Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[gnostic]

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)?

God didn't write anything. Man did.

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers - what Christians called the Pentateuch, but Jews called Torah - were said to be written by Moses during the late Bronze Age (1600 - 1000 BCE), however there are no evidences that the Israelites had any writings around this time, and certainly nothing written in ancient Hebrew.

However, the Pentateuch/Torah are only attributed to Moses, but he is not the actual author.

The earliest Hebrew writings were found in Israel, written in the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet, during the 10th century BCE (Iron Age):

1. Zayit Stone, limestone boulder found at Tel Zayit, in 2008
2. Gezer Calendar, stone tablet

Neither contain any passage from the bible.

The oldest surviving fragments containing passages of the Torah, is the "silver scroll" found at burial cave of Ketef Hinnom, Jerusalem (Old City). The fragments are dated to early 6th century BCE, containing passage of Numbers 6, known as the Priestly Blessing (6:23-27).

There are nothing older than this badly damaged scroll.

You don't have a complete Old Testament until the Greek translation - Septuagint bible, which it is quite apparent more popular among the NT authors, especially the person who wrote the gospel that was attributed to Matthew, but the author is actually unknown. And the only copies of the Septuagint survived, are Septuagint codices of the 4th and 5th centuries CE (cod. Siniaticus, cod. Alexandrinus and cod. Vaticanus). The original Septuagint (3rd to 2nd centuries BCE) is lost.

The only other surviving texts of Torah in Hebrew, come from the Dead Sea Scrolls of the Qumran caves, dated between 200 BCE and 200 CE.

After the Romans destroyed Herod's temple, in 70 CE, the rabbis were concerned that all the scriptures, so they began a new effort to write the scriptures in Hebrew, including transmitting the Oral Torah into writings (eg Talmud, Mishnah, Gemara, Midrash, etc). The earliest Masoretic Text of the 2nd century CE is lost, but many copies were made during the 7th century to 10th century, but the only Masoretic Text to survive largely intact, are the Aleppo Codex (10th century) and the Leningrad Codex (1008).

Much of the English translations of the Old Testament (KJV, NIV, NASB, NRSV, etc) come from these Masoretic codices.

 

[Polymath257]

Science is belief based.

No, it is evidence based. The beliefs come from figuring out what the evidence is saying to us.

You spoke of evolution and the scientific method, and refereed to YECS in a negative way.

Because the mass of evidence is solidly against YEC. The evidence supports a negative view of YEC and flat-earthism.

Old age earth is a belief, the scientific method when applied to creation issues is belief, and evolution is a belief.

They are beliefs supported by the evidence with alternative beliefs shown to be wrong based on the evidence.

No. They are busted already. I do not trust them.
A lie tree needs constant changing.

Yours is.

Small changes do not make a lie. We don't understand everything, so we should expect to modify our ideas based on future evidence. But no matter what new evidence we find, the earth will still orbit the sun and species will change over geological time (evolution).

 

[Polymath257]

Big claim, too bad you can't support it eh?

Absolutely I can. The simple lack of a depositional layer from such a flood is conclusive.

Scripture is evidenced in the lives of millions today, in all history, and in prophesy. Your made up first life form is bogus, unproven, unobserved, and a pathetic lie.
Hit us with your best shot then. We wait. I am up for a laugh.

No Biblical prophesy is worth a hill of beans. Comparatively, science can make very specific predictions centuries before events. For example, we can predict down to the second when eclipses will happen centuries from now.

Show us this evidence then?? What in tararnation you talking about?

Everything from the transitions between fish and amphibians, between reptile and mammal, and between other primates and humans. Your ignorance of the evidence doesn't negate it.

We will see what is likely. You don't get to say the word likely and then spout off what you like with no support or details.

Read the actual scientific paper for the details. They are given.

False. It lives. It is proven. It rocks.

yes, it has some very devoted followers. But the actual facts in it are quite few and far between. This is especially true when looking to events from the time we are talking about.

 

[sayak83]

Gong!

I did not say modern, I asked if they might be from man. I specified pre or early post flood man also. That was NOT modern man.

A hominin is not a man. It's one of a series of transitional species between ancient apes and man. Australopithecus like Lucy or Ardipithecus are hominins and the paper clearly says that these sets of prints were made by a even more primitive biped than Lucy. Like Graecopithecus, Sahelanthropus or Ororin or a species of similar sort that are known to live 6 million years ago. That is what the paper says. Footprints made by a very primitive biped, more primitive in its bipedal ability than later hominins like Lucy etc.

 

[gnostic]

Science don't know either way. History and Scripture indicate it was different. Believe what you like. Remember it is only belief, not science.

