Tools far pre date man, evolution theory kicked in face

[dad]

We see time there, in the past.

Does not light come from the stars? Does not science say the bit we see is not fresh but old? So is not the light we see here in our time near earth and solar system?

 

[Rygaku]

Does not light come from the stars? Does not science say the bit we see is not fresh but old? So is not the light we see here in our time near earth and solar system?

The light from the sun is close we receive that light and energy fairly quickly. On the other hand stars in the midnight sky
are different the light from stars take light years to reach us and if you look up into the night sky more than likely those stars are already gone. This requires a bit of math if the sun were to suddenly disappear it would take a total estimate of 8 minutes for us to finally realize the sun is gone. Looking at it on a bigger scale that is the pretty much it would take a years not in a sense of one or two i'm talking about a thousand and even more.

 

[Loudmouth]

Does not light come from the stars? Does not science say the bit we see is not fresh but old? So is not the light we see here in our time near earth and solar system?

Science says that we directly observe time passing at those stars. There isn't some magic border where light is completely changed to make it appear as if there is a mult-billion year history with no changes in any fundamental physical laws.

 

[dad]

The light from the sun is close we receive that light and energy fairly quickly. On the other hand stars in the midnight sky
are different the light from stars take light years to reach us and if you look up into the night sky more than likely those stars are already gone. This requires a bit of math if the sun were to suddenly disappear it would take a total estimate of 8 minutes for us to finally realize the sun is gone. Looking at it on a bigger scale that is the pretty much it would take a years not in a sense of one or two i'm talking about a thousand and even more.

Nice story. Now, about the stars you are claiming things about...how do you know? Unless there was time where the star was, then light could not take time to move here! We only see the light here.

 

[dad]

Science says that we directly observe time passing at those stars. There isn't some magic border where light is completely changed to make it appear as if there is a mult-billion year history with no changes in any fundamental physical laws.

Oh? Science says that? You heard it? Now show how you know time is passing at the stars? I pointed out you only see the light from them here in time...timespace that we know.



Notice how the die hard evos cling to some unknown monkey man making the tools we found, with zeal, and blind faith, rather than admit their silly time frame is wrong.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I disagree when you are talking about the far past or even deep space. Bended light and such does not have to be due to gravity, although it is in our system. If all you mean is that you predict a bridge will stand and last 50 years, well, that is fine. (assuming Jesus doesn't return first)

I was talking about the past. Clearly, the further back you go, the less evidence will have survived, and you have to rely on the consistencies to guide you to what little evidence remains. Beyond some point, no physical evidence will have survived, but you can use general rules of consistency (e.g. the laws of physics) to extrapolate further back.

Astronomy gives us physical evidence of the nature of the distant past, before even the solar system was formed - and again, we find that what we observe of those times is surprisingly consistent with the predictions of our best models of how the universe behaves, which reinforces our confidence that the models describe the observable universe reasonably well.

Some basic assumptions are required, such as the Cosmological Principle, but using them, a very consistent pattern is seen, which suggests they're reasonable.

... since man and most creatures could not leave remains I assume in the former nature, that pattern has zero to do with the religious implications you seek to pin on them.

I follow the first part of that sentence - obviously creatures can't leave remains earlier than their first existence. I'm not making any religious implications, just explaining how the patterns in our observations of the world make a consistent and coherent picture of the past even though we weren't around to see it.

No need to ignore anything but the reasons you assign by faith alone as to why patterns exist.

I have no idea why the patterns exist; I just know (not by faith but by observation) they're there . People believe, or have believed, in numerous creation myths, and hundreds, if not thousands, of deities. I don't subscribe to any of them (the descriptions I've heard seem incoherent, inconsistent, and lacking in evidence), so for me, the 'why' (and the ultimate 'how') of the universe and its patterns remains an open question.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh? Science says that? You heard it? Now show how you know time is passing at the stars?

We directly see it passing in such events as supernovas.

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astronomy/sn1987a.html

I pointed out you only see the light from them here in time...timespace that we know.

The light is produced there, and we see it's production through time.

Notice how the die hard evos cling to some unknown monkey man making the tools we found, with zeal, and blind faith, rather than admit their silly time frame is wrong.

We have the fossil intermediates.

They aren't unknown.

 

[dad]

I was talking about the past. Clearly, the further back you go, the less evidence will have survived, and you have to rely on the consistencies to guide you to what little evidence remains.

False. You assume the past was consistent with the present! You rely on that.

Beyond some point, no physical evidence will have survived, but you can use general rules of consistency (e.g. the laws of physics) to extrapolate further back.

Bingo! You admit you use present nature laws to model the past. You can't do that unless you prove there was the same forces and laws then.

Astronomy gives us physical evidence of the nature of the distant past, before even the solar system was formed -

False. The system was not 'formed' (God formed it) and nothing you have pre dates earth. The assumptions you impose on isotopes are religion! Earth is older. Some stuff might be from earth and returning, so you may get a little confused, but I digress.

and again, we find that what we observe of those times is surprisingly consistent with the predictions of our best models of how the universe behaves, which reinforces our confidence that the models describe the observable universe reasonably well.

