Posted on 07/11/2009 9:58:05 AM PDT by Tamar Rush
Foiled Forever by Fossil Finding
Last January, Scientific American declared 2009 as “the year of Darwin” in celebration of the 200th anniversary of the birth of the revolutionary evolutionist who turned man into a monkey.
The celebration is understandable.
No thinker has accomplished more to create a cleft between science and religion.
No writer has done more to undermine the claim of scripture that man was made in the image and likeness of God.
No scholar has forged greater support for moral relativity and modern materialism.
His theories are treated as laws; his notions as knowledge; his speculation as science.
But a recent finding in Kenya has sent evolutionists into a tail-spin.
And freshly unearthed discoveries of Darwin’s life have caused the academic community to reconsider his greatness and his contribution to advancement of modern science.
The first debunking of Darwin came with the discovery this year of a 1.5 million-year-old footprint in northern Kenya – - the oldest relic of primitive man since Mary Leaky discovered 3.75 million-year-old tracks in the volcanic ash of northern Tanzania.
Darwinist scientists who the footprint discovered in Kenya reluctantly came to the conclusion that it was made by Homo Erectus who had no business appearing in the lower Paleolithic period of world history.
By scanning the footprints with lasers and measuring sediment compression, the scientists determined that the individual who left this print had a modern foot and stride: a mid-foot arch, straight big toe and heel-to-toe weight transfer.
(Excerpt) Read more at nocompromisemedia.com ...
This article takes at face value that the earth is millions of years old. Doesn’t this disprove creationism?
Thanks for the ping!
aMEN!
I'm confident that those that accept God's word as inerrant will avoid any embarrassment.
Even though his inerrant word clearly says that he did not, in over 100 places.
We know ferom the word that they had an Evening, and Morning. - Since we have no frame of reference with which to prove that today is as long as yesterday was, what is the point of your question?
“Darwinist scientists who the footprint discovered in Kenya reluctantly came to the conclusion that it was made by Homo Erectus (sic) who had no business appearing in the lower Paleolithic period of world history.”
—Actually, the lower Paleolithic is precisely when Homo erectus existed. Homo erectus is assumed to have lived from about 1.9 to 1.0 million years ago in Africa, which is within the lower Paleolithic. The prints are from 1.5 million years ago. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think 1.5 million falls within that range.
“The discoveries are not only incredible but devastating for Darwinists who have held that Homo Erectus (sic) did not appear on the scene until 200,000 years ago. This assumption is contained in almost every world history and social studies text in the United States.”
—Ah, so that’s where the confusion is. He probably should take a peak at one of those texts again.
I’m post #67 and, apparently, I’m the first to notice these problems with the article? :-/
>>>>>>> “a 1.5 million-year-old footprint” Can’t be, earth only 6,000 yrs. old. <<<<<<<<<
Sure it can be. Time is relative according to Mr E.
You took the long way round. We took the short cut.
God created evolution to give humans something to argue about.
And yet I've heard about the “fact” of evolution at FreeRepublic and elsewhere.
I think it was Stephen J. Gould who first said that evolution was a theory and a fact. He also fessed up and admitted that the fossil record was one of sudden emergence, stasis and, sometimes, extinction. In other words, the fossil record did not demonstrate creatures evolving into other creatures.
“Evolution was taught as a fact every year since 7th grade.”
Most things are taught as though they are to be believed. That is how evolution was taught to me. I had a few, just a few, college classes (in psychology and economics) where multiple opposed views were taught in quick succession. That pretty much forces the student to the realization that each view is just a theory (or hypothesis). But with evolution, it’s taught as a fact, not a theory or hypothesis. And as a theory, it capitalized. It’s the Theory of Evolution (TOE). It’s a Theory like the Theory of gravity. And a fact, like the fact of gravity.
Well it is a theory, just like the Theory of Relativity is a theory or Newtons laws (falsified by the way).
So my challenge to you Creationists is to falsify the theory of evolution. It seems to me that all you would have to do is show through DNA that there is no common ancestry.
Hmm, what is that I hear? The DNA all seems to be similar and it seems to be traceable to common ancestors? Well I guess that falsifies Creationism. You are welcome to try something else to falsify evolution. Good Luck : )
When I last invited you to discuss the vagueness of a period of time, this was one of the points I wished to make. Alas, you left.
The point is that definitions would be difficult, when trying to impart knowledge of the Creator and Creation, to illiterate people.
A “day” can realistically mean any length of time at all, since there were no “days” prior to the creation of the Earth, and the Bible uses the SAME term, “day” prior to and after creation of the Earth.
The Bible was NEVER intended as a scientific or historical journal.
You are not using it correctly, and you have very little understanding of language.
You might want to read up on your creationist talking points.
This is from the Creation Ministries International website
Under Arguments we think creationists should not use:
“Evolution is just a theory.’ What people usually mean when they say this is ‘Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists usually use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin–Landau/Verwey–Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc.”
The fact that Homo erectus lived from approximately 2 million to 400,000 years ago renders this entire article as one big straw man.
http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/erectus/erectus-a.html
Looks like someone should have done a little more research prior to publishing this paper. I guess this article was not peer-reviewed.
Say was there not a thread earlier today stating that creationists did not use straw man arguments?
“You might want to read up on your creationist talking points.”
Thanks...done it...all full up on things that “usually mean a well-substantiated explanation of data.”
Key words in there like “usually” lose me...
Darwinist scientists who the footprint discovered in Kenya...That was some footprint.
Oh great linguist!
Yom has only one usage in the entire Bible, and that use always includes an evening, and a morning. - There has to be a reason. God’s word is not a haphazard novel; it is intended to call all of God’s children to the truth.
Which point did you intend to make? (there is some ambiguity here)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.