stone age Footprints:earliest Evidence of Humans in North America

Nope. You go and read it. You obviously didn't read it...

 

Wrong again. We make our decisions to sin and repent or sin and don't repent. If it's the latter, then we throw ourselves in to Perdition that feels like a burning lake but is just a metaphor. We covenanted with Heavenly Father before descending to the earth to find Him through faith with conditions if we do or if we don't. The conditions are either blessings or curses. But, we choose. So, no, it's not like you think you know.
Your story is ridiculous because it means we can behave badly over and over and over without any repercussions. We can kill, rape, and do all sorts of unholy and impure things to others, hurting them from one reincarnation to the next for eternity with no stop to it. That's cruel and very unusual punishment for coming to the earth. And, what happens to those who have not moved forward in your levels of change if the earth blows up? Now what? Where do they go? They just float around the universe forever? Can't have evil pieces of the Blob god with the good pieces.
I'll stick with my faith in Christ and his true Prophets and their knowledge...

 

Complete and utter nonsense. "Real" science? As if you would know it if it kicked you in the behind. No, the science you follow starts with an ideology that the universe is billions of years old. That advanced life forms out of simple microscopic bugs. They grow into spiders and then rats and then apes and then people. That's goofy science. It's completely about dogma. If it was about open inquiry then you, for instance, would be open to reading, studying, testing the theories of creation science. Real science does make excuses for evidence all the time. As far as the "errors" you say creation scientists have made, that's your opinion. Not fact. It's the "real" scientists that make the errors and refuse to admit to them. Instead, they cover their errors up with more errors.

 

Thank you for ESTABLISHING that you were WRONG about that FALLACIOUS allegation of YOURS that you CANNOT substantiate.

Sad!

 

I'm glad that in your mind you think you are funny and smart. NOT! I'm not going to do your work for you.

 

Your profound lack of knowledge regarding evolution, etc. has already been established!

The ICR can't be trusted to tell the truth in regards to scientific evidence.
They require that all members adhere to the following statement of belief.

Statement of Belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have been accomplished only by changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

No mainstream scientific Institute / organization that I know of requires its authors to sign a statement of belief.

Bottom line? Creationists begin with answers and work to prove that those answers are right. This is antithetical to the scientific process.

Given an omnipotent supernatural creator, virtually anything can be explained as a result of that creator's actions and desires. The problem is that such an explanation is not a scientific one and it's totally dishonest to imply that it is.

 

The ONUS still REMAINS entirely on YOU to substantiate YOUR utterly BOGUS allegation.

YOUR ongoing FAILURE to do so says VOLUMES.

Sad!

 

Hopefully you also sent the same to him because he called me a liar.

 

Not interested in your partisan politics.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Science 101: Proofs are not the currency of science. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.

Evolution is supported by abundant evidence from many different fields of scientific investigation. It's been tested and scrutinised for over 160 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations. Evolution is a natural process, nothing divine required. Species change over time. Even Ken Ham acknowledges this.

Wherever you find a modern creationist, there too, you find someone with a cartoon understanding of science in general and evolution in particular.

All you continue to do is document your ignorance of the science you presume to criticize.

Soldier on!

 

Trace fossils

 

No, like almost everything in science, the age of the universe is something that is constantly under examination.

There are several directions from which to approach finding this age. And, those different methods agree with each other amazingly closely.

You description of evolution shows deep misunderstanding. You clearly do NOT have the understanding to discuss evolution other than, hopefully, if you are interested in learning about it.

And, the thing about "creation science" is that there is NO SCIENCE involved.

You can't claim something is science when it fails to use the methods of science, fails to recognize the requirements for evidence, fails to propose hypotheses that are falsifiable, ec.

"Creation Science" IS religion. Period.

 

OK, but this is a science thread.

Absolutely NOTHING that you have posted here has anything at all to do with science.

Please remember that religion and science share nothing - not an understanding of what is evidence, not methodology, not logic - really, not anything at all.

I hope you stick around to learn how science works. A lot of our success is based on progress in science.

