Discovery of Ancient Human-Like Footprints Challenges Evolutionary Narrative

Photo Credit: Phys.org

CRETE – Scientists have discovered human-like footprints in Crete that, according to evolutionists, predate the origin of modern humans by more than one million years.

According to evolutionary scientists, the ancestry of modern humans can be traced back to the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus—an ape-like species that lived in Africa. Ardipithecus ramidus had ape-like feet, but evolutionists believe its descendants eventually learned to walk upright, leading to the development of bipedal humans.

However, the recent discovery of ancient footprints on a European island calls the premise into question.

“Newly discovered human-like footprints from Crete may put the established narrative of early human evolution to the test,” reported Phys.org. “The footprints are approximately 5.7 million years old and were made at a time when previous research puts our ancestors in Africa—with ape-like feet.”

A team of international researchers dated the footprints by analyzing nearby marine fossils and sedimentary rock. They say they are confident in the assigned age of the prints, even though it does not match with evolutionary predictions.

“The new footprints, from Trachilos in western Crete, have an unmistakably human-like form,” the website explained. “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.”

The discovery of the footprints in Crete was recently detailed in Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association. Scientists say this finding challenges the evolutionary timeline and overthrows assumptions about modern humans originating in Africa.

  • Connect with Christian News

“What makes this controversial is the age and location of the prints,” said Professor Per Ahlberg of Uppsala University, who was one of the authors of the study.

“This discovery challenges the established narrative of early human evolution head-on and is likely to generate a lot of debate,” he added. “Whether the human origins research community will accept fossil footprints as conclusive evidence of the presence of hominins in the Miocene of Crete remains to be seen.”

Dr. Andrew Snelling, a geologist with Answers in Genesis, told Christian News Network that the discovery of these human-like footprints in Crete is not the first time a discovery of ancient footprints has put evolutionists in a bind.

“The famous Laetoli fossilized footprints in Tanzania referred to in this paper are far more like human footprints than these in Crete, and have even been described as human,” he said. “But they have been attributed to the kin of the australopithecine ‘Lucy,’ because according to evolutionary theory, humans weren’t around when the australopithecines walked the earth.”

“These [footprints] in Crete are regarded by evolutionary dating methods as even older, and so are similarly ascribed to ‘possible hominin’ rather than human, and would be no matter how human they looked for the same reason,” he added.

From a biblical perspective, Snelling believes that the ancient footprints in Crete were laid down following the Great Flood described in Genesis.

“From a biblical perspective of earth history, no matter who made these fossilized footprints, whether humans or apes, they were probably made after the Flood, when humans were walking the earth with apes, some of which later went extinct,” he stated.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Reason2012

    That’s because their “dates” are a farce, so the human footprints are no more a million years old any more than everything else they need to be millions of years. Fossils dated almost 100 MILLION years old continue to have soft tissue and the remains of red blood cells found on them, proving they cannot be more than thousands of years old.

    And fish to mankind evolutionism is anti-science. Here’s what *is* science: It’s observable, repeatable, biological, scientific fact: that no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, amphibians remain amphibians, and so on. I.e., it’s observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact there are barriers that evolution cannot cross. In spite of this, evolutionists ignore it and demand their anti-science beliefs be called science anyway.

    Rise above the deception and get that anti-science mythology out of the science classrooms and add it to the list of false belief systems.

    • Chad Guthery

      Amen, Thank you for bringing truth and uncommon sense to combat this age of deception.

      • Louis Pierre Villaire

        So why do whales and snakes have hidden legs?

        • AlwaysPursueTruth

          And are you saying that is proof of evolution?
          So what if they had them to begin with and lost them over time due to whatever changes in environment?

          • plusaf

            That was funny… Because “changes in environment” are EXACTLY what cause species to adapt to the new environment, and that is Exactly what ‘evolution’ is!

            And it involves the species selectively reproducing random changes that have higher survival rates and ‘adaptations’ TO those changes!

            You just proved the case for the “Opposition.”
            Thanks!

          • Bob Jones

            Ever heard of the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics? If that’s true, evolution is not possible. It is a law we see in action every day.

          • Bob Johnson

            As long as that big, old, sun keeps shining, the earth is not a closed system. So how then does this 2nd Law of Thermodynamics apply to an earth that is constantly having energy added?

          • Bob Jones

            When have objects gone from simple to complex? If evolution is true, then we should be seeing this on a daily basis. What do we in the real world see? We see things decay. We see things go from complex to simple. Also, are you saying that the Sun is not breaking down? That it will never use up it’s fuel and burn out someday in the future?

