Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[Altfish]

Far as we know evolving in the nature of the past could happen to a living creature...fast. Unlike the evolution of today. Far as we know the modern genetics are not like the former nature genetics either. So when you talk about evolution, be specific as to when and what evolved.

Changing the talking points again I see.
When I talk of Evolution, I'm talking of how living things (not cars) have changed over time to give us the variety of life on today's planet Earth.
I've not a clue what you are talking about when you say 'Unlike the evolution of today' or '...modern genetics are not like the former nature genetics...'
Nothing has changed.

 

[dad1]

Changing the talking points again I see.
When I talk of Evolution, I'm talking of how living things (not cars) have changed over time to give us the variety of life on today's planet Earth.
I've not a clue what you are talking about when you say 'Unlike the evolution of today' or '...modern genetics are not like the former nature genetics...'
Nothing has changed.

No? How would you know the genetics of Adam's day, or Noah's day? Do tell.

How was pre flood man, what did he look like, how long idi he live, and did he have genes that were identical to modern ones?

Was the laws and forces of physics the same as now? How would you know?

 

[Altfish]

No? How would you know the genetics of Adam's day, or Noah's day? Do tell.

How was pre flood man, what did he look like, how long idi he live, and did he have genes that were identical to modern ones?

Was the laws and forces of physics the same as now? How would you know?

Good grief, we are on a different time scale. Yes, they were not discovered/known about.
But whether or not we knew about the processes they have not changed, just our understanding.
Which flood, the one in Lancashire earlier this week?

 

[dad1]

Good grief, we are on a different time scale. Yes, they were not discovered/known about.
But whether or not we knew about the processes they have not changed, just our understanding.
Which flood, the one in Lancashire earlier this week?

The timescale for Noah's flood was something like about 1600 years after creation. Science uses a belief in a same nature in the past and the radiation decay that is part of our nature now, as the method of determining dates. Since we do not know what the nature actually was like in that far past we cannot assume that these dates are right. So, in the time science mistakenly uses based on the same nature in the past belief, we are talking probably about 70,000,000 years ago and beyond. The error curve is greater as we go further back. In real time the flood was probably around 4500 years ago.

You have no genetics from man 70,000,000 years ago and more do you? Therefore you cannot tell us what DNA was like then. Science has used that same state past belief also in determining when man arrived on earth. By assuming their same nature in the past they assumed that if man was alive on earth, he would have left remains such as fossilized remains. If nature was not the same, (as history and the bible indicate) then there is no reason to say that man would have been able to fossilize in the former nature! Therefore the fact that man is missing from the fossil record is NOT an indication we were not here. ONLY when we use the belief that the laws and nature on earth was the same as now, does the expectation of fossils from man arise. Therefore expecting fossils from man is exactly equal to a belief that there was a same nature in the past, and that cannot be proven and is NOT known.

link -- home

 

[Altfish]

The timescale for Noah's flood was something like about 1600 years after creation. Science uses a belief in a same nature in the past and the radiation decay that is part of our nature now, as the method of determining dates. Since we do not know what the nature actually was like in that far past we cannot assume that these dates are right. So, in the time science mistakenly uses based on the same nature in the past belief, we are talking probably about 70,000,000 years ago and beyond. The error curve is greater as we go further back. In real time the flood was probably around 4500 years ago.

You have no genetics from man 70,000,000 years ago and more do you? Therefore you cannot tell us what DNA was like then. Science has used that same state past belief also in determining when man arrived on earth. By assuming their same nature in the past they assumed that if man was alive on earth, he would have left remains such as fossilized remains. If nature was not the same, (as history and the bible indicate) then there is no reason to say that man would have been able to fossilize in the former nature! Therefore the fact that man is missing from the fossil record is NOT an indication we were not here. ONLY when we use the belief that the laws and nature on earth was the same as now, does the expectation of fossils from man arise. Therefore expecting fossils from man is exactly equal to a belief that there was a same nature in the past, and that cannot be proven and is NOT known.

link -- home

Please stop telling me what science says. You do NOT understand it.
You prove it by talking about a 'man' from 70 million years ago.
The earliest known human like creatures Homo Habilis, which evolved around 2.8 million years ago. Homo Sapiens (us!) is fairly recent about 300,000 years ago. I should quickly add that this is a moving target as more bones are found.
So read a reputable science book and learn about evolution before you start spouting nonsense

 

[dad1]

Please stop telling me what science says. You do NOT understand it.

