Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[Sapiens]

I see no support for your beliefs.

1) I have no beliefs.
2) I made no claims.
3) Time will tell, be patient.
4) If past experience is any predictor ... this will be falsified.
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.
6) As was earlier noted, your lead on this thread is erroneous.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Whatever way they see it doesn't matter if they don't know, does it? Can't we think for ourselves?

You can, but extrapolation alone isn't enough without critical analysis based from empirical evidences. The process of evolution has already been established, so the question is how the pieces fit together.

First order of business is to determine whether they're actually humanoid or not. Imprints can degrade over the course of time leading to false assumptions. Best evidence I think would be to locate fossilized remains that coincide with the footprints during that time period. It's an intriguing find, but still inconclusive as to whether it's ancestral or not.

 

[DavidFirth]

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

Careful brother, you're going to ruin the great lie of macroevolution! Anything that opposes the status quo must be either wrong, stupid, idiotic or just plain outright common sense!

 

[dad1]

Original paper:

Possible hominin footprints from the late Miocene (c. 5.7 Ma) of Crete?

The two main interpretations given in the article are that this species is a hominin with a range that extends from Africa, through the Levant, and into Eastern Europe (and Crete was connected to Eastern Europe at the time of these prints).

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.

OR it could be convergent evolution from the extant European primates adapting to the increasingly drier environment of Eastern Europe.

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?

The authors clearly favor the first interpretation, but allow for the second as a way of avoiding some of the geographical difficulties (the range of the species, which has not been seen in Africa, even though later species with more ape-like feet have been).

?? So let's vote on a fable and who gets the most votes makes it true?

The size of the big toe alone shows these are not 'modern human' prints.

Right, so no what about early post flood man, or pre flood man?
No one says it is modern post flood man.

Of course, this has *nothing* to do with "pre-flood" humans simply because there was no global flood at all.

Throw out the bible people, this guy ruled it is false.

There is no layer of sediment of the type produced in floods between these fossil tracks and modern layers.

Why would pre flood man have that or early post flood man?? Both were not IN the flood.

 

[dad1]

1 . The footprints are approximately 5.7 million years old
2. The Earth is approximately 6000 years old

Mr Christian didn't do his maths.

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.

 

[dad1]

You can, but extrapolation alone isn't enough without critical analysis based from empirical evidences.

Great, so give us one?

The process of evolution has already been established, so the question is how the pieces fit together.

False. Only modern day slow evolving is established, and that has nothing to do with the far past.

First order of business is to determine whether they're actually humanoid or not.

You are not privy to what pre flood man was like. How do you propose doing what you say?

Imprints can degrade over the course of time leading to false assumptions.

Well, not like it was just one foot print!

Best evidence I think would be to locate fossilized remains that coincide with the footprints during that time period. It's an intriguing find, but still inconclusive as to whether it's ancestral or not.

In the far past on earth, in the different nature that likely existed, most animals and man could not fossilize probably! That means the fossil record can't help.

 

[gnostic]

There is much geological evidence for a flood, you just haven't bothered to research it. Virtually all cultures around the world have flood stories about a huge global flood. You aren't very familiar with creationist thought, you seem to think all creationists are "new earthers".

That's because floods occurred far more frequently in many regions. If they live near the seas, lakes or rivers, there are bound to be floods, sometimes annually, and sometimes more devastating ones, every 5 or 10 or more years. So it is understandable that some civilisations or some cultures might have mythological accounts of their own floods. But much of those flood, don't connect to Genesis flood.

There are no (geological and archaeological) evidences of global Flood that Genesis described.

 

[dad1]

Yes, they really do not know.

 

[dad1]

I only read through the first few entries; 4 pages just seemed like a lot to read but I wanted to point out what I'm sure has already been pointed out.

FIRST, the article states:
Newly discovered human-like footprints from Crete may put the established narrative of early human evolution to the test.

The OP read is as such:
Newly discovered human-like footprints from Crete may put the established theory of evolution to the test.

... which, of course, is NOT what the article stated.

By indicating "established narrative of early human evolution", it means that there may now be new evidence that suggests that humans or human-like ancestors were around longer than what we originally thought. There is plentiful other research and data, from dozens of scientific fields, which serve to substantiate evolution.

So evolution is not in question; not even according to this article nor in light of this new find. What is in question is that the path evolution took or the time frame of human evolution may not be as we thought it was.

Fascinating!

PS -- There was no worldwide flood as there is absolutely zero credible evidence to verify such a fanciful tale.

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.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yes, they really do not know.

Go back and read. My "O RLY" was referencing your multiple accounts and your claim that you forgot the password to your original account that came after you posted on your original account.

 

[dad1]

That's because floods occurred far more frequently in many regions. If they live near the seas, lakes or rivers, there are bound to be floods, sometimes annually, and sometimes more devastating ones, every 5 or 10 or more years.

There are no evidences of global Flood that Genesis described.

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)?

 

[dad1]

Go back and read. My "O RLY" was referencing your multiple accounts and your claim that you forgot the password to your original account that came after you posted on your original account.

Well, I signed in today with the old one, thought is was the new one, tried to remember the password, and got it right. Then I realized what happened.

 

[dad1]

Thank you for driving my point home.

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

 

[dad1]

The article does point out that they are no certain of the source of the prints in terms of whether it's human or not, but we also need to remember that there are numerous ape lines running around at that time-- much more than today. .

When they get a clue they should get back to us I guess.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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

Protip: Scientific theory =/= speculation.

Protip2: Scientific theory =/= belief.

 

[dad1]

And how could you possibly know this? Source?

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

 

[dad1]

Protip: Scientific theory =/= speculation.

Protip2: Scientific theory =/= belief.

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

 

[dad1]

No, I believe in both scientific theories and see no problems with either so far, despite all the unsubstantiated claims to the contrary. Even by those who claim to be 117 years old.

Believe what you like. I dare you to try and prove them here though.

 

[dad1]

How daring of you.

Daring to know truth from lies as per the bible?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Great, so give us one?
False. Only modern day slow evolving is established, and that has nothing to do with the far past.


You are not privy to what pre flood man was like. How do you propose doing what you say?
Well, not like it was just one foot print!
In the far past on earth, in the different nature that likely existed, most animals and man could not fossilize probably! That means the fossil record can't help.

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

Scientists Have Found the Oldest Known Human Fossils

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

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

Well it's pretty clear there was no worldwide flood that's simply impossible. There is no worldwide geological record that would confirm that type of event had occurred on a simultaneous scale. 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.