          • Tangent002

            The formation of a snowflake is going from simple to complex, so yes, we do see it every day.

          • Bob Jones

            A snowflake? Really? That’s your argument? The snow flake is still water. It hasn’t had any fundamental changes in composition or nature. Wow, a snowflake!! That’s priceless!!!

          • Tangent002

            You said we do not see the simple proceeding to the complex. I was addressing that point.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and a failure to address it was accomplished …. still just water and its change of state does not make it “complex” ………… it still has the exact same CHEMICAL properties ………..

          • Bob Jones

            The processes necessary for evolution to occur are fantastically more complex than the formation of a snowflake. You believe that given enough time inanimate objects will become sentient beings. How does that happen?

          • Bob Johnson

            And on a larger scale, hurricane Irma. A complex and powerful storm growing out of disorganized wind. It gained organization while supplied energy from the warm ocean and once over cooler land losses that complexity and disappears.

            And yet hurricanes do not form on a daily bases.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope …. it goes from water liquid to water solid ….. but it is still just water ……..

          • Steven Thompson

            By that argument, evolving a whale from a fish (via several stages of amphibian, reptile, and terrestrial mammal) is just turning water and minerals into a new form, and not any sort of increase in complexity.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            error ……… water and minerals do not will themselves into new forms of anything ………. so how do you get from the inanimate to the animate …. you cannot ………..

          • This style 10/6

            Yet it happened because; here we are!

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            yet it did not happen on its own … error …………

          • Steven Thompson

            Your question practically demands that I point out that, e.g. grass and flowers and trees and children grow. We see things go from simple to complex every day.

            But you presumably mean something a bit different. Scientists have observed, for example, the single-celled organism Chlorella vulgaris go from a single-celled organism to a multicellular colonial organism in response to a predator introduced into the environment; this is exactly an increase in complexity due to a genetic mutation. That have observed the evening primrose, O. lamarckiana, produce offspring of a different species, O. gigas, due to duplication of the entire genome (hence, twice the number of genes). None of this violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, not even when such things go on over millions of centuries and result in immense increases in complexity and size.

          • Bob Jones

            Please answer my question that I asked of you. Please tell me how life springs from inanimate material? Your example of Chlorella Vulgaris going from a single celled organism to a multicellular organism, the end product is still Chlorella Vulgaris. How many positive, consecutive mutations will it take to go from inorganic material to a fully developed human being? At what point does life enter the process? How does that happen? 9 out of 10 mutations fail, and when there is a failed mutation, the process has to start over from scratch. What are the odds that the process will start over with the same cascade of mutations? Have you ever seen a dog, bird, or any animal that is capable of self-realization? How many animals ponder their demise? How many have built temples or have gathered together to worship God?

          • Steven Thompson

            I do not know how abiogenesis occurs. For that matter, people a couple of hundred years ago did not know how lightning occurs (indeed, even today not all the details are known), but dismissing naturalistic theories and attributing lightning to Thor’s hammer or Zeus’ bolts is not the way to advance knowledge.

            Mutations occur when individuals in a population produce offspring. Having one hatchling with a deleterious mutation does not affect its siblings, or cousins, etc.; evolution does not have to “start over” every time there’s a harmful mutation (I note in passing that most mutations are neutral, neither good nor bad, and that among the minority that are not neutral, harmful ones outnumber beneficial ones by much more than ten to one — but again, we’re talking huge numbers of offspring and massive parallel testing).

            The process doesn’t need to duplicate itself; e.g. flight evolved, among vertebrates, separately among pterosaurs, birds, and bats, using very different modifications of the tetrapod forelimb. You can get equivalent results with different mutations occurring and being selected.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            the known universe is a closed system ………..

          • Steven Thompson

            The known universe is a very big system. It is perfectly possible for one part of a system to experience a decline in entropy and an increase in order, if other parts experience an increase in entropy. Were this not so, refrigerators would not work, tomatoes would not grow, etc. etc.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            yep … so what ….. “It is perfectly possible for one part of a system to experience a decline in entropy and an increase in order” ……. not if you accept a timeline like the one put forward ….. it breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics …………

          • Steven Thompson

            I would suppose that the cosmologists, physicists, and even geologists and biologists involved in studying biological evolution are all familiar with the second law of thermodynamics and have a better idea than you do what would and would not violate it. I would suppose, indeed, that based entirely on one college chemistry course, I have a better grasp of the second law than you do.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            if every person in all of CREATION believes something wrong …. they are all still wrong …..