Try not to cry. If you claim that science does not think that fossils represent what was living on earth to a great degree then simply show why. Good luck with that.

You prove it by talking about a 'man' from 70 million years ago.

There were men here from the very start. You show that you have no science to dispute that by posting blather.

The earliest known human like creatures Homo Habilis, which evolved around 2.8 million years ago.

The earliest known TO so called science based on assuming the same nature in the past. That is only as good as the belief there was a same nature and that is worthless belief based religion. Not any fact or science.

Homo Sapiens (us!) is fairly recent about 300,000 years ago. I should quickly add that this is a moving target as more bones are found.
So read a reputable science book and learn about evolution before you start spouting nonsense

Bones would not exist for man and most animals in the former nature. To claim a same nature existed, where we would expect bones, you need to show there was the same state or nature you posit. You can't.

 

[Altfish]

Try not to cry. If you claim that science does not think that fossils represent what was living on earth to a great degree then simply show why. Good luck with that.


There were men here from the very start. You show that you have no science to dispute that by posting blather.

The earliest known TO so called science based on assuming the same nature in the past. That is only as good as the belief there was a same nature and that is worthless belief based religion. Not any fact or science.

Bones would not exist for man and most animals in the former nature. To claim a same nature existed, where we would expect bones, you need to show there was the same state or nature you posit. You can't.

"Beam me up, Scotty"

 

[Deeje]

So read a reputable science book and learn about evolution before you start spouting nonsense

This is the attitude that defeats evolutionists before they begin. All I have seen on this thread is more of the same elevated put downs that are used on every other thread in this forum to smoke screen the fact that science has no facts when it comes to macro-evolution.
The "reputable science books" are written by whom? Who gave them their "reputation"?

Oh other scientists...funny that.

If I hear the words "you don't understand" or "you are wrong" one more time as an excuse for NOT providing any substantiation for science's claims on this topic, I will scream!

Give us the evidence in language we understand...plain English, and then back that up with evidence that requires no "faith" or "belief" or "suggestion" in what the gods of science have written about macro-evolution....the kind that does not rely on a "might have" or a "could have" to actually carry the thought over into the next step on that evolutionary journey. Give us real evidence that contains no suggestion or assumption about what happened in any step along the way. Can it be that hard with all those "mountains of evidence". The mountains are actually molehills when you ask for substantiation.

If all evolutionist's have is the ability to shout the other fellow down with insults about their intelligence or claims about their ignorance of science, but never provide the substantiation for science's assumption about how life supposedly evolved from amoeba to dinosaur, then don't we have to wonder about the foundations of their own "faith"?

It amuses me that science can take lab experiments and see "adaptation" with their own eyes and say "look this is evolution taking place!"....and yet not once have they ever observed evidence of any adaptive change producing a creature that is outside of its own taxonomic family. No matter how many species might be created, they will still belong to the family that generated them. This produces variety within a species....not new or unrelated creatures. No matter how millenniums transpire, that will never change. Darwin's finches were still finches...the iguanas were still iguanas....and the tortoises were still tortoises.....none of them had become something else. If speciation had occurred, it simply produced varieties within their own taxonomic families.

That is clearly evident.

I hear about bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant as evidence for evolution.....but this again is adaptation. The bacteria are still bacteria and will never be anything else. Calling adaptation "micro-evolution" is a ruse to lead people to believe that one proves the other. It doesn't...and never has.
The power of suggestion accomplishes more than most people realize. It sells anything from evolution to hair shampoo.

Science only guesses about what "might have" happened all those millions of years ago and will interpret evidence to fit their theory....who would dare to interpret evidence any other way? Reputations and the accolades from others in the scientific community are at stake. (not to mention the awards and grants)
Look at how passionate evolutionists are to defend their beliefs when they are challenged.....yet no real evidence is ever forthcoming. When will the scientists here realize that when push comes to shove...they have no more REAL evidence for their beliefs than Bible believers do?
The jig is up.

 

[Altfish]

This is the attitude that defeats evolutionists before they begin. All I have seen on this thread is more of the same elevated put downs that are used on every other thread in this forum to smoke screen the fact that science has no facts when it comes to macro-evolution.
The "reputable science books" are written by whom? Who gave them their "reputation"?

Oh other scientists...funny that.

