Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[Jayhawker Soule]

The discovery of Nephilim DNA in Sub-Saharan Upper Miocene strata should be more than adequate to expose the lie of atheistic Darwinism.

 

[SalixIncendium]

They don't know what made the prints. No = sign can help you.

 

[metis]

History and Scripture indicate it was different. Believe what you like. Remember it is only belief, not science.

Sorry but scripture is not science and does not use objectively-derived evidence as science does. There has been an evolution of the human species, and that we know with certainty. Religion, otoh, is virtually impossible to verify objectively.

To use religion as science or history makes no sense as religious writings, by their nature, are subjective, not objective.

 

[dad1]

Baseless, unfounded gobbledygook.

Besides a scary little sentence, try to show the statements were wrong. Or do you just like to babble?

You clearly don't understand how science works.

Pretentious little statement. Tell us how it works then if you think you can!

Unlike religion, it doesn't just pull nonsense out of it's ***,

It is a religion and that is exactly what it does. Inspiration on tap from hell.

nor does it fill in gaps with preconceptions and presumptions like religion does.

That is all it does.

It takes what data is available and draws a logical conclusion from that,

Logical is not making stuff up actually. You think it is logical to pretend they know what made the prints?

and if new data becomes available, adjustments are made to the conclusion.

Such must be done for lies. They always get shown false eventually.

It's moronic to reject discoveries and findings

Talk about moronic, who rejected foot prints?? Pointing out they contracict evolution theory and that they don't know what made them is not rejecting them!

just because they contradict some ancient fables that were concocted from the imaginations of primitive savages.

They contradict evolution. That is the beauty of it.

 

[dad1]

Considering Jewish scripture gives the flood at around 3800 to 4300 years ago (approx.). And modern humans evolved around 200,000 years ago i would say its more evidence that the food as described in the bible is a fairy story.

Your dates are religious rot.

 

[dad1]

Sorry but scripture is not science and does not use objectively-derived evidence as science does.

? What evidence did it not used that science used when it was written? Oh right, there was no science when it was written.

There has been an evolution of the human species, and that we know with certainty.

Prove it.

Religion, otoh, is virtually impossible to verify objectively.

The very year we are in is based on Christ actually. The proofs of Scripture permeate all history.

To use religion as science or history makes no sense as religious writings, by their nature, are subjective, not objective.

Use whatever you like. Remember science can't help you.

 

[dad1]

Nowhere does it say or even imply this. Stop making up stuff. Or can't you?

"Newly discovered human-like footprints from Crete may put the established narrative of early human evolution to the test."

Even if there was a "Flood," so what? It's already been established the prints are millions of years old.

Your dates are based only on belief. Besides try to focus, I suggested they could be PRE flood man or EARLY post flood man.

This is kind of cute, particularly when you claim that

"Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt."​

That was the article actually.

In any case, why would man have evolved since the flood?

Because the fossil evidence shows a lot of evolving and adapting went on. Also, the animals would not all fit on the ark that we have now! Indications are that the state was different in the past, so very very very rapid evolution could happen.

Is there some evidence that in 2,300 BC people were significantly different from those of today?

Your dating ability is severely stunted. The flood, in my current opinion was likely around the time of the KT layer. That would be about 70 million so called science imaginary years ago!

Why could we expect it? What specific evolutionary processes are you working with that could make us expect such a thing?

The kind that does not exist in the present state! We do not live 1000 years here. Trees do not grow in weeks here. Etc. The great error of science regarding the past has been to assume that the present is the key to the past. I suggest it is no more the key to the past than it is to the future.

But far less a fantasy than the first Homo sapien on earth being created out of dust in one day,

Is that harder than raising Lazarus from the dead? Jesus, the creator PROVED He can do it!

 

[Brickjectivity]

Who knows, could be pre flood man. No?

The Flood has a point, and the point is not to be violent. The world was destroyed because it was filled with violence. Start there with what the Flood is about and what its for. That's what matters. It is the whole point of the story, the lesson which contains an explanation for why murder is wrong, why the flood comes and what all people are supposed to do with the Earth. All people are supposed to live peacefully on it and garden it. That's what the story teaches, the all-important lesson. The Bible is extremely important but only if we pay attention to what it teaches and accept guidance about that from people who know what it is about. I think trying to use it as a Science text is a terrible mistake.

 

[dad1]

1) I have no beliefs.

Science is belief based.

2) I made no claims.

You spoke of evolution and the scientific method, and refereed to YECS in a negative way.

Old age earth is a belief, the scientific method when applied to creation issues is belief, and evolution is a belief.

3) Time will tell, be patient.

No. They are busted already. I do not trust them.

