However, if the question "where do the atoms come from" is asked, then chemistry is not able to answer that question.
This might be true, but it is of no real consequence. Chemistry is just specialized physics, and physics can provide an answer to where atoms come from.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
It would be possible to decsribed the compression of the snow without making direct reference to it being a human foot.
But I guess that would be asking 'what compressed the snow?'
Rather than 'what made that foot print?'
The second case we assume it is a footprint rather than anything else.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities. -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
[qs=Taq]Causality and mechanism ... [/qs] and
[qs=Dr Adequte]Quite. Every three-year-old has discovered ... [/qs]
Causality and mechanism ...
Dr Adequate writes:
Quite. Every three-year-old has discovered ...
And it's a little less confusing.
The origin of the footprint doesn't answer how the foot made the depression in the snow, which would be explaining the mechanism of it. I could be wrong, however, as I am usually missing something lol
Correct - we could know about the footprint maker without the footprints, and we could study how footprints are made, however the existence of the footprints could also lead us to ask who made the prints.