Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[dad1]

But it was not an eyewitness account, was it?

Yes. It was.

So what theory other than evolution explains the phenomenon of genetic diversity and the divergence we see in the fossil record?

The fossil record was only a tiny part of what lived on earth. I estimate probably about 4% of life in the past on earth could leave remains, in the former nature!
Of the wee bit we have in the fossil record much of that was evolved (you see evolution was lightning fast in the former state! But it all evolved FROM the created kinds! So science has no clue what was what or when, and what was created and etc etc. Truly pitiful.

So humans can't possibly make reliable deductions based on observations?

No way. Only in the fishbowl of the present nature and near earth. Thus far, and no further. You shall not pass!

You are aware of how relativity and quantum physics work?

How does that help you do you think?! They are in my back pocket!

 

[dad1]

And you might actually consider that.

Any religious denomination that teaches its congregants to ignore what the overwhelming consensus of scientists in a given area know is real is one that is teaching its congregants to go through life with blinders on, therefore is bogus as it has no interest in Truth.

Since what many think is the truth is actually faith based nonsense falsely labelled science, your point is neutered. Moot. Overruled. Exposed.

 

[dad1]

So you got nothing then?

Why am I not surprised?

I have science, history, God, and the bible. How sweet it is.

 

[dad1]

Your posts in this thread beg to differ.

Don't blame a miscomprehension and inability to comprehend what was said on anything else. It is what it is.

 

[metis]

Since what many think is the truth is actually faith based nonsense falsely labelled science, your point is neutered. Moot. Overruled. Exposed.

The only thing you have established with any certainty is that, not only don't you understand the basics of science, but you also don't even understand the basics of religion, including Christianity. Science and religions simply cannot be equated as being the same as the approach with each is very different. I would tend to believe that even an elementary-school student who at least gets "A's" and "B's" would know that they're different.

So, let me recommend that you go and study both and then come back and maybe you'll be informed enough whereas you can then get into a serious discussion. Meanwhile, maybe find a church that teaches the benefits of study versus where you're now attending because the one you're attending seems to be teaching that "ignorance is bliss".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

OK....I looked at the picture of the footprints.
I'm unimpressed with the claim.
Anyone have better pix?

A set of ancient footprints has been found on a Greek island. They are extremely old – 5.7 million years – yet they seem to have been made by one of our hominin ancestors.
Controversial footprints suggest we evolved in Europe not Africa



This is just the same trend we have seen since the conception of Darwinism, all the original assumptions are overturned one by one.

It used to be blasphemy to suggest that dogs did not come from wolves, birds from dinos, humans from African apes

But as it turns out, two body plans looking kinda similar, doesn't mean that one accidentally morphed from the other!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

SIX MILLION-YEAR-OLD HUMAN FOOTPRINT DISCOVERED IN CRETE RAISES MAJOR QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR EVOLUTION
Why this footprint is challenging established theories of human evolution

Darwinists will need to change this to

We are all Cretans!

 

[metis]

SIX MILLION-YEAR-OLD HUMAN FOOTPRINT DISCOVERED IN CRETE RAISES MAJOR QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR EVOLUTION
Why this footprint is challenging established theories of human evolution

Darwinists will need to change this to

We are all Cretans!

The title is a bit deceiving because the dating has a range of almost 3 million years. IOW, it could be as late as 3 & 1/2 million b.p.

If it's closer to the latter date, then the finding should be of no surprise as we well know there was a diversity of human groups around that time. However, if it's closer to the older date of 6 m., that would be unexpected as early finds have the foot being somewhat more ape-like, plus, the genome testing puts the likely ape/human divergence as being 6-7 m.

 

[Revoltingest]

No problem, you are right in there with folks who have an opinion that cannot be supported.

I have many of those.
But many are supportable.

You're getting at something....but rather indirectly for me.

 

[Revoltingest]

A set of ancient footprints has been found on a Greek island. They are extremely old – 5.7 million years – yet they seem to have been made by one of our hominin ancestors.
Controversial footprints suggest we evolved in Europe not Africa



This is just the same trend we have seen since the conception of Darwinism, all the original assumptions are overturned one by one.

It used to be blasphemy to suggest that dogs did not come from wolves, birds from dinos, humans from African apes

But as it turns out, two body plans looking kinda similar, doesn't mean that one accidentally morphed from the other!

Perhaps one of your ancestors made that, but mine were human (mostly).
And that doesn't look even remotely human.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes. It was.

How? The Bible was written less than 2000 years ago.

The fossil record was only a tiny part of what lived on earth. I estimate probably about 4% of life in the past on earth could leave remains, in the former nature!

Actually, it's probably significantly lower than that. Fossilization is extremely rare.

Of the wee bit we have in the fossil record much of that was evolved (you see evolution was lightning fast in the former state! But it all evolved FROM the created kinds! So science has no clue what was what or when, and what was created and etc etc. Truly pitiful.

Um, you've not really said anything remotely substantive here. All you've said is "the fossils we have represent a tiny percentage of all life", which is obvious. Fact is, in spite of fossilization's rarity, we have found thousands of fossils. And both the morphology and ageing of these fossils match perfectly with common ancestry.

