Haha!
Posted on 09/05/2017 8:27:10 AM PDT by fishtank
September 4, 2017 | David F. Coppedge
Evolutionists Tripping Over Human Tracks on Crete These can’t be hominid tracks. They are far too early! Well, then, who made them?
Per Ahlberg and his friends publishing in the Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association have gotten their field of paleoanthropology in hot water. Writing in The Conversation, Ahlberg, from the University of Uppsala, says, “Our controversial footprint discovery suggests human-like creatures may have roamed Crete nearly 6m years ago.” Six million years? That’s way back before humans were supposed to have evolved. This not only throws the evolutionary timeline out of whack, it threatens the “out of Africa” hypothesis and suggests (to evolutionists) that humans evolved in Europe.
(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...
Evolution came of age with elitists when no one was around to travel the world and challenging their science. We have clearly seen the elitists in action on global warming. Even when proven false, they persist.
Fraud science then and now. Can’t we move on to something more important than this?
“evolution and the Bible are NOT incompatible”
They are incompatible if in fact evolution is false.
Thank you.
And the responses you got to your comment is exactly why I avoid these threads.
Evolution isn't false. All you need to do is look at your feet and hands to know it isn't.
Evolution also doesn't disprove the Bible, in fact often times it confirms it. How can evolution be false if it confirms the Bible?
Is that macro or micro-evolution?
We can watch micro-evolution happen, with plenty of examples (legs getting longer/shorter, etc. just look at dog breeding). The evolution of new species with different chromosomes is a different story. I don’t believe we have any viable *theories* outside of “with enough time”, which has also been shown to be problematic.
More tracks and best idea, find a fossil of the hominid on Crete. There was a different climate then but then it’s always changing.
You mean during the period before the strain of bacteria reverts back to wild-type?
Dog breeding shows evidence of change within a species, which is unrelated to the ultimate claim of evolution theory.
I’d much prefer to see evidence of one species developing into another.
Never happened (to the best of my knowledge.) Evolution within a species happens all the time.
That’s fine, but remember—when you see a discussion about evolution in this sort of context, it’s referring to the traditional definition of evolution which claims a process involving mutation, natural selection and speciation.
Oh I understand what you’re saying. I tend to steer clear of those discussions here on FR because there’s just no reasoning with anyone who believes that mutations involving the transformation of one species into something completely different can happen.
Cretins!!!
Innagadda' da-Creta' baby
Haha!
“Evolution within a species happens all the time.”
Which is really just engineered adaptability.
“Was death the consequence of sin, as Scripture seems to say pretty plainly?”
With respect to Adam - yes.
“Or did God use cycles of death to bring about the variety of creatures we see today?”
Yes, but without the “Or” God may have had different plans for mankind than for animals.
“Also, was Adam created with the appearance of age?”
Who knows and why is it even relevant?
I think you are arguing semantics and nobody knows by what mechanism God chose to create anything.
Wise choice. I resolve to do likewise.
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.