 

The thing about evolution, fossils, bones, etc, is that it's all speculation about that which no one saw, heard, witnessed, wrote about or testified to. It's a fable built on disconnected particulates which is hardly a science and nearer to wishful thinking or reading tea leaves. Creation and Gods work among men is a matter of historical record by people who actually lived and testified of those things as far back as six thousand years. Granted there's no proof of God or miracles or that his prophets were anything but mere men. Yet the statements survived. There are no people or records whatsoever of cave men or dinosaurs. Only bones, fossils, footprints, etc. What people say it amounts to is all speculation. And that's not scientific at all....just imaginary guesses by modern people based on ancient evidence.

 

Science frequently relies on indirect evidence.The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear and unambiguous.

If your "opinion" was a valid challenge to evolution, it would equally invalidate creationism and Christianity, since they are based on events that nobody alive today has witnessed.

FYI: Prehistoric cave paintings predate your "historical record" by more than forty thousand years.

 

Nobody wrote, witnessed or testified of the things you say. On the other hand we have an intelligent, complicated, in depth, written record by people who actually lived six thousand years ago. In this regard, science becomes more a fable than does religion. And when you consider mans higher nature, conscience, love, etc. it lends itself more a connection to God or the supernatural than to fossils, bones and the natural world. As for your cave paintings, it is just as possible that it remains from a previous species before the earth was remade. Or the dating process could be in error. Who knows.

 

Your understanding of science is
unsophisticated.

 

We do?? And you have absolute assurance that this record is accurate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible

 

I consider my understanding of science to be objective, my communication skills to be unsophisticated, and my intellect meager. It just seems to me that if one dismisses ones higher nature(conscience, love, etc.), dismisses the concept of God or that to which our higher nature is inclined and which science cannot comprehend, and dismisses the recorded history of civilization which testifies of God and his prophets and his hand in creation and mans affairs. And then to go off into time before civilized man and recorded history, to create, extrapolate or resurrect from bones and fossils, if you will, a drama of cave man life on earth. Then it stands to reason that you have created or imagined from the dust that which you have become by having denied your higher nature from the start. How objective is that. It is akin to the murder of the present and the past so as to dismiss or abolish the median, and chart a future course to emptiness and the want of a new God to fill the void with purpose and meaning. Science is good. But one should take care not to put too much stock in it, or else wind up worshipping ones own tool.

 

Stick with the supernatural if that's what you're comfortable with and leave science to those that understand it.

 

This article from Nature Magazine dated may last year sum's up the current status of Carbon Dating in terms of recent developments, issues that complicate dating and the various methods being used to re-calibrate previous datings and generally improve its accuracy/reliability. Importantly it highlights all the other techniques used to corroborate carbon 14 dating. Despite what some posters here seem to think its not all about counting tree rings!tree rings !

In summery the technique is way accurate enough not to confuse 20,000 year old events with 6000 year old ones (be they flood related or not). It just wont happen, end of story. Since its came into use in the 50s its accuracy has improved by an order of magnitude at least. Errors of several thousand years were common early on. Now, except in rare circumstances researchers are usually left quibbling over dates ranges within a few centuries of each other for any event or sample less than 50,000 years old.

See below

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01499-y

 

You be you. I'll be me. God has made me a creature, endowed with conscience, love, mercy, charity, hope, faith, sacrifice, intuition, inspiration and free will. So I am inclined to the hand and spirit of my making than to the earth from which I am drawn. Or should I brush aside the truth and seek my origin in the rocks and bones of the earth. And say, out of my way God, can't you see that I am busy.

 

Science and religion address seek 'truth' in different manners. There's no hard rule that says they are by default incompatible, the problem you refer to however arises when someone with religious faith makes very specific claims about real world events that science can refute. The flood is an example. There is of significant flood events in prehistoric times in regions around the Middle East for example. There is not evidence however of a single, globe spanning flood event in any time period relevant to biblical history.

 

I understand that. One could also view the earth as a cavernous shape shifter, capable of covering its own tracks by doing the imperceptible, unfathomable, and unthinkable. Also, if the earth was created, it could have been formed or organized from substance already in existence which was billions of years old. Someone posited that our atmosphere could also have been far different in the long past, with rivers, bands, and layers of water in the atmosphere, which under conditional changes fell to the earth. If this happened at the same time the earth itself underwent changes, then the whole could have been covered for a time and then its surface changed by the rising and lowering of the lands. Everything we possess, house, car, etc, even if it were all brand new, it is actually billions of years old because it all comes from the earth. Yet we make it, and so it is good.