          • Bob Jones

            Can you tell me how fossilization happens? Please give me an example we can observe today. National Geographic some time ago, had a picture of a fossilized bat that was supposedly 50 million years old. The bone structure was identical to the bone structure of bats today. 50 million years and no change. Please explain that.

          • Cady555

            Evolution happens in response to the environment. If an organism is well suited to its environment and the environment is stable, organisms won’t change much. If predators and food sources change, organisms will change or go extinct.

            Fossilization occurs deep underground under great pressure and takes millions of years. Why would you expect to see fossilization in a human lifetime?
            Scientists do understand how fossilization happens and the conditions that lead to fossilization.

            Google it. The information is readily available. The Wikipedia article on fossils has good links to quality sources.

          • Cady555

            But but but. A christian apologist with a book for sale promised if I utter the magic words “2nd Law of Thermodynamics” those evil evolutionists would bow down and kiss my feet and abandon 150 years of scientific enquiry.

            What do you mean the claim that “the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution” has been debunked like a zillion times and no intelligent or informed person would say something so stupid?

            Next you will tell me to read, yes actually read, the articles on Talk Origins and other sites that address this and other debunked anti evolution arguments. Since when does accurate information matter?

          • Bob Jones

            That big old sun you mention is in the process of decay. When the sun burns out there won’t be any energy added. You are only looking at part of the equation. The part that you want to see, and not the whole equation.

          • This style 10/6

            When that happens earth and everything on it will be long dead. In any case it is irrelevant to the evolution of life on earth which has happened and is happening right now.

          • Bob Jones

            So evolution is happening right now? Show where I can go to observe this process in action? Show me where. You also say that when the sun goes out everything on earth will be long dead. Do I have to point out how your first sentence is the exact opposite of your second sentence?

          • This style 10/6

            Point it out if you like but that doesn’t make it true.

            You must know that evolution is a very slow process having taken almost 4 billion years to get to where we are. It is little use to point to bacteria evolving to become resistant to antibiotics as your answer is that they are still bacteria. The fact remains that they have evolved.

            It is tiresome to keep having to answer folk who deny obvious facts. If the billions of life forms extinct and extant did not evolve then how did they come about?

          • Bob Jones

            Explain why in the evolutionary column, there is an explosion of life in the Cambrian period? And the fossils are all mature adult forms.

          • This style 10/6

            That is just what it is. Your determined ignorance is impenetrabable.

            You tell me how the abundance of life forms arose.

          • Bob Jones

            The biblical account of Creation makes more sense than evolution. Your statement demonstrates that you are the one with the determined ignorance. “That is just what it is”, no answers from you.

          • This style 10/6

            “The biblical account of Creation makes more sense than evolution. ”

            Right there you have destroyed any claim you might have to scientific knowledge.

            Sure, it makes more sense to have a man made out of dust and a woman from his rib 6000 years ago than the 4 billion year process of evolution!

          • Bob Jones

            The empirical evidence is more supportive for Creation than Evolution.

          • This style 10/6

            I am afraid that your bald statement means nothing. If creationism is correct why does virtually every university biology department in the world teach evolution?

          • Bob Jones

            The herd is almost always wrong.

          • This style 10/6

            If that is so the herd which believes that Genesis is history is wrong.

          • Bob Jones

            Last time I checked we were not a herd. Also, you claim that we who believe Genesis are wrong. How do you know that? Back up your claim.

          • This style 10/6

            I hardly need to show that Genesis is not history. Surely you know the scientific theories as to the beginning of the universe, the formation of the solar system and the development of life on earth.

            Genesis 1 and 2 are creation myths, two of thousands.

            If creationists are not a herd then neither are the millions of scientists who study and teach the theory of evolution.

          • Bob Jones

            You still cannot answer my question how life from inanimate materiel happens. Where does life enter the equation? How about morality? Morality has no place in Evolution. It’s the survival of the fittest. Creation and Evolution are both theories and will always be theories, because no one was there to observe the beginnings of things. Believing either one takes faith.

          • This style 10/6

            Evolution is not the “survival of the fittest” it is more complicated than that. Darwin never used that phrase

            A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of evolution is supported by a mountain of fact gathered over 150 years of research.

            Creationism rests solely on a story in an ancient text and has nothing to tell us about the real world.

            We do not know exactly how life started on earth but all the elements of life were present and it needed only a catalyst of some kind to start a self replicating chain which eventually spawned all the life forms we see. We know that it did happen because we are here.