5) Even if it is all true, all it does is rearrange the family bush ... it will not be the first or the last time.

A lie tree needs constant changing.

6) As was earlier noted, your lead on this thread is erroneous.

Yours is.

 

[metis]

What evidence did it not used that science used when it was written? Oh right, there was no science when it was written.

That makes no sense.

Prove it.

This is where you can start, and also there are links found within it that can take your so scientific studies: Human evolution - Wikipedia

The very year we are in is based on Christ actually. The proofs of Scripture permeate all history.

Not really.

Use whatever you like. Remember science can't help you.

It kept me alive as I almost died about 40 years ago, and the scientific research on allergic reactions and their cure led to the medicine that saved my life.

Just one final thing. I was brought up in a fundamentalist Protestant church and left it in my early 20's when I realized that I was being sold snake-oil. Later in life, I went heavy into theology and taught it for many years, and that's not even including the 36 years I taught anthropology whereas I also covered many of the world's religions.

What you've been taught is nothing short of theological tom-foolery, whereas there's a far better way to deal with what Jesus taught and appreciate him even more. Another day maybe.

 

[sayak83]

The implications are that possibly human prints were founds some 3.2 million (of their imaginary) years before they say man existed. How do we know that maybe that was pre flood man's footprints?

False. These footprints are not at all like those of Modern humans. They are more like the known fossilized footprints of ancient hominin species, though they are smaller than the ones found earlier. There are other differences also. If it's a hominin, it belongs to a very primitive biped of that group. In no way, shape of form can these tracks be confused with those of Modern humans or any of the more evolved bipeds of the Homo lineage. From the paper,

The Trachilos tracks resemble hominin prints (Leakey and Hay, 1979; Harcourt-Smith and Aiello, 2004; Bennett et al., 2009; Bennett et al., 2016a; Bennett et al., 2016b ; Lockley et al., 2016) due to their plantigrade and entaxonic nature. By contrast, the morphology of the sole print is not especially hominin-like: compared to a modern human sole print it is proportionately shorter, with a narrow tapering heel, and lacks a permanent arch. The prints are also smaller than any known hominin print population... There is clear separation between the non-hominin primate and hominin populations with the Trachilos tracks plotting with the hominin ones primarily due to the distal placement of landmark L2 and the adducted L3 (hallux) divergence. It is also worth noting the greater similarity in heel shape between the Trachilos tracks and the hominin controls. These results are robust across different landmark placement associated with different users and with the inclusion and exclusion of the 2D primate tracks. The implication is that there are greater anatomical similarities between the Trachilos tracks and those of hominins than there are with the non-hominin primate control group.

The Trachilos tracks may have been made by a phylogenetically basal member of the clade Hominini. This interpretation explains the combination of unique hominin characteristics in the anterior part of the foot (pronounced entaxony, non-divergence and distal position of the hallux, the shape of the hallux and its size relationship to the ball, as well as the shapes of the distal ends of digits 2–4) with a rather generic sole that is relatively short, lacks an arch and has a narrow, tapered heel. Under this interpretation the tracks would represent a small, primitive, habitually bipedal hominin with hominin-like pedal digits and ball combined with an ape-like sole lacking a bulbous heel.


Thus your claim that they could have belonged to humans is refuted.

 

[Polymath257]

So? We know that before the flood era the land was joined. What proof have you that this was an ape that evolved into man? Let's see what you got.

No, your myth says that there was a flood, which we know is false. That alone invalidates your whole line of thought.

In other words you don't know. Woulda coulda shoulda. After the flood they did have to adapt, and before the flood a lot of adapting was needed also. Why would we default to some fable you cite with no proof?

Oh, the irony! Yours is the fable with no evidence. We have plenty of evidence for not just evolution in general, but the evolution of humans in particular.

?? So let's vote on a fable and who gets the most votes makes it true?
Right, so no what about early post flood man, or pre flood man?
No one says it is modern post flood man.

No, but with all evidence, we have to consider the different possibilities and see which ones are consistent with further evidence. In this the most likely possibility is that the species ranged from Africa north through Europe and into Crete. The next most likely is that it was convergent evolution from primates local to Eastern Europe. Now we go and look for further evidence that will say which of the two is correct (or possibly introduce another possibility).

That's how science works: look at the evidence, propose a hypothesis, and then investigate the different hypotheses, attempting to eliminate some.

Throw out the bible people, this guy ruled it is false.
Why would pre flood man have that or early post flood man?? Both were not IN the flood.

Sorry, but the Bible has long been thrown out of considerations such as these. It is pure mythology with no relevance here. Much, much later (first millenium BC), it has some historical aspects that can be validated. But before that, it is a story with little basis in fact.

