Tools far pre date man, evolution theory kicked in face

[Subduction Zone]

It is a question of degree and style.

Your opinion of "style" does not help the fact that you were shown to be wrong.

 

[nonbeliever314]

So you do not know and simply grab a suspect animal. Nowthen, it seems there are few remains of this ancient man or beast. So we don't know much about it.

Since man evolved a lot after the flood, and we don't really know what we used to be like before that, you are basically in a grey area.




They aren't that old. The issue is not the baseless imaginary time godless evolutionists use, but showing that within their own dream world, they must claim man didn't make the tools. In real time I suspect the tools are about 4350 years old.

That is religious dreaming..total faith based. The tools were flaked so we are not talking about grabbing a stick from a banana tree here.

I guess I should ask as well, what are your thoughts on genome sequencing?

 

[TLK Valentine]

The only reason creationism is viewed as having any credibility is when people like us are seen arguing with them. The fact that we do this makes others think there is credible reason that a creation myth written for a bunch of goat herders is scientifically valid today. Meanwhile real science ignores it.

On the other hand, evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

Actually, I prefer to pull those myths out of the shadows of the "sacred" and hold them up to the spotlight of scrutiny. A lot of people don't like it when I do that -- I ask questions they consider "blasphemous."

But can you blame them?

[Verse=John 3:20, KJV] For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.[/Verse]

 

[TLK Valentine]

It's not a belief. There are mountains of scientific evidence to back up the age of the earth.

Yes, but you forget that even the mountains must bow to the Will of dad.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Can you show you are saying something intelligent or involved in an actual conversation? Seems to me you just like to hear your own spam posts. Work on that.

You said you don't trust anything -- I was asking why, then, should I trust you?

Your continual evasion of the question is noted.

 

[Cearbhall]

So you do not know and simply grab a suspect animal.

We know it had to be one of our ancestors who was living at that time. There are only so many possibilities.

 

[davedajobauk]

How could they know that they had existed ?
ie: not just fossilised bones here





Joke:
#1.
"It proves that 900 years ago time travel existed!
The Cambodians traveled back billions of years to carve this!......"

#2.
"It's a freaking Stegosaur--the kind of animal that was supposed to have been extinct for a zillion years
but which all of the cultures of our ancestors spoke of."

#3.
"Evolutionarily inconvenient..."

 

[lasthero]

How could they know that they had existed ?
ie: not just fossilised bones here

Know what existed? What is that even supposed to be?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Do you think dad genuinely believes what he posts or is it just a game to see who takes the bait?

I believe Dad genuinely believes everything he posts, and I feel sorry for him to be stuck with a mind like that.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The bumps along the back of the creature might be artistic embellishments like the similar bumps around the circular frame the animal is in.

If it were a Stegasaurus, where are the spikes for the tail? Also, the head is way to large for that body, by Stegasaurus standards.

It might be a portrayal of a mythical creature like a dragon

It might be an interpretation of a fossil skeleton that was uncovered in their day instead of in modern times

Therefore it is not necessary to believe that dinosaurs were contemporary with the artist.

 

[nonbeliever314]

So you do not know and simply grab a suspect animal. Nowthen, it seems there are few remains of this ancient man or beast. So we don't know much about it.

I did scientific research on early hominids. Afarensis lived around 3-3.5 millions years ago. I didn't pick a "suspect animal". Ever heard of "Lucy"?, she was an afarensis. I speculated that it could have been possible they made primitive tools. If an extant primate cousin of ours can do it, I think it's reasonable to think that it was possible for an ancestor to do the same.

 

[USincognito]

How could they know that they had existed ?
ie: not just fossilised bones here

It's a Sumatran rhino. Compare the head and ears in this photo with what appears in the Ta Prohm carving.

 

[The Cadet]

A non-descript animal carving that bears some coincidental resemblance to a stegosaurus but in many crucial features bears no resemblance whatsoever (head size, missing tail spikes, ear/frill size, fin shape).

Also, on a more meta level: an image macro from a bunch of lying doodooheads. Seriously, ICR? They're a step below Answers In Genesis when it comes to trustworthy scientific information.

 

[Kylie]

That would be either Post Flood Man, or some actual monkey type animal, that your religious system mistakes for ancestors of man. I assume that remains started to be left centuries after the flood, as our present nature came to exist, and we could start leaving remains. Therefore, if we see remains that are confusingly similar to modern present state man, that could be due to thew great changes we went through adapting. With so few fossils at first (it would be unusual to die before a few centuries) when we see a small set of bones that could be a young person of the post flood man type, that died an untimely death. Or, it could be some silly little ape or something.

If they were in the present state how could they date to millions of years old?

And don't trot out your old, "By an amazing coincidence, the ratios of all the different elements just happened to be at the same ratios we'd expect to see if there had been millions of years of radioactive decay" excuse. Such a coincidence would be extremely rare. And yet you claim it has happened to every single sample that dates to more than 6000 years or so.

 

[dad]

It's not a belief. There are mountains of scientific evidence to back up the age of the earth.

You are wrong and misinformed. There is only belief. 100%. You assume that the laws and nature that exists now also existed then, and do so for NO reason.

 

[dad]

I guess I should ask as well, what are your thoughts on genome sequencing?

In what way? Morally? One thing we can say is that you can't use that in the creation debate. You realize that?

 

[dad]

I did scientific research on early hominids. Afarensis lived around 3-3.5 millions years ago.

False. You were taught that silly story. The reasons that so called date are claimed cannot stand. get over it.

I didn't pick a "suspect animal". Ever heard of "Lucy"?, she was an afarensis.

Yes you did. You picked Lucy as a supect with no reason, or evidence. Pathetic.

I speculated that it could have been possible they made primitive tools.

Baseless dreaming. You don't even know what Lucy was. Was it a post flood person, or an animal? That nonsense about an ancestor animal is religious rot.

If an extant primate cousin of ours can do it, I think it's reasonable to think that it was possible for an ancestor to do the same.

Lucy was either a post flood human, or an animal. In either case it was not what you claim. You cannot base anything on the premise it was what you claim. Period.

They seem to forget to add the ability to think for oneself to the propaganda brainwashing so called science education. The singular focus and interest seems to be an ability to swllow fables and memorize them, and cite them as if they had some merit.

 

[dad]

We know it had to be one of our ancestors who was living at that time. There are only so many possibilities.

You know nothing of the sordid kind. You just need that fantasy dream to be true to validate your fables.

 

[dad]

If they were in the present state how could they date to millions of years old?

Easy. The daughter to parent ratios are not any way to date anything old. You just try to assign an old age to a lot of certain ratios. That is just a statement of faith that the ratios came to exist soely because of the present nature.

The question becomes 'why did daughter material already exist before our nature started, at which time the daughter material fell into a decay relationship with what are not parent isotopes'? It would not be coincidence that stuff already existed when this state started, it would simple be a reality of that day.

 

[Cearbhall]

You know nothing of the sordid kind. You just need that fantasy dream to be true to validate your fables.

Who else could it have been, in your opinion? Have you been watching too much Ancient Aliens?