Tools far pre date man, evolution theory kicked in face

[davedajobauk]

"Current fossil evidence from the Woranso-Mille study area clearly shows that there were at least two, if not three, early human species living at the same time and in close geographic proximity."
Haile-Selassie said the discovery of a new species would take "the ongoing debate on early hominin diversity to another level" and was likely to be met by skepticism in some quarters.

And here is a place for such 'skepticism' LOL

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/28/africa/ethiopia-fossil-hominin-ancestor/index.html


http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/05/africa/ethiopia-ancient-jawbone-discovery/index.html

Nobody, is saying that God didn't create humans
The 'difference', is the baseline chronology .... ie: that which says; Humans, are less than 3,000 years old
and the evidence, that supports the existence of man / his immediate forbears, @ 3 MILLION years ago

Of course we know, that there will always be dissenters (those 'in-denial') right up until, the Lord's Day
Those of us, with thinner skin (hides) are, more impressionable and open-minded

 

[dad]

Always good for a laugh that one.

Not as much as when you try to post some science.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I understand fine. Just show the simple evidence that there was nothing to breathe in creation week. Otherwise you are empty.

Thanks for the illustration of the problem.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Not as much as when you try to post some science.

How would you know?

 

[dad]

How would you know?

Try it and see.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Try it and see.

We've all already tried it over and over and over and over and over again ad nauseum. Showing you science is like showing a copy of Nature to a toddler with some crayons. The results are predictable and the same every time.

 

[dad]

We've all already tried it over and over and over and over and over again ad nauseum. Showing you science is like showing a copy of nature to a toddler with some crayons. The results are predictable and the same every time.

Then you lose. If your religious posts got busted, and shown to be anything but fact and knowledge, but belief based, then you must deal with it. ..Not pretend that you did something.

That is what is funny...you actually refuse to admit it, and maybe can't even see it.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Then you lose. If your religious posts got busted, and shown to be anything but fact and knowledge, but belief based, then you must deal with it. ..Not pretend that you did something.

You should take our own advice.

 

[dad]

You should take our own advice.

Nothing wrong with beliefs, especially in the One True Living God. However there is a problem with godless beliefs being offered as science.

 

[davedajobauk]

However there is a problem with godless beliefs being offered as science.

So where is your proof (evidence) ????
If anyone has a problem.... it cannot be you ?

Because you, are "undefeated"

LOL

 

[dad]

So where is your proof (evidence) ????
If anyone has a problem.... it cannot be you ?

Because you, are "undefeated"

LOL

Proof that your science so called is godless? Show us Jesus in science? Show us creation? Proof science claims about origins are hot empty air? Just try to defend them! Yes, I am undefeated. You could be too....as hard as that may be to realize now looking at your cheap petty chatter.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Nothing wrong with beliefs, especially in the One True Living God. However there is a problem with godless beliefs being offered as science.

I say there is a problem with declaring science to be godless. Nothing can be done without God, not even science; but science doesn't have God for its subject.

 

[dad]

I say there is a problem with declaring science to be godless.

Great so show where they include Jesus in their creation accounts?

Nothing can be done without God, not even science; but science doesn't have God for its subject.

One could say the same of the lake of fire I suppose. That doesn't mean we can't try to warn folks about some things.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dad, since you & I both believe in a different-state past, here's a weird question:

Do you believe iron rusted back then?

I don't.

 

[Kylie]

Dad, since you & I both believe in a different-state past, here's a weird question:

Do you believe iron rusted back then?

I don't.

Out of curiosity, why is that? What part of the rusting process did not occur back then?

 

[AV1611VET]

Out of curiosity, why is that?

Rusting could be costly to a society that used it.

It eats away at the iron, causing it to decay.

Prior to the Fall (or the Split), there was no death or decay.

What part of the rusting process did not occur back then?

Oxidation of iron, I suppose

I'm not sure.

 

[Kylie]

Oxidation of iron, I suppose

I'm not sure.

And why do you suppose oxidation did not occur back then?

 

[AV1611VET]

And why do you suppose oxidation did not occur back then?

Because it was a different-state past.

Red sun, perpetual motion, no death, etc.*

* Dad may not agree with these, our mileage may vary.

 

[dad]

Dad, since you & I both believe in a different-state past, here's a weird question:

Do you believe iron rusted back then?

I don't.

I don't know. I could see how it might not have. Why?

 

[davedajobauk]

re: Iron not 'rusting' ("back then")

Maybe it did...(unseen) for, in the ground, it lay (awaiting discovery)
As science has revealed: >>>>> Bronze, came first