 

[dad1]

Oldest one to date is over 300,000 years old. Here...

Scientists Have Found the Oldest Known Human Fossils

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...s-have-been-found-in-an-unusual-place/529452/ Try to support your date. Show the basis, and we will see it is mere belief based dating.

Microevolution is essentially the building blocks that result in macro-evolution you cannot have macro-evolution without microevolution.

Present state evolution, whatever names you give to it, was not the same as former state evolution.

Evolutionary change starts at the fundamental level requiring large amounts of time for those changes to be apparent at the macro level.

Maybe in the present. NOT in the past! Try and prove it was and find out. Bring it.

Our life spans are not long enough to see these changes occur on the macro level, however we do know those changes occur because we see it on the micro level.

Yeah yeah, wave God away, and then invoke the magic genie of great ages. (ages which are unsupportable, belief based, and imaginary)

Another way of determining is through the awakening of dormant genes (reverse engineering) and the physical evidence we have such as tailbone, apendices, finger webbing, and such.

Nope. Sorry, present state genetics did not exist then. You can't trace it back. Prove it existed then, or face facts. You can't. Really.

Well it's pretty clear there was no worldwide flood that's simply impossible.

Only under current laws which did not exist.

There is no worldwide geological record that would confirm that type of event had occurred on a simultaneous scale.

Says who??

Aside from the initial formation of the Earth once life erupted, the basic differences between then and now would be the rotation of the earth and atmospheric pressure, that determines the size and type of life at given time periods.

All you did there was guess and imagine. You do not know what laws existed in the past.

 

[dad1]

False. These footprints are not at all like those of Modern humans. They are more like the known fossilized footprints of ancient hominin species, though they are smaller than the ones found earlier. There are other differences also. If it's a hominin, it belongs to a very primitive biped of that group. In no way, shape of form can these tracks be confused with those of Modern humans or any of the more evolved bipeds of the Homo lineage.

Gong!

I did not say modern, I asked if they might be from man. I specified pre or early post flood man also. That was NOT modern man.

 

[Polymath257]

One doesn't do math with imaginary time if one is smart. Your dates are ALL based on one belief and only and always just one belief and premise. That belief is that laws and nature were the same. If they were not, your dates are nothing but isotope ratios and misguided speculation.

No, the dates were based on the evidence. Without specific evidence that the laws worked differently in the past, it is completely reasonable to use them to understand the past in terms of what happens now. In fact, of course, we know that the laws have worked quite well for billions of years, so our deductions here are quite valid.

 

[Polymath257]

There is no evidence there was no flood. The article pointed out that the theory of evolution included a timeline for man. That was shattered.

Actually, there is evidence that there was no flood, including continuous documentation of civilizations through the supposed time period of the flood.

The lack of a massive depositional layer alone is very good evidence no global flood ever happened. It is only those with a religious axe to grind that say anything otherwise.

 

[Polymath257]

No? So the word of God is not evidence? How about a layer deep down where there is a lot of stuff that is known to come from space and deep under the earth (where flood waters came from)?

No, the *supposed* word of God, as written by biased humans, is not evidence. It is a myth written to uphold political power using propaganda.

 

[Polymath257]

Science don't know either way. History and Scripture indicate it was different. Believe what you like. Remember it is only belief, not science.

Simply wrong. The science is quite solid. The religious mythology is the view full of speculation and bias.

 

[Polymath257]

Who cares what they speculate about based on a belief?? That is the point.

You are right. Who cares what people speculated based on Biblical belief? it has nothing to do with truth.

 

[dad1]

No, your myth says that there was a flood, which we know is false.

Big claim, too bad you can't support it eh?

Oh, the irony! Yours is the fable with no evidence.

Scripture is evidenced in the lives of millions today, in all history, and in prophesy. Your made up first life form is bogus, unproven, unobserved, and a pathetic lie.

We have plenty of evidence for not just evolution in general, but the evolution of humans in particular.

Hit us with your best shot then. We wait. I am up for a laugh.

No, but with all evidence, we have to consider the different possibilities and see which ones are consistent with further evidence.

Show us this evidence then?? What in tararnation you talking about?

In this the most likely possibility is that the species ranged from Africa north through Europe and into Crete. The next most likely is that it was convergent evolution from primates local to Eastern Europe. Now we go and look for further evidence that will say which of the two is correct (or possibly introduce another possibility).

We will see what is likely. You don't get to say the word likely and then spout off what you like with no support or details.

Sorry, but the Bible has long been thrown out of considerations such as these.

False. It lives. It is proven. It rocks.