Posted on 03/06/2009 8:10:07 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Some scientists have estimated that sets of human footprints found on two separate but close sedimentary layers in Kenya are around 1.51 and 1.53 million years old1 and were made by humans like the “Turkana Boy,” an anatomically human fossil discovered within the same general area in 1984.2 But do these footprints clarify or confound the standard evolutionary explanations?
The obvious “humanness” of these footprints highlights the fact that clear distinctions exist between humans and other creatures. LiveScience reported that these prints have “modern foot features such as a rounded heel, a human-like arch and a big toe that sits parallel to other toes…By contrast, apes have more curved fingers and toes made for grasping tree branches.”2 For example, despite museum depictions of the extinct ape Australopithecus having fully human feet, fossils show that they had typical ape feet.3
The LiveScience article also noted that “modern feet mark just one of several dramatic shifts in early humans.”2 What is not mentioned is that the evolutionary “shifts” are not recorded in these footprints or any other fossils. Either the shifts were too “dramatic” in speed to have left any evidence, or they never occurred. Judging strictly by the fossil record, it is as if apes and humans never changed from one to the other, but instead retained the stable basic forms from their beginnings. Anthropologist John Harris of Rutgers University remarked after considering the creatures that left these tracks, “We’re seeing a very different hominid at this stage.”2 Indeed, the human form is “very different” from apes and always has been.4
This new find will also, according to Harris, “bring up controversy again about the Laetoli prints,”2 discovered in Tanzania in 1976 and considered at the time the earliest evidence for bipedal (upright) walking. One question never resolved is why such clearly human foot features would have existed on a creature that supposedly lived over 3 million years ago.5 Paleoanthropologist Russell Tuttle of the University of Chicago concluded, “In sum, the 3.4 million-year-old footprint trails at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are.”6 In other words, even after 3.4 million years of evolution, human feet remain virtually the same.
The Laetoli tracks are not considered human, a conclusion that is not based primarily on diagnostic observations but rather on the evolutionary reasoning that human features should not have existed so long ago in rocks that predate humanity’s alleged ancestors. But if they were made by humans, as would be apparent to an unbiased observer, then they present a contradiction to evolutionary assumptions: How could humans have existed prior to the creatures from which they evolved?7
Despite fossil interpretations that deliberately exclude the historical framework provided by God in the Bible, the evidence stubbornly insists that human evolution never took place, and that people were created fully-formed and fully-functional from the beginning.
References
I don't think this post is under News or Activism, but it certainly doesn't belong in the FR mainstream. They should be posted under Fiction. If that won't do, then they should at least be posted under Religion.
I could
but why should I?
How about you disprove my theory that evolutionists have only have a brain first!
Now there’s a good idea....addressing the topic I originally posted!
As a matter of fact, lack of short term memory could be cited as proof of only half a brain.
See!
You’re furthering “science”!
If you had an understanding of Scientific Process you would know that as soon as one evolutionist was discovered with a full brain you would have to revise your theory.
And by that definition, I can a stir-fry human “animals” as there is no moral difference between that and picking up a bucket from KFC.
We’re all just animals after all.
There’s plenty of room for all God’s creatures
right next to the mashed potatoes and gravy.
I usually don’t take these crevo threads too seriously.
I take my personal beliefs seriously.
But, as my tag line suggests, the evo view is a source of unlimited entertainment. At best.
Nobody has ever changed anyone’s views in these threads.
=)
nice day!
I have.
You may have meant this as satire and, as such, I certainly appreciate it. Unfortunately, if the usual suspects show up on this thread, they'll swallow it hook, line, and sinker as proof that "atheist" science is hiding things from us.
Here's a rock showing irrefutable proof of a fossilized space alien head:
oooo...how predictable...a twice posted ad hominem attack...I never saw THAT one coming!
BTW, one example does not prove all.
However, and MOST importantly please cite the one evo brain that was proven to be a full brain.
And, if it appeared to be a WHOLE brain, please prove the it was not only being half used.
Your beloved “scientific process” teaches you that right!
Because the one evo brain evaluated does not represent a adequate sampling.