If I hear the words "you don't understand" or "you are wrong" one more time as an excuse for NOT providing any substantiation for science's claims on this topic, I will scream!

Give us the evidence in language we understand...plain English, and then back that up with evidence that requires no "faith" or "belief" or "suggestion" in what the gods of science have written about macro-evolution....the kind that does not rely on a "might have" or a "could have" to actually carry the thought over into the next step on that evolutionary journey. Give us real evidence that contains no suggestion or assumption about what happened in any step along the way. Can it be that hard with all those "mountains of evidence". The mountains are actually molehills when you ask for substantiation.

If all evolutionist's have is the ability to shout the other fellow down with insults about their intelligence or claims about their ignorance of science, but never provide the substantiation for science's assumption about how life supposedly evolved from amoeba to dinosaur, then don't we have to wonder about the foundations of their own "faith"?

It amuses me that science can take lab experiments and see "adaptation" with their own eyes and say "look this is evolution taking place!"....and yet not once have they ever observed evidence of any adaptive change producing a creature that is outside of its own taxonomic family. No matter how many species might be created, they will still belong to the family that generated them. This produces variety within a species....not new or unrelated creatures. No matter how millenniums transpire, that will never change. Darwin's finches were still finches...the iguanas were still iguanas....and the tortoises were still tortoises.....none of them had become something else. If speciation had occurred, it simply produced varieties within their own taxonomic families.

That is clearly evident.

I hear about bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant as evidence for evolution.....but this again is adaptation. The bacteria are still bacteria and will never be anything else. Calling adaptation "micro-evolution" is a ruse to lead people to believe that one proves the other. It doesn't...and never has.
The power of suggestion accomplishes more than most people realize. It sells anything from evolution to hair shampoo.

Science only guesses about what "might have" happened all those millions of years ago and will interpret evidence to fit their theory....who would dare to interpret evidence any other way? Reputations and the accolades from others in the scientific community are at stake. (not to mention the awards and grants)
Look at how passionate evolutionists are to defend their beliefs when they are challenged.....yet no real evidence is ever forthcoming. When will the scientists here realize that when push comes to shove...they have no more REAL evidence for their beliefs than Bible believers do?
The jig is up.

Meanwhile religion solves everything from measles, cancer, energy shortage, famine, etc. I don't think so.

I can't believe your disdain for scientists. The people who have cured many diseases, developed the internet, flown us to the moon, etc

 

[metis]

Science only guesses about what "might have" happened all those millions of years ago and will interpret evidence to fit their theory....who would dare to interpret evidence any other way?

Oh, the hypocrisy.

When will the scientists here realize that when push comes to shove...they have no more REAL evidence for their beliefs than Bible believers do?

Absolutely false, and the constant repeating of the above doesn't make it right. There simply is not one shred of evidence for a deity, but there's tons of evidence for life evolving, plus it fits into common sense as we see all material objects changing over time, and genes are material objects. And there's no evidence whatsoever for your "wall" that somehow miraculously separates "micro-" from "macro-".

It's a shame that some use their religion as a set of blinders as it no only mocks them but also their denomination or religion.

 

[Deeje]

Meanwhile religion solves everything from measles, cancer, energy shortage, famine, etc. I don't think so.

I am amazed at what you ignore. What has science actually contributed to the current state of the world? There are some good things, no doubt about that, but the things that are NOT good are heinous. The results of the activities of science has created pollution that is choking the world...in the air, the soil and in the oceans. Are you blind to those things? Who is leading the way to clean up what science has created? Them?

Who created nuclear weapons? Who taught men how to harness the atom and mine uranium so that weapons of mass destruction could wipe out entire populations and pollute the earth for hundreds if not thousands of years to come? How many accidents with nuclear power plants have to happen before humans realize that they cannot control the monsters they create? Your worship of science blinds you to what it has really done to this planet.

Who taught men to extract oil from under the earth so that the burning of fossil fuels could add to the deadly pollution that is making us all sick? All hale science!

You will excuse me from falling at their feet, won't you?

I can't believe your disdain for scientists. The people who have cured many diseases, developed the internet, flown us to the moon, etc

Compared to the damage that science has already contributed to...all of that pales into insignificance. What good is going to the moon if we are killing mother earth? This is the only planet we have to call home and it continues to be polluted day after day when humans could put a stop to all of it tomorrow if they wanted to. Science could then be used to find ways to clean up its mess and give us all a cleaner home. Its hardly lifted a finger.

