1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by dad1, Sep 1, 2017.

  1. dad1

    dad1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Messages:
    624
    Ratings:
    +60
    Religion:
    christian
    Some modern man like footprints have been found. This could easily be pre flood man prints. Man would have evolved since the flood, so changes in heel or feet could be expected. Yet science fantasizes only about some supposed ancestor to man. Besides showing their stories were wrong, it shows they have a very limited pool to draw water from intellectually.

    Fossil footprints challenge established theories of human evolution

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170831134221.htm
     
    • Funny Funny x 7
    • Like Like x 1
  2. sayak83

    sayak83 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    9,891
    Ratings:
    +9,861
    Religion:
    Pluralist Hindu
    Homework for Fellow non-evolution deniers. Please provide good evidence based refutation of the OP. The best response will get the winner tag and other good ones will get "like" tags. Let the labor day weekend anthropology competition begin! :p:D
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. Father Heathen

    Father Heathen Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    Messages:
    35,239
    Ratings:
    +20,676
    First, there was no "global flood". There is no geological evidence, nor any historic accounts from civilizations that existed when the flood supposedly happened. The story of Noah is just a lame Gilgamesh knock-off.

    Even if previous estimates were inaccurate and have to be adjusted to reflect to new data, that doesn't disprove the theory of evolution. Besides, how does human-like feet being even older (5.7 million years) than previously thought support the creationist claim that the earth is merely 6k to 10k years old?
     
    • Like Like x 7
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. idav

    idav Being
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    Messages:
    18,986
    Ratings:
    +3,302
    Religion:
    Pantheist
    Aliens. And boom goes the dynamite!
     
    • Funny Funny x 5
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Kapalika

    Kapalika Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2015
    Messages:
    2,083
    Ratings:
    +1,422
    Religion:
    Kashmir Shaivism (Trika)
    Uh... I'm pretty sure human feet won't evolve to look different in any noticable way over a mere, what, 4,000 years? Is what when you guys think the flood is?

    Meanwhile there are languages, civilizations, trees and structures much older than that that don't show any signs of massive flooding...
     
    • Like Like x 3
  6. Jumi

    Jumi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2014
    Messages:
    9,881
    Ratings:
    +5,459
    Religion:
    Secular theist (none)
    Evolution theory, atomic theory and other scientific theories aren't as fragile as some seem to think.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  7. Kapalika

    Kapalika Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2015
    Messages:
    2,083
    Ratings:
    +1,422
    Religion:
    Kashmir Shaivism (Trika)
    Actually looking at the source, it's clear that this is still for sure millions of years old. It even notes that the point of contention is the location and the surprise at finding one of that age.

    I'm not an expert though so I'm not totally sure what the implications would be here if it's verified with more findings, other than there is a mistake with the out of Africa hypothesis but it's abundantly clear that in either case the fossil is still millions of years old and so again disproving the Bible.
     
  8. sun rise

    sun rise "This is the Hour of God"
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    65,760
    Ratings:
    +32,512
    Religion:
    Love
    It's not clear whether the footprint is from a hominid on the direct line of evolution leading to us or from a branch that died out.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    28,612
    Ratings:
    +15,080
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    Didn't the creationists submit "human" footprints alongside dinosaur footprints as evidence fifty or sixty years ago?
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  10. Laika

    Laika Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2015
    Messages:
    8,404
    Ratings:
    +9,227
    If you'll forgive the pun, evolutionary science will have to "evolve" in the face of new evidence. It will not go extinct because one piece of evidence is out of place. it doesn't falsify or invalidate all the other pieces of the puzzle. it just means there is a new piece that they have to find out how it fits in.
     
    • Like Like x 5
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  11. SomeRandom

    SomeRandom Still learning to be wise
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    11,315
    Ratings:
    +9,534
    And I thought Ray Comfort's banana "evidence against evolution" was weaksauce. The theory will merely adapt, not be scrapped altogether.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. Sapiens

    Sapiens Polymathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2014
    Messages:
    5,556
    Ratings:
    +2,727
    Religion:
    None
    Maybe it is a hominid footprint. Maybe the sediments are that old. Maybe the print was made when the sediments were young. Time will tell and if it is so it will change the current view of human evolution ... and that's a good thing. On the other hand, if it is not true, we will have had a good time exercising the scientific method. I see no support for the YECs in either case.
     