No way. Only in the fishbowl of the present nature and near earth. Thus far, and no further. You shall not pass!

You are aware that we have sent objects into space, right?

How does that help you do you think?! They are in my back pocket!

Now you're just being silly.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Perhaps one of your ancestors made that, but mine were human (mostly).
And that doesn't look even remotely human.

"
The new footprints, from Trachilos in western Crete, have an unmistakably human-like form. This is especially true of the toes. The big toe is similar to our own in shape, size and position; it is also associated with a distinct 'ball' on the sole, which is never present in apes."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170831134221.htm


"'What makes this controversial is the age and location of the prints,' says Professor Per Ahlberg at Uppsala University, last author of the study"

^ that's the controversial part if you want to protect conventional evolutionary wisdom, you are better targeting this, nobody really disputes the human form here,


but I'm curious, what do you think made this. if not human?

 

[Revoltingest]

"
The new footprints, from Trachilos in western Crete, have an unmistakably human-like form. This is especially true of the toes. The big toe is similar to our own in shape, size and position; it is also associated with a distinct 'ball' on the sole, which is never present in apes."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170831134221.htm


"'What makes this controversial is the age and location of the prints,' says Professor Per Ahlberg at Uppsala University, last author of the study"

^ that's the controversial part if you want to protect conventional evolutionary wisdom, you are better targeting this, nobody really disputes the human form here,


but I'm curious, what do you think made this. if not human?

I saw no pictures providing enuf detail to determine any origin.

 

[stevevw]

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

If the discovery is validated for me it is another piece of evidence which shows how the interpretation of angles and positions of old worn out and fragmented fossils can be open to interpretationand how having a preconcieved view/belief of how something happened can influence the way people interpret things. This new discovery would show that the ape like features of feet from younger fossils that were claimed to be on their way to human like feet and walking in just about every fossils were misinterpreted and were probably just variations of different species of ape feet. This is similar to other discoveries we are finding such as the skulls at Georgia which place several different species of discovered humonids into the one species and showed that past skulls found in Africa that were interpreted as new species interpreted wrong and the experts were too quick to make them into new species. Or how footprints of a tetrapod were found 18 million years before the first so called transition from sea to land (Tiktaalik) was discovered.

Often there is a lot of debate even among those who support evolution about the interpretation of things. It often comes down to one or two important interpretations of the shape of a single bone and spectualtion about what was missing to make conclusions and this is not a strong foundation for basing evidnec on. Actual foot prints are a strong evidence becuase they are a sort of photograph of that feature caught in that moment of time. The estimated time of 5.7million years is suppose to be pretty accurate as it involved solid methods of interpretation according to the article

However, the Trachilos footprints are securely dated using a combination of foraminifera (marine microfossils) from over- and underlying beds, plus the fact that they lie just below a very distinctive sedimentary rock formed when the Mediterranean sea briefly dried out, 5.6 millon years ago.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No problem, you are right in there with folks who have an opinion that cannot be supported.

Apparently you're the leader of that group.

 

[dad1]

The only thing you have established with any certainty is that, not only don't you understand the basics of science, but you also don't even understand the basics of religion, including Christianity.

Give the specific examples if you want to do more than rail and whine.

Science and religions simply cannot be equated as being the same as the approach with each is very different.

Belief based, that is the issue.

So, let me recommend that you go and study both and then come back and maybe you'll be informed enough whereas you can then get into a serious discussion.

Study what, how they admit not knowing? Study their cult like religion? What, you thought whoever memorized the most fibs was the smartest?

Meanwhile, maybe find a church that teaches the benefits of study

Why would I care what a church teaches? The issue is what support you have for the anti creation stories of fake news science stories do you have? The answer is clear...none at all.

 

[dad1]

I have many of those.
But many are supportable.

You're getting at something....but rather indirectly for me.

The issue here is not whether you may have some items you could support. The issue is what you know about the OP, and who made the prints.

 

[dad1]

How? The Bible was written less than 2000 years ago.]

Jesus is older than that. The lady in Prov 8 also. There are witnesses in all of the time man or God was alive, not just today.

Actually, it's probably significantly lower than that. Fossilization is extremely rare.

No, I referred to the percentage of the total creatures alive...NOT to how many creatures maybe would get fossilized in today's nature!

Um, you've not really said anything remotely substantive here. All you've said is "the fossils we have represent a tiny percentage of all life", which is obvious.

False you showed us you totally missed the point.

Fact is, in spite of fossilization's rarity, we have found thousands of fossils. And both the morphology and ageing of these fossils match perfectly with common ancestry.

How rare something gets fossilized in the present state is a non issue actually.

You are aware that we have sent objects into space, right?

You are aware that none of these objects made it even close to one light week away right!?

 

[Revoltingest]

The issue here is not whether you may have some items you could support. The issue is what you know about the OP, and who made the prints.

Without clear pix, tis not possible to guess.

 

[dad1]

Apparently you're the leader of that group.

It is of no consequence if some men deny and do not accept the record God gave man. It is a real concern however when little men make big phony science claims they can't support.