De-bunked? When was he bunked? Nice theories are just that...nice theories...
Ridiculous assertion.
Darwin might be right, in many respects.
There are radical Darwinists who DO believe that Darwin and evolution “Prove” there is no God.
There are radical Creationists who believe that the Bible “proves” that Darwin and Evolution are not possible, and that Darwin and Evolution must, in all cases, be an attack upon the faithful and an attack against God.
Both sides are wrong.
Ping to an interesting article.
Epic failure.
Darwinism is religion more than science - nearly pure conjecture. This is like unearthing a crossword puzzle Jesus did that contain numerous spelling errors.
One of Obama’s ancestors?
Forget fossils. They should start by publishing the exact methodology by which RANDOM macroevolution occurs at a molecular level.
The discoveries are not only incredible but devastating for Darwinists who have held that Homo Erectus 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.
Darwinists hold nothing of the sort. Even a cursory glance at Wikipedia, or a googling of "homo erectus" would reveal that scientists beleive homo erectus to have existed from about 1.8 million to 500,000 years ago. Thus, finding homo erectus footprints at 1.5 million years is not a "shocking" discovery, nor does it conflict with the timeline of human evolution that paleontologists have generally accepted for the last 50 years. It is not Darwin who is debunked, but rather the article.
This article takes at face value that the earth is millions of years old. Doesn’t this disprove creationism?
“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? :-/
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?
Darwinist scientists who the footprint discovered in Kenya...That was some footprint.
The only thing more amazing than this medicine show man advancing this with a staright face is the people not seeimg it for the nonsense it is.
LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!!! Homo erectus is believed to have lived up to 1.8 MILLION years ago.
Step 1: Set up a false premise based on a lie, claim your premise proves something that is a lie.....then push the lie through an ignorant population.
So, you agree, then, that these foot prints are 1.5 million years old....right?
Interesting. How does a footprint go about the process of discovery?
No thinker has accomplished more to create a cleft between science and religion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Darwin didn’t create the cleft. The atheistic secular humanists merely saw him as an opportunity to use. If there hadn’t been a Darwin they would have found something or someone else.