            I realise that there is a huge number of people who want to insert a god into the process. If that makes you happy, fine. I believe it was all natural.

            As for morality, some people need instructions from a god to keep them on the straight and narrow but there are many others who lead moral lives without a god of any sort. Look at the Scandinavian countries which have a very large proportion of atheists. They do very well, far less violent than the far more religious US.

          • D. Witzell

            “We do not know exactly how life started on earth but all the elements of life were present and it needed only a catalyst of some kind to start a self replicating chain which eventually spawned all the life forms we see. We know that it did happen because we are here.”

            When your argument is rephrased as a syllogism, it becomes obvious that you have committed the fallacy of affirming or asserting the consequent. This fallacy is an error in formal logic where if the consequent is said to be true, the antecedent is said to be true, as a result (If P, then Q).

            Antecedent: “If all the elements of life were present on the early earth and a catalyst of some kind were present, it would start a self replicating chain which would eventually spawn all the life forms we see.”
            “We are here.”
            Consequent: “Therefore, we know that it(the antecedent) did happen.

            Furthermore, your argument is not only fallacious, but it is invalid, because you cannot prove that the premises in your antecedent are true. You were not present on the early earth, so you cannot validly assert, as you did, that “all the elements of life WERE present.” You have no way of knowing WHAT the conditions of the early earth were. All you can do is speculate. Nor can you simply assert that all it would take would be a “catalyst of some kind to start a self replicating chain.” Such a thing has never been observed. Finally, you likewise cannot simply assert that a self-replicating chain “would eventually spawn all the life forms we see.” There is no empirical data to back that up. All your premises are not provably true, therefore your argument is invalid and you have proved nothing. All you have is magical, wishful thinking, combined with flawed logic and bold assertions.

          • This style 10/6

            “Were you there?” Give over do, you are becoming tedious.

          • D. Witzell

            Darwin did not originate that phrase, true. Herbert Spencer did, after reading Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” But at Wallace’s suggestion, Darwin adopted the phrase. He first used it in his book, “The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication” published in 1868 and soon afterward, introduced the phrase in the fifth edition of “On the Origin of Species,” published in 1869.

          • D. Witzell

            “Look at the Scandinavian countries which have a very large proportion of atheists. They do very well, far less violent than the far more religious US.”

            This is a specious argument. The violence in the US has nothing to do with the religious people of the US; not the vast majority of them, anyway. It comes primarily from the unbelieving segment of the population. Similarly, lesser violence in Sweden is unlikely to be attributed to the percentage of atheists in the population.

          • D. Witzell

            “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world.”

            This part of your premise is true.

            “The theory of evolution is supported by a mountain of fact gathered over 150 years of research.”

            This is false. The facts are INTERPRETED in terms of evolution. Facts that are used to support evolution also often support creation, however this is routinely dismissed and ignored. Facts that conflict with evolution — and there are many — are likewise ignored or explained away, by positing corollary hypothesis. There are many unprovable assumptions and just-so stories involved in making the case for evolution, that are revealed when taking a closer look. Evolutionists like to describe their “evidence” in terms like you did, with your “mountain of fact”, often favouring use of the term “overwhelming.” I find it distinctly UNDERwhelming, however, and note that much of the “evidence” is based on outdated science.

          • This style 10/6

            ” Facts that are used to support evolution also often support creation, ”

            No, they don’t.

            I usually read such rubbish opn the web site of Answers in Genesis.

          • Bob Johnson

            Not just Bio departments – Judge John Jones too.

          • This style 10/6

            And he is a Republican.

          • D. Witzell

            And what has his political affiliation to do with anything?

          • D. Witzell

            “If creationism is correct why does virtually every university biology department in the world teach evolution?”

            This is an appeal to authority, which is an invalid argument. Just because there appears to be a consensus in academia, does not mean that the majority are correct. The history of science is replete with examples where the majority of experts of the day held a consensus view that was later proven incorrect, such as geocentrism, spontaneous generation, the four humors and the practice of blood-letting, the aether, the steady-state universe, etc. Science would never have progressed to the point where it is today if consensus views had remained too sacrosanct to ever be questioned.

          • This style 10/6

            I’ll phrase it differently; virtually every biology department in the world teaches evolution. Why do you think this is so?

            You have replied at length to a number of my comments. Your arguments seem to be borrowed from Answers in Genesis a crazy institution which claims the universe is just over 6000 years old. If this is the case nothing you say need be taken seriously. If you are not a YEC, my apologies.