My disdain comes from people extolling virtues to science that do not exist, or are cancelled out by their other disgusting activities. Time to take off the rose colored glasses I think.

 

[Deeje]

Oh, the hypocrisy.

Absolutely false, and the constant repeating of the above doesn't make it right. There simply is not one shred of evidence for a deity, but there's tons of evidence for life evolving, plus it fits into common sense as we see all material objects changing over time, and genes are material objects. And there's no evidence whatsoever for your "wall" that somehow miraculously separates "micro-" from "macro-".

It's a shame that some use their religion as a set of blinders as it no only mocks them but also their denomination or religion.

Blah blah blah....metis if you can provide what I asked for instead of this tired old rhetoric then you could silence this debate, once and for all.

Give us the evidence instead of the complaints. Your whining about my religion answers nothing. Stop the smoke screening and provide your proof that evolution, as science explains it ever took place. Is it that difficult? There are supposedly "mountains of evidence"....lets see it.

If you have the proof for your precious theory, then the ball is in your court. The rules are that it has to be in plain English, (not jargon) it cannot be based on "faith" or "suggestion" and there is no "belief" attached to the interpretation of said evidence, otherwise you have no more to offer as proof than we have. If what you believe is true then we should be able to see it clearly. There should be no room for doubt...should there?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's not clear whether the footprint is from a hominid on the direct line of evolution leading to us or from a branch that died out.

Points to you --- "it's not clear." That is thinking with your whole brain -- that it's silly to leap to grandiose conclusions on a paucity of evidence.

 

[gnostic]

No? How would you know the genetics of Adam's day, or Noah's day? Do tell.

How was pre flood man, what did he look like, how long idi he live, and did he have genes that were identical to modern ones?

Was the laws and forces of physics the same as now? How would you know?

You are being truly absurd and irrational.

If you are saying physics, chemistry and biology of today, work very differently from that of 5000 years ago (before Noah’s Flood), then IT IS YOU WHO NEEDS TO PRESENT EVIDENCES THAT IS THE CASE, dad1.

“You”, dad1, not everyone else.

And not once, since you have started this thread, have you ever presented any evidence to what you say is true.

You just expect everyone else to believe in your silly absurdity of claims.

How is time measure differently?

How are human’s genes and DNA different, now and before?

You are the one is saying everything is different. How they different? Where are your evidences?

 

[Altfish]

I am amazed at what you ignore. What has science actually contributed to the current state of the world? There are some good things, no doubt about that, but the things that are NOT good are heinous. The results of the activities of science has created pollution that is choking the world...in the air, the soil and in the oceans. Are you blind to those things? Who is leading the way to clean up what science has created? Them?

Who created nuclear weapons? Who taught men how to harness the atom and mine uranium so that weapons of mass destruction could wipe out entire populations and pollute the earth for hundreds if not thousands of years to come? How many accidents with nuclear power plants have to happen before humans realize that they cannot control the monsters they create? Your worship of science blinds you to what it has really done to this planet.

Who taught men to extract oil from under the earth so that the burning of fossil fuels could add to the deadly pollution that is making us all sick? All hale science!

You will excuse me from falling at their feet, won't you?



Compared to the damage that science has already contributed to...all of that pales into insignificance. What good is going to the moon if we are killing mother earth? This is the only planet we have to call home and it continues to be polluted day after day when humans could put a stop to all of it tomorrow if they wanted to. Science could then be used to find ways to clean up its mess and give us all a cleaner home. Its hardly lifted a finger.

My disdain comes from people extolling virtues to science that do not exist, or are cancelled out by their other disgusting activities. Time to take off the rose colored glasses I think.

Blaming scientists for how their discoveries are developed and used is like blaming the inventor of the wheel for motor accidents, the inventor of the internet for internet porn or the bloke who first described evolution for eugenics...oh, hang on...

 

[metis]

Blah blah blah....metis if you can provide what I asked for instead of this tired old rhetoric then you could silence this debate, once and for all.

Wow, look who's writing "blah blah blah", namely the one who uses uses massive word-mash to sermonize anyone here who may disagree with her.

Your whining about my religion answers nothing.

That's a lie as I do not ever "whine" against your religion, which I would assume is Christianity. Do you really think a lie like this helps to show how supposedly "moral" you are? It says that "you shall know them by their fruit", and at least on this item yours is quite rotten.