You hammer things into your belief system in other words so it fits in your mind. There is no substance or reality to any such claim..just laughable beliefs cleverly arranged so as to dazzle the unsuspecting and uninformed.

Some basic assumptions are required, such as the Cosmological Principle, but using them, a very consistent pattern is seen, which suggests they're reasonable.

You try to fit things into your little wrong principle. I mean you claim things about matter and at the same time claim you cannot see some 95% of it! That is a large hole in your belief system.

I follow the first part of that sentence - obviously creatures can't leave remains earlier than their first existence. I'm not making any religious implications, just explaining how the patterns in our observations of the world make a consistent and coherent picture of the past even though we weren't around to see it.

God said Adam would return to dust...not to a fossilized state! If man and beasts in general did not leave remains in the former nature then you are grossly misrepresenting the fossil record!

I have no idea why the patterns exist; I just know (not by faith but by observation) they're there . People believe, or have believed, in numerous creation myths, and hundreds, if not thousands, of deities. I don't subscribe to any of them (the descriptions I've heard seem incoherent, inconsistent, and lacking in evidence), so for me, the 'why' (and the ultimate 'how') of the universe and its patterns remains an open question.

To admit you don't know. basically is healthy.

 

[dad]

We directly see it passing in such events as supernovas.

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astronomy/sn1987a.html



The light is produced there, and we see it's production through time.

I agree you here in time see it in time! You are here. Face it.

We have the fossil intermediates.

No. You have skulls of apes and men you pasted together to confuse idiots.

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree you here in time see it in time!

It happens there. Face it.

No. You have skulls of apes and men you pasted together to confuse idiots.

Then what features would a real transitional fossil have that these fossils lack?

 

[davedajobauk]

We directly see it passing in such events as supernovas.

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astronomy/sn1987a.html



The light is produced there, and we see it's production through time.



We have the fossil intermediates.

They aren't unknown.

The 'evidence' is around, but the diehards resist what their eyes tell them
iow: they do not believe 'what they see'

False. You assume the past was consistent with the present! You rely on that.

Bingo! You admit you use present nature laws to model the past. You can't do that unless you prove there was the same forces and laws then.


False. The system was not 'formed' (God formed it) and nothing you have pre dates earth. The assumptions you impose on isotopes are religion! Earth is older. Some stuff might be from earth and returning, so you may get a little confused, but I digress.



You hammer things into your belief system in other words so it fits in your mind. There is no substance or reality to any such claim..just laughable beliefs cleverly arranged so as to dazzle the unsuspecting and uninformed.

You try to fit things into your little wrong principle. I mean you claim things about matter and at the same time claim you cannot see some 95% of it! That is a large hole in your belief system.


God said Adam would return to dust...not to a fossilized state! If man and beasts in general did not leave remains in the former nature then you are grossly misrepresenting the fossil record!

To admit you don't know. basically is healthy.

For these 'remains' to have been made by man... must mean that 'man' is more than 10,000 years old [as a species]


http://www.ancient-origins.net/anci...s-10000-year-old-underwater-ruins-japan-00817

I felt the above link had merit to be shown here

dave

 

[dad]

It happens there. Face it.



Then what features would a real transitional fossil have that these fossils lack?

God. Your imagination infested line up is a con job!

As for what we see from stars, it is here. HERE. Here. What it looked like before existing in time and time space here, is above your paygrade.

 

[dad]

The 'evidence' is around, but the diehards resist what their eyes tell them
iow: they do not believe 'what they see'






For these 'remains' to have been made by man... must mean that 'man' is more than 10,000 years old [as a species]


http://www.ancient-origins.net/anci...s-10000-year-old-underwater-ruins-japan-00817

I felt the above link had merit to be shown here

dave

No. It means your dates are religious nonsense.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I agree you here in time see it in time! You are here. Face it.

Prove it.

 

[dad]

Prove it.

Easy to do, just date something!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Easy to do, just date something!

Proves nothing. You can't prove it's really there.

 

[dad]

Proves nothing. You can't prove it's really there.

All your dates are based on the belief the past was the same period. That is why you blather on and on...and on. And on.

 

[TLK Valentine]

All your dates are based on the belief the past was the same period. That is why you blather on and on...and on. And on.

Same period as what?

 

[Kylie]

Moving according to what forces exist to act upon them.

And you just ignore everything else? Like the medium the balls are moving through?

That is just taking the present process and attributing all things to it.

I don't think you understand what I am saying here.

There are not billions of ways that stuff was in the former state. There is the way it was, and the way it was left. The rest is purely in your imagination.

I don't think you understand what I am saying here. There are billions of possible ways it COULD have been, but out of all of those ways, it just happened that the way it ACTUALLY WAS is the one entirely consistent with millions of years of radioactive decay.

Creation.

And would you care to explain why creation means any ratios different to what we see are impossible?

 

[dad]

Same period as what?

Your belief that the past was the same, ---period. Nothing else. That's all she wrote.