I suspect that one brain was merely a whole brain that was half used.
A mutation!
Nice try though.
Please try again.
Or, better yet, as long as you have set the standard that ad hominem attacks are acceptable, just prove that you have more than half a brain.
Ok, ::grin:: that was cruel.
You don’t really have to prove it.
Too much of a challenge, as you’ve already demonstrated the potential symptom of lack of short term memory.
We’ll all take it on faith that you have a whole brain.
Despite the symptoms, the theory, and the fact that nobody has actually SEEN your brain, tested it, refuted the testing theories or refuted the disproved theories.
We’ll just take it on faith, for not, that you have a whole brain...even though the theory and the substantiating evidence contradicts your claims.
::laughing::
can i use your comments for the next dinosaur feather thread
You're right and I was wrong. This was posted under News/Activism. What an abuse of FR.
It's all yours! The pic is hosted on my server and I have plenty of bandwidth.
Arrgh. It’s News/Current Events. Whatever. It still doesn’t belong there.
I'll admit I was disinclined to believe it was possible until I noted that the proof was presented by the legendary Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews.
Thank, again.
Oh, but you sure do!
If we are going to have an intelligent conversation perhaps we should begin by defining terms.
1) Please define exactly what you mean by evolution and whether you outright reject the concept of Theistic Evolution.
2)Please define exactly what you mean by Creation and whether there are specific time and/or process restrictions on the process.
3)Please elaborate on how you specify a half versus a whole brain and what your measurement methods are.
4) Please define what you would consider a statistically significant sample size and the requisite confidence interval for conclusion.
Thank you
I see once again you’re getting a plethora of ignorant petty comments that do nothing to dispell anything brought up in the article- It’s funny hte lengths anti-creationists go to try to derail topics they don’t like- looks like you have quite a cult following- must be they’re scared of something because every time you post science, they react like the end of their preferred hypothesis is at hand. Those ‘just couldn’t be’ actual footprints because we all come from slime dont’chaknow- Great rebutal- it’s akin to ‘IC only ‘appears to be IC’, and hte ever popular “Nature provides the information behind metainformation” arguement.
I especially love the following ‘rebutal’
[[I don’t think this post is under News or Activism, but it certainly doesn’t belong in the FR mainstream.]]
Well there ya go folks- Proof positive that nothign in the article is credible- Incredible counter-argument. Psssst- The article isn’t ICR’s- it was posted in a science journal- but keep throwing spitwads hoping people will just back away and not quesiton the religion of Darwin.
You go first.
And by that definition, I can a stir-fry human “animals” as there is no moral difference between that and picking up a bucket from KFC.
We’re all just animals after all.
No. By that definition, you are a multicellular, eukaryotic organism with some sort of nervous system. There is no mention of morality.
You seem to believe that the definition is some sort of value statement. It is a classification. Nothing more, nothing less.
I'll ask again. What part of the definition do you disagree with? And if we aren't "eukaryotic, multicellular organisms" (i.e. animals), what are we?
Are you also going to tell me that we aren't mammals (having the body more or less covered with hair, nourishing the young with milk from the mammary glands, and, with the exception of the egg-laying monotremes, giving birth to live young) either?
“but it certainly doesn’t belong in the FR mainstream.”
You belong in the DU mainstream with rest of the folks who bought everything the discover channel taught them and.....Oh never mind.
Since it was my position that was challenged and ridiculed I'll let the woolly one go first.
Don’t forget that Nat Geo taught them too- You know, that ‘brilliant’ ‘science’ station that values subjective assumptions over actual facts and evidences? But alas- people like him aren’t content throwing hteir spitwads on a site like DU that simply agrees with every assumption made about evolution- nope- they must infest sites like FR because they know hteir hypothesis is in deep deep trouble- note how noone actually discusses the article that was broughtup in a secular science magazine, but rather how they simply attack the messenger- it’s a yawningly tiresome ‘counter-argument’ tactic perpetrated by those who are so insecure about hteir own hypothesis that they must ridicule anyone who brings evidence exposing the religious ideology of Darwinian evolution as the myth it really is
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.