Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[Subduction Zone]

You thought ice was laid down the same in the former nature? You would need to show nature was the same in the past first. You can't. A lot of ice doesn't help you in the least. Nor does radioactive decay assumptions about the past. Give it up.

Wrong again dad. You need to explain the ice cores. I doubt if you can.

 

[Subduction Zone]

More empty posting.

dad, why do you keep breaking the Ninth Commandment? Now you may not have understood it, in which case it would have been proper to ask questions. But making false claims about others is clearly not a Christian thing to do.

 

[Randy the Atheist]

It doesn't put evolution in doubt. It can't since evolution is now a proven fact of nature through the discovery of identically damaged genes in humans and chimps.

These 6 million year old footprints only pushes our timeline out of Africa in doubt.

So we had an early adventurer.

Perhaps its because Africa back then had no security fences or border patrols to deal with.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It doesn't put evolution in doubt. And it can't since evolution is now a proven fact of nature through the discovery of identically damaged genes in humans and chimps.

The 6 million year old footprints only pushes our timeline out of Africa in doubt.

So we had an early adventurer.

Perhaps its because Africa back then had no security fences or border patrols to deal with.

Actually it does not even need to be an ancestor. It could be a related species that did not survive to today. More than once apes have migrated from Africa. Man was not the only ape to do so.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why the bible is world renowned for it's prophesies that are now history,

False.

and the witnessed Resurrection of Jesus, and etc etc is not something worthy of debate. Only denial or belief.

False. Extraordinary claims such as that are always worthy of debate. Hearsay isn't evidence to me.

Once we see your fail to prove your required same nature in the past, who really cares what else you fall back to or on? Be happy, pick any belief you like.

The burden of proof is yours. As already noted several times. Still waiting on that evidence from you ....

My claim that science does not know, and cannot prove the same nature in the past it uses for all models of the past is backed up to the hilt and beyond here! Your fail screams out to us.

Your claim is that science has it all wrong (among many others). Still waiting for you to back that up ....

 

[SkepticThinker]

No science to support your strange little claims still, then. OK.

One of the most laughable claims I have ever seen is that one that says people used to live to be 1000 years old. Have you backed that one up yet?

Strange claims indeed ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't blame them, I would be embarrassed too.

No idea what you're talking about. They're different fields of study, is the point. Do you also wonder why "evolutionists" don't study computer programming or podiatry? How come lawyers don't study chemistry?

 

[dad1]

It is quite clear to all of science that nature has not changed, it is only your aberrant reading of your fabulous bible that stands between you and reality.

Prove it. The issue is not how your belief set resonates inside you head here. The issue is what solid reason and evidence you can bring to bear to prove your contentions that nature was the same. So far, you are batting zero.

 

[dad1]

Again, you make claims, baseless as they always are, about nature being different before the Flood, and as always you are unable to provide examples with evidences.

All you got are just your warped opinions.

If you could show that nature was the same you might have a point. You fail.

 

[dad1]

One of the most laughable claims I have ever seen is that one that says people used to live to be 1000 years old. Have you backed that one up yet?

Strange claims indeed ...

No need to since poor little science can't comment on the issue either way!

 

[dad1]

No idea what you're talking about. They're different fields of study, is the point. Do you also wonder why "evolutionists" don't study computer programming or podiatry? How come lawyers don't study chemistry?

No. The point is that evolution as the origin of life on earth is what both are about. One starts with things earlier in the evo imagination than the other!

 

[dad1]

The amount of energy released for one thing. If you raise the rate of decay you clearly increase the amount of energy released per day, year, what have you. Worse yet higher rates of radioactivity are associated with higher energy decays, You are raising the amount of energy in two different ways. Since you are increasing the rate of decay on the order of a billion you would have melted the crust and boiled the oceans.

Raise rate of decay??? What are you talking about? Why would there have been any decay in the former nature exactly? Proof?

 

[dad1]

Wrong again dad. You need to explain the ice cores. I doubt if you can.

What about them do you think needs explaining?

 

[dad1]

dad, why do you keep breaking the Ninth Commandment? Now you may not have understood it, in which case it would have been proper to ask questions. But making false claims about others is clearly not a Christian thing to do.

Try posting some point, fact, or evidence. The blathering gets tiresome.

 

[dad1]

It doesn't put evolution in doubt. It can't since evolution is now a proven fact of nature through the discovery of identically damaged genes in humans and chimps.

These 6 million year old footprints only pushes our timeline out of Africa in doubt.

So we had an early adventurer.

Perhaps its because Africa back then had no security fences or border patrols to deal with.

Wrong. How genes transferred in the former nature has been assumed by you to be the same way as now. Gong!

The way evos toss around multiple millions of years as needed to try and prop up their religion is comical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Raise rate of decay??? What are you talking about? Why would there have been any decay in the former nature exactly? Proof?

dad, if you don't know what you are talking about you can't argue.

Try again, learn the basics. You just gonged yourself once more.

 

[dad1]

Actually it does not even need to be an ancestor. It could be a related species that did not survive to today. More than once apes have migrated from Africa. Man was not the only ape to do so.

It could be anything you imagine or need eh? Cute.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Try posting some point, fact, or evidence. The blathering gets tiresome.

dad, you are projecting again. You do not understand what evidence is. You are the one that is blathering. When you understand the concept of evidence then you can demand it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It could be anything you imagine or need eh? Cute.

Nope, once again you don't even know the basics.

dad, when you keep goning yourself how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

 

[dad1]

False.


False. Extraordinary claims such as that are always worthy of debate. Hearsay isn't evidence to me.


The burden of proof is yours. As already noted several times. Still waiting on that evidence from you ....


Your claim is that science has it all wrong (among many others). Still waiting for you to back that up ....

The fail to show science is right about their same nature in the past proves that they do not know. How sweet it is.