I never denounce Christianity nor any other religion, but I do denounce know-it-all-ism and those leaders who teach dishonesty and the "my way or the highway" approach. When you left the Anglican Church, which is quite a respectable one because it largely avoids the above, and you joined the JW's, you took one huge step backwards, imo, as I have no respect for their know-it-all judgemental approach.

Stop the smoke screening and provide your proof that evolution, as science explains it ever took place. Is it that difficult? There are supposedly "mountains of evidence"....lets see it.

It has been shown to you over and over again, but you walk with your eyes closed. Pick up any college biology book that covers evolution, and you should see plenty of evidence. In my anthropology course, the problem I had was deciding what I couldn't include because of time constraints.

If what you believe is true then we should be able to see it clearly. There should be no room for doubt...should there?

There really is no room for doubt about the evolution of species, especially since we have actually seen speciation take place, has indeed been happening but, otoh, there's more than enough doubt for theistic causation. It is so hypocritical that you ignore the scientific evidence and yet pose your religious beliefs as if they're facts.

I don't know what caused our universe/multiverse to come into existence, so I definitely keep the door open to theistic causation. I wasn't there at "creation", and neither were you, Deeje. So, which of our positions make the most logical sense: yours that says one deity created all even though you weren't there to see it, or my "I don't know" position?

 

[Valjean]

No computer or car or anything else was made using the belief in a same state past. Capice?

ALL computers, cars... everything, is made assuming stable natural laws.

 

[Deeje]

Blaming scientists for how their discoveries are developed and used is like blaming the inventor of the wheel for motor accidents, the inventor of the internet for internet porn or the bloke who first described evolution for eugenics...oh, hang on...

What a poor analogy.....last time I looked atomic bombs were created with the pure intention of wiping out an entire city and the surrounding areas of a perceived enemy in one fell swoop. (very economical)

Who designed the guidance systems for ICBM's...heat seeking? With what intention?

Who formulated Agent Orange? DDT? and all the other chemical poisons produced in science labs? If scientists are so smart, why do they never think of the consequences of their own 'inventiveness'? Or does $$$$ speak louder?

Who was responsible for making plastics out of poisonous petrochemicals? My research reveals that if hemp had been used instead, then all that plastic pollution choking our marine creatures would have actually fed them with benefits as a nutritional supplement, rather than killing them by the thousands because the big oil companies wanted to make more billions. Land fill would have material that was bio-degradable instead of stuff that stays in the earth for hundreds of years without breaking down.

Who developed ways to take gas out of the rocks (fracking) and in the process, contaminated the water supplies of many farming families who happened to have under their land what greedy men wanted to exploit?

Do you see science working hard to clean up their mess? Or are they carrying on as though they are not responsible? If you design something and manufacture it, surely your intelligence should be constrained by the outcome of possible catastrophic misuse. You know, the kind that sees men standing there wringing their hands when a nuclear power plant blows up and they know that the whole area will be contaminated and there is nothing they can do to prevent it? Would you eat fish from the waters around Fukushima?

Doesn't history teach us that humans always find ways to misuse everything? Why does history repeat? You know.

 

[dad1]

Meanwhile religion solves everything from measles, cancer, energy shortage, famine, etc. I don't think so.

Science is a religion and happens to be responsible for a lot of that. Pollution, cancers, womd, etc.

Believers have nothing to do with religion, any more than Jesus did.

 

[dad1]

You are being truly absurd and irrational.

If you are saying physics, chemistry and biology of today, work very differently from that of 5000 years ago (before Noah’s Flood), then IT IS YOU WHO NEEDS TO PRESENT EVIDENCES THAT IS THE CASE, dad1.

I am saying science doesn't know wither way. For that matter science doesn't know what 5000 actual years ago are, even!
home

“You”, dad1, not everyone else.

And not once, since you have started this thread, have you ever presented any evidence to what you say is true.

I am saying science does not know the state of the far past on earth. The evidence is that you show you do not know.

How is time measure differently?

In far space? How would we know? The only experience we have with time is here in the solar system area. Why would you feel someone has to explain in detail what is not even known? (known to science that is. and if the bible has some clues, then the disciples of science are not interested anyhow)

How are human’s genes and DNA different, now and before?

How do genes today allow man to live 1000 years? How do genes today allow animals and man from an ark to evolved in days or years rather than the slow processes we have today? Science doesn't know, they have never even seen any DNA from the time.