Replies

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.

getting a plethora of ignorant petty comments that do nothing to dispell anything brought up in the article

Why bother actually reading the article? Evolution, and scientific theories like it, are not falsifiable, any more than the existence of God is, thus, how can it be science? We have never observed the development of a new genus in the laboratory, even after 1000's of generations: E.Coli is still E.Coli and fruit flies are still fruit flies. The theory, then, must be flexible, like a reed in the wind, to adapt to any new developments and data that falsifies previously held notions. It is constantly revised, updated and enhanced, for this is the very nature of "science". It's supreme flexibility to acommodate any new data is it's greatest advantage, hence the ToE evolves!

As such, the theory will never die, but is with us until The Day, when it's absurdity will be made obvious when the Rider splits the clouds!

These days, I don’t have enough time to reply to all the usual suspects. I don’t even really have the time to post the original papers and articles, but I made a commitment to myself and to God to try and at least remain faithful to establishing a regular presence of scientists who present the evidence for God’s creation, and against the idea that we are purposeless blobs of randomly generated tissue.

Actually, the article does bring up a good point about 3.4 million-year old footprints being anatomically identical to 1.5 million year old footprints.

The reason I point this out is that it’s unusual for an article from ICR not to lie, distort the truth, misinterpret science, or propose wild fantasy theories proving that the earth is 6,000 years old. I’m sure the poor author will have to find another job soon.