          • D. Witzell

            “I’ll phrase it differently; virtually every biology department in the world teaches evolution. Why do you think this is so?”

            It isn’t because the scientific evidence demands it. It is because of their atheistic worldview. They have decreed that only natural explanations are admissible before even considering the evidence, therefore their starting axioms result in only natural conclusions. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and a leading evolutionary biologist said it best”

            “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

            It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

            [Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons (review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.]

          • This style 10/6

            Sure, it’s a global conspiracy by all those atheist biologists. Go away, you have no leg to stand on. Creationism is junk from beginning to end.

          • D. Witzell

            “Sure, it’s a global conspiracy by all those atheist biologists.”

            I didn’t say it was a “conspiracy”. I said it was worldview-driven. There is a difference, which you seem unable, or unwilling, to comprehend. Did you even read what Lewontin wrote? Or do you just prefer to ignore the uncomfortable truth?

            “Go away, you have no leg to stand on.” “Creationism is junk from beginning to end.”

            I have MORE than enough “leg to stand on”. If I didn’t, Anthony Flew, the most influential atheistic philosopher of the twentieth century, would not have abandoned his atheism (which he did only after much study) in the years prior to his death on the strength of modern discoveries in genetics and molecular biology, as well as the laws of nature and the fine-tuning of the universe. He did not become a Bible-believing Christian, but he acknowledged the strength of the argument from design, often called natural theology. Nor would over 500 doctoral scientists have signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, publicly expressing their skepticism regarding Darwinian evolution. statement reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

            [There is a God: How The World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Antony Flew with Roy Varghese, Harper Collins, New York, 2007]

            Nor would the late Dr. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History have said during a public lecture in 1981 at New York City’s American Museum of Natural History that ‘… One morning I woke up … and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it.’ He added, ‘That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long … I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago … and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.”.’

            Likewise, if there were no basis for my claims, the by-invitation-only symposium of 16 evolutionary scientists held at Altenberg, Austria, in July 2008 not have met to discuss the need to challenge the prevailing Modern Synthesis because there’s too much it doesn’t explain. In the discussion reported by the journalist who attended the meeting, the scientists admitted that the T of E is inadequate in explaining our existence and that natural selection has little to do with long-term changes in populations. They also admitted that “We are grappling with the increasing feeling … that we just don’t have the theoretical and analytical tools necessary to make sense of the bewildering diversity and complexity of living organisms.” Now all this does not prove that creation is true, but it does prove that evolution is not the slam dunk you like to think it is. It shows that there are serious weaknesses in the theory and its much-touted evidence.

            So, you can dogmatically assert that “Creationism is junk from beginning to end” and that “The creation story is a myth. Evolution is a fact” ad nauseum, which you have been quite tediously doing, but that does not make your assertions true. You present no evidence for it. You can’t. You are the one with no leg to stand on; you have nothing but wishful thinking. Thorough evaluation of all the available evidence from every discipline of science reveals that evolution is built on a weak foundation based on an atheistic worldview, naturalistic and unfounded assumptions (e.g. naturalism, gradualism, etc.), obsolete and/or junk science (like vestigial organs and “junk” DNA), willful ignoring of inconvenient facts (such as the Law of Biogenesis, symbiotic relationships, the “Cambrian Explosion”, lack of anything but a handful of disputable candidates for transitional fossils, which should abound in the rocks if evolution were true – a fact admitted by Stephen J. Gould and Dr. Colin Patterson, along with scores of other evolutionists, polystrate fossils, “out of sequence” fossils, Information theory, etc.), unsubstantiated ad-hoc scenarios and just-so stories to explain away those inconvenient facts (thrust faults, evolution of the turtle shell as a tool for digging, the evolution of apoptosis, etc., the origin of the moon hypothesis, etc.), and in some cases, outright fraud (Haeckel’s embryos, Piltdown man, etc.).

            “I am tired of replying to such nonsense.”

            Then don’t. If anyone should “go away,” it should be you. This is a Christian website, not an atheist one, after all.

          • This style 10/6

            “Worldview”. This is merely a creationist buzzword. Scientists have thousands of different views of the world, many of them are practising theists. However in science they follow the evidence. If they don’t they go wrong and other scientists are delighted to be able to call them out.

            Theists are fond of listing all the great scientists who were Christian. There were many in the days when everyone was religious but in no case did their belief drive their research.

          • D. Witzell

            I didn’t borrow any arguments from Answers in Genesis, although I disagree with your assessment of them. Your comment regarding them is the equivalent of an ad hominem attack, even though directed at the institution.