Actually a large part of the Old Testament, from Genesis to 2 Samuel, don't agree with history.

For instance, if we were to use any Masoretic-based translation of the Old Testament, we can calculate approximate dates from Genesis 5, 11 & parts concerning Abraham to Jacob, Exodus 12:40-41, and 1 Kings 6:1, from Solomon to the Flood and Creation, and date to Flood would be between 2340 to 2016 BCE, depending on how anyone would interpret Exodus 12:40-41.

But according to Genesis 10, Egypt didn't exist before the Flood, so no Egypt before 2340 BCE. Egypt was supposedly the son of Ham.

That's bull, because the pyramids of Saqqara (earliest dated to Djoser, the 1st king of the 3rd dynasty, reign c 2687 - 2668 BCE) and Giza (Khufu, 2nd king of 4th dynasty, 2613 - 2589 BCE).

2340 BCE Flood would put it in the beginning of the 6th dynasty, Teti (2345 - 2333 BCE), who pyramid is found in Saqqara. There were no catastrophic natural disasters in his reigns or that of his successors.

So no, the Flood doesn't agree with Egyptian history.

More probable is that there were no global Flood ever in human history, so there were no pre-Flood era and post-Flood era.

 

[Skwim]

"Newly discovered human-like footprints from Crete may put the established narrative of early human evolution to the test."

But that's not what you said, YOU said: "modern man like footprints."

Term from article: "human-like footprints." "Human" indicates any species of the Homo genus: Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo sapiens.

Whereas your term "modern man like footprints" limits the footprints to only those humans extant today: Homo sapiens.

Your dates are based only on belief.

Nope. As much as you'd like to believe it is, my dating, millions of years old, is based on science.

Besides try to focus, I suggested they could be PRE flood man or EARLY post flood man.

So what? You don't think that millions of years ago comes before PRE flood man or EARLY post flood man.?

That was the article actually.

No it wasn't. It never used the word "doubt." "Doubt" is your concoction.
You said: "Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt."
And you also argued: "Man would have evolved since the flood,"

Because the fossil evidence shows a lot of evolving and adapting went on. Also, the animals would not all fit on the ark that we have now! Indications are that the state was different in the past, so very very very rapid evolution could happen.

Since the flood? Now I know you're simply making up ****.

Your dating ability is severely stunted. The flood, in my current opinion was likely around the time of the KT layer. That would be about 70 million so called science imaginary years ago!

I know it's easier to side step difficult questions and come up with irrelevant crap, but I'm not buying. Answer the question

Is there some evidence that in 2,300 BC people were significantly different from those of today?
​

or bite your tongue.

The kind that does not exist in the present state! We do not live 1000 years here. Trees do not grow in weeks here. Etc. The great error of science regarding the past has been to assume that the present is the key to the past. I suggest it is no more the key to the past than it is to the future.

Okay, That's it. Consider yourself put on "Ignore."

Have a good life.

.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Gong!

I did not say modern, I asked if they might be from man. I specified pre or early post flood man also. That was NOT modern man.

Do you listen to yourself when you talk?

Modern man like footprints found

 

[idav]

The discovery of Nephilim DNA in Sub-Saharan Upper Miocene strata should be more than adequate to expose the lie of atheistic Darwinism.

Any serious bible scholar realizes hominids roamed the earth before human creation.
Were the biblical “nephilim” extraterrestrials? • ChristianAnswers.Net
The Stairway to Heaven

 

[Twilight Hue]

Try to support your date. Show the basis, and we will see it is mere belief based dating.
Present state evolution, whatever names you give to it, was not the same as former state evolution.
Maybe in the present. NOT in the past! Try and prove it was and find out. Bring it.

Yeah yeah, wave God away, and then invoke the magic genie of great ages. (ages which are unsupportable, belief based, and imaginary)

Nope. Sorry, present state genetics did not exist then. You can't trace it back. Prove it existed then, or face facts. You can't. Really.
Only under current laws which did not exist.

Says who??

All you did there was guess and imagine. You do not know what laws existed in the past.

Fossil dating isn't hard anymore a lot of the guesswork has been taken out through the various techniques to have been developed over the years. I'll start with material by Nature, a peer-reviewed source which answers the questions adequately.

Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable

You can deny Evolution all you want, but the evidences are there right inside your own body. Your own genome is the hard evidence of evolution, it's not even remotely belief based.

Reverse engineering is possible you know. Sometimes you don't even need to reverse engineer in light of the fact people have been born with tails as a direct example of awakened genes establishing our ancient lineage as a species of ape. It's hard fact and well-documented.

