ping!
Evolution is still just a “theory” because the preponderance of the evidence fits. There has been no conclusive scientific proof proving or disproving the theory, only subtly modifying it.
Articles from ICR are neither News nor Activism.
Evolutionists have it all backwards.
Animals did not become human, but humans are becoming animals.
I just hate it when evidence gets in the way of a good story! Just ONCE I’d like to see real evidence of evolution in the human species.
Modern?
You mean, like, “Air Jordan” can be seen written backwards on the print?
Inneresting.
Ping
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.
I just wish I had Brian Thomas, M.S.’s job: get up every day, look for science articles about evolution, misunderstand them (intentionally or not), and repackage my misunderstanding for credulous readers. And it seems to be recession-proof!
Case in point: he writes that “despite museum depictions of the extinct ape Australopithecus having fully human feet, fossils show that they had typical ape feet.” But the article he links to in his footnote clearly says the Australopithecus foot may have been flat (no arch), like an ape, but its big toe lined up with the other toes, like modern humans. Is Thomas misunderstanding or misrepresenting?