    • Like Like x 6
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  13. Twilight Hue

    Twilight Hue Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    40,180
    Ratings:
    +17,513
    Religion:
    Philosophical Buddhism
    It looks like it's contesting the branching of human evolution in the way that is thought to have developed. Not the origins of hominid evolution itself.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,890
    Ratings:
    +8,111
    Religion:
    None
    Sorry, but evolutionary theory is not in doubt in the scientific community. The objections come from religious sources that have a miserable track record. Just look at the intelligent design movement. Is anybody even trying to debunk any more of their specific claims of irreducible complexity?

    Furthermore, the article you linked to doesn't support that claim or make that suggestion.

    What you need to understand is that Darwin's theory doesn't specify any pathways or timelines in human evolution. The theory is about the mechanism that drives biological evolution, which is not challenged by any changes in the proposed pathways and dates that new findings suggest.

    There is no scientific theory of human evolution. The theory is about the evolution of all present and past life forms from a single common ancestor. Focusing on a particular transition such as from the last common ancestor of man and chimp to modern man (or chimp) does not give you a theory in the scientific sense.

    We have hypotheses about that transition in man that are flexible, conforming to the existing data at the time, which is always changing with new discoveries like this one. If the out of Africa hypothesis can be falsified, then it goes, but not the theory of evolution, nor the idea that man descended from earlier, now extinct primates. These findings challenge neither of those.

    Science hypothesizes and then attempts to confirm or disconfirm its hypotheses using evidence.

    Creationists and Bible literalists fantasize, as with the claim of a global flood submerging all dry land using nothing but faith in a book full of errors.

    Whether man had ancestral forms from which he evolved is not disputed in the scientific community except, once again, by those whose allegiance to religion exceeds their commitment to evaluating evidence critically. The scientific community cannot use ideas dependent on the truth of faith based beliefs.

    We already know that the present understanding of how and when man arose is incomplete. If the existing data suggests an out of Africa scenario, then that is a viable hypothesis until new data suggests a different pathway and timeline. That's healthy science.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. LuisDantas

    LuisDantas Aura of atheification
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    46,686
    Ratings:
    +15,109
    Religion:
    Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding.
    The frustrating thing of dealing with so-called "Creationists" is having to face such a lack of basic conditions for a true discussion.

    Ignorance, apparently, is indeed a blessing. For the existence of Creationism, anyway.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  16. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,890
    Ratings:
    +8,111
    Religion:
    None
    Regarding all of those other pieces of the puzzle, what the Christian and Muslim creationists fail to realize is that if evolutionary theory were ever falsified, there is still no place for a creator that wants to be known, loved, obeyed and worshiped.

    The evidence for the theory of evolution preceding finding that precambrian rabbit doesn't go away, and needs to be explained by an alternate hypothesis even if the theory were falsified.

    If we choose an intelligent designer hypothesis, it has to be designers whose purpose was to deceive us and hide from us - not the gods of those holy books. They're already ruled out by the existing data whatever else we add to it.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. SalixIncendium

    SalixIncendium Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2016
    Messages:
    15,868
    Ratings:
    +27,118
    Religion:
    Hindu
    #clickbait

    There is nowhere in the article where this is even implied.

    I find it rather annoying when the under-educated confuse scientific theory with conjecture.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  18. Desert Snake

    Desert Snake Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    20,658
    Ratings:
    +1,697
    Huh?
    That's far too subjective to make as a broad statement.
     
  19. Desert Snake

    Desert Snake Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    20,658
    Ratings:
    +1,697
    I think you've confused scientific theory with conjecture.
     
  20. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    40,759
    Ratings:
    +15,031
    Religion:
    Judaism
    :facepalm:
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
Loading...