Your ancient ancestors are inside you right now in your genome and reverse engineering brings out those ancient traits.

Evolution is there and ongoing everyday.

Evidence of mutations both beneficial and detrimental certainly surfaces among us homo sapiens all the time.

All you have to do is read medical journals or even go to college yourself and see it direct with your own eyes.

God doesn't even come close to all that, it's just a thought in somebody's mind and just a thought it remains to this day if you were to put any supporting evidences side by side.

 

[dad1]

The discovery of Nephilim DNA in Sub-Saharan Upper Miocene strata should be more than adequate to expose the lie of atheistic Darwinism.

Cute dream.

 

[dad1]

No, the dates were based on the evidence.

False. Only beliefs imposed onto evidences, and hey, I can do that too.

Without specific evidence that the laws worked differently in the past, it is completely reasonable to use them to understand the past in terms of what happens now.

Without specific evidence that the laws worked the same in the past, it is completely reasonable to not use them to understand the past in terms of what happens now

In fact, of course, we know that the laws have worked quite well for billions of years, so our deductions here are quite valid.

You only thought you knew that. Lurkers will see you fail to support that if you happened to try.. Bank on it.

 

[dad1]

Actually, there is evidence that there was no flood, including continuous documentation of civilizations through the supposed time period of the flood.

They were all post flood. Gong!

The lack of a massive depositional layer alone is very good evidence no global flood ever happened. It is only those with a religious axe to grind that say anything otherwise.

You looked in the wrong place and did not know what to look for.

 

[dad1]

No, the *supposed* word of God, as written by biased humans, is not evidence. It is a myth written to uphold political power using propaganda.

Jesus proved otherwise. Gong!

 

[dad1]

Any serious bible scholar realizes hominids roamed the earth before human creation.

No believing ones do. I don't care how much they may think they are serious. They are little pikers.

Were the biblical “nephilim” extraterrestrials? • ChristianAnswers.Net
The Stairway to Heaven

The whole idea of Nephilm is a foggy weak overdone reading into Scripture.

 

[dad1]

Fossil dating isn't hard anymore a lot of the guesswork has been taken out through the various techniques to have been developed over the years. I'll start with material by Nature, a peer-reviewed source which answers the questions adequately.

Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable

https://www.nature.com/scitable/kno...-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044 Let's cut to the chase here. Show us here and now ANY fossil date that does not involve a belief in a same state past? I dare you.

You can deny Evolution all you want, but the evidences are there right inside your own body. Your own genome is the hard evidence of evolution, it's not even remotely belief based.

Show us one evidence in our body!?

Reverse engineering is possible you know.

False. Not in the origins issues.

Sometimes you don't even need to reverse engineer in light of the fact people have been born with tails as a direct example of awakened genes establishing our ancient lineage as a species of ape. It's hard fact and well-documented.

False. Even if man had tails that means nothing, except that we no longer need/have them!

Evolution is there and ongoing everyday.

Example?

Evidence of mutations both beneficial and detrimental certainly surfaces among us homo sapiens all the time.

Yes. Evolution is well and good as far as the evolving that goes on in this present time. That has nothing to do with origins of life...or man.

God doesn't even come close to all that, it's just a thought in somebody's mind and just a thought it remains to this day if you were to put any supporting evidences side by side.

Your conception Of God just shows you do not know Him..yet.

 

[idav]

No believing ones do. I don't care how much they may think they are serious. They are little pikers.

The whole idea of Nephilm is a foggy weak overdone reading into Scripture.

You mean people who just read the Bible for what it says, that the sons of god were with the daughters of man. Only other way to read it is to say the whole things a metaphor, but then evolution theory couldn't be in doubt. You seem to be trying to have cake and also eat it.

 

[dad1]

You mean people who just read the Bible for what it says, that the sons of god were with the daughters of man.

Yes I know that. But inventing some giant race, or demon seed corrupting man etc is an invention. If we did find DNA somewhere no one could say it was from women that married angels.

Only other way to read it is to say the whole things a metaphor, but then evolution theory couldn't be in doubt. You seem to be trying to have cake and also eat it.

No. Angels did marry women and have babies. We don't know they were giants, or what their DNA was like etc.

 

[Mister Silver]

This thread certainly went off track.

 

[idav]

Yes I know that. But inventing some giant race, or demon seed corrupting man etc is an invention. If we did find DNA somewhere no one could say it was from women that married angels.

No. Angels did marry women and have babies. We don't know they were giants, or what their DNA was like etc.

Ok fair enough.

 

[dad1]

This thread certainly went off track.

Remind us how wrong the theory of evolution regarding man was then!