            My replies are based on the research that I have been doing for a number of years now. I get my facts from a wide variety of sources and am a disciple of no one. I have a degree in Biology with some course work in geology and astronomy and thus am more than adequately equipped to evaluate the arguments on both sides of this debate and having done so, find the arguments for evolution weak. I am a YEC, which you clearly despise, and am not at all ashamed to admit it. I am fully cognizant of all the evidence in support of this view (as well as the evidence used to dispute it) evidence which you are sure to deny, because you must, in order to retain your worldview.

            Your “No, they don’t” response to my comment “Facts that are used to support evolution also often support creation,” is yet another dogmatic assertion that you cannot back up. Facts are just facts, but they need to be interpreted. The facts that surround the issue of origins are interpreted according to one’s worldview. A case in point is the fact that the homology that exists between the limbs of vertebrates. Evolutionists interpret this homology as support for common ancestry and thus cite it as prime evidence for evolution. Creationists, in contrast, interpret it as evidence of common design and therefore support for creation.

            Additional facts weight the support in favour of creation. If due to common ancestry, embryological development of these structures in vertebrates should follow a discernible pattern and should arise from common genes. But that is often not the case. The late Sir Gavin de Beer, a British evolutionary embryologist, wrote, ‘The fact is that correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells in the embryo, or of the parts of the egg out of which the structures are ultimately composed, or of developmental mechanisms by which they are formed’ (p. 71). The example he gave: ‘In salamanders, development of the digits proceeds in the opposite direction, from head to tail. The difference is so striking that some biologists have argued that the evolutionary history of salamanders must have been different from all other vertebrates, including frogs’ (p. 72).’ Another example is the significant difference between the development of frog digits with those of human embryos.

            With regards to genetics, De Beer added, adds, ‘Because homology implies community of descent from … a common ancestor it might be thought that genetics would provide the key to the problem of homology. This is where the worst shock of all is encountered … [because] characters controlled by identical genes are not necessarily homologous … [and] homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes’ (p. 73).

          • This style 10/6

            Sometimes a person or institution is so egregiously bad that an ad hominem attack is justified. AiG tells lies about our origins and does everything it can to corrupt children and deserves attack from all quarters.

            The YEC thesis is so completely ridiculous that it is not worth the powder and shot. For some reason it exists mainly in the US. Being Canadian (a country many Americans think is next door to communism) I have no fear that any of my family or any other kids are going to be taught such foolishness.

            I suppose the easiest bit of evidence against YEC is distant starlight. I have read a number of convoluted papers on this (Danny Faulkner comes to mind) none of which has ever been published in a peer reviewed journal, apart from AiG’s own that is.

            Do you have an answer?

          • D. Witzell

            Worldview is not a “creationist buzzword.” It is a fact of life. Everyone on the planet interprets what they observe in the world according to their worldview. If your worldview, (starting axiom[s]), is that there is no God, that creation is a myth, that only natural process can account for things, and that the fossils are a record of long ages of evolutionary development, that is what you will “see” — the objective facts will be filtered through your worldview. That is why you think “The YEC thesis is so completely ridiculous that it is not worth the powder and shot” and why you made the preposterous claim that “AiG tells lies about our origins and does everything it can to corrupt children,” and justify use of ad hominem attacks. You are filtering everything through your atheistic worldview.

            The evolutionary worldview not only influences what people believe and say, but has had bitter social effects. It exasperated the pre-existing Victorian racism and white supremacy ideologies in the US and elsewhere, leading to a pygmy named Ota Benga, being put on display in an American zoo in the early 1900s as an example of an evolutionarily inferior race. Likewise, early Darwinists thought that Australian Aborigines were ‘less evolved’ than Caucasians and might be the missing link, so many were killed to be put on display in science museums around the world. It led to such atrocities as the Holocaust, the Columbine High School shootings, the high school shooting in Finland, the killing of the Maoris, and others. Hitler and his aides thought they were advancing human evolution and the perpetrators of the high school shootings thought they were being natural selectors, eliminating those they saw as unfit. Mass murderer Jeffrey Dahmer was also influenced by his belief in evolution, saying, “If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…” The evolutionary worldview won’t lead everyone, or even most people, to commit such acts, of course, but it justifies these acts in the minds of the people responsible for them.

            [Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.]

            But if one’s worldview is that there is a God who created the universe and that He has revealed Himself in the Bible, and how He has acted and continues to act in human history, and what His expectations are, then one will filter the objective data through that