowledge in this present nature and world is not at issue.

If science is a belief, it's the superior one compared to all others

The sciences of origins are the most inferior, demonic, unsupported nonsense in the history of man.

. But of course it's not belief-based, you would know that if you had studied any real science.

Present some here, and we will see. I'll hang them out to dry before you can say 'Wow am I totally blown out of the water'.

And no, science doesn't conflict with belief in God. In my country it's normal to believe both evolution and be a member of the Church.

However normal your church might think it is to disbelieve Scripture, and embrace doctrines of devils with their whole heart mind and soul, that doesn't change the fact science doesn't know, and the bible is crystal clear on creation.

 

[dad1]

Dad1 has his own reality.

It doesn't matter that the evidence clearly shows differently.
Tom

It doesn't matter that there is no evidence for evolution of man. You believe. You can't post anything but fanatical rhetoric, but you believe real hard.

 

[dad1]

We don't have words known to have come from any god.

Newsflash: Yes we sure do.

What we have are words attributed to a god, which are really evidence of nothing except that several somebodies are claiming that a god told them something long ago. We don't even have evidence that they believed what they wrote themselves.

What we have are time tested historically proven words verified to be from God by One who rose from the dead.

We also find evidence in the book that its authors knew no more about the world than their neighbors, further evidence that those are not the words of an entity with superhuman knowledge or even one with contemporary human knowledge.

Name some of those words that are such.

What you are asking others to believe is that the author of that book was the same as the source of the universe.

Yes.

Isn't that a bit like asking them to believe that the author of misspelled graffiti sprayed onto the base of a bridge is the same as the designers and creators of the bridge?

No.

 

[dad1]

You know there's some potent indoctrination at work when people trust ancient superstition over modern science (yet have no qualms with using medicine and technology developed by the very same methodology that they denounce).

Hypocritically pretending that medicine or actual knowledge or real science has anything at all to do with the lies of evolution is not a wise approach to debate.

 

[LuisDantas]

It doesn't matter that there is no evidence for evolution of man. You believe. You can't post anything but fanatical rhetoric, but you believe real hard.

To say that "there is no evidence" is to lie. I would expect you to at least want to avoid doing such a low thing.

 

[dad1]

Biblical science was often based on evidence.

For example, the earth is clearly flat and fixed with a sun rotating around it

Nt in the bible.

Since rain only falls downward and never back up, obviously all new rain must be let in through some kind of dome with sluices in it above which an inexhaustible supply of water must reside.

Not in the bible.

Bats are animals with wings, which makes them birds.

The classification system of God is higher than science. How were bats in creation week, the original kind? How will they be in heaven? You don't know. The rapid evolution of the former state may have seen bats change a lot. You don't know.

Most of the months and days are named after Roman or Viking gods. Is that also significant?

Yes. Fallen angels are real too.

• "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" - Richard Dawkins

Not to those who have a good intellect.

 

[dad1]

To say that "there is no evidence" is to lie. I would expect you to at least want to avoid doing such a low thing.

Post it then. I say you have none at all.

 

[Jose Fly]

This thread certainly went off track.

Not really. It's going down the same path all these threads eventually follow.

It starts off with some sort of reference to actual science, which the creationists then misunderstand/misrepresent, followed by a bunch of science advocates trying to explain the science to them, which then causes the creationists to go into "Nuh uh" mode where they just deny or ignore most of what's posted to them. The thread then circles the drain around that point until the creationist leaves or just goes full-on Poe.

It's usually entertaining for a little while, but then the repetitiveness gets to be too much and it just becomes boring.

 

[Desert Snake]

Nice deflection attempt.

Still not "somehow."

I'm not here to change your faith. If you used a bit of logic, and some research, you would discover that your evolutionary belief, in main aspect, is very problematic.

 

[dad1]

Not really. It's going down the same path all these threads eventually follow.

It starts off with some sort of reference to actual science, which the creationists then misunderstand/misrepresent,

Show where this happened. It is not misrepresenting anything to ask if the prints may have been from man, or to point out they don't know...or to show that it contradicts the former story of the evolution of man they told! Accept defeat graciously.

 

[LuisDantas]

Post it then. I say you have none at all.

Boy, you are trying hard to convince me that you are unworthy of any attention.

Google Talk.Origins and come back if you want to change that course.

 

[Jose Fly]

Show where this happened.

This thread is exhibit A.

It is not misrepresenting anything to ask if the prints may have been from man, or to point out they don't know...or to show that it contradicts the former story of the evolution of man they told!

Many people have tried to explain the science behind the OP to you, and I'm pretty confident you will eventually walk away from this thread as ignorant of it as when you first showed up.

Accept defeat graciously.

Are you in middle school, or do you just post like it?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm not here to change your faith. If you used a bit of logic, and some research, you would discover that your evolutionary belief, in main aspect, is very problematic.

*smiles* Except it has little to do with faith and belief and everything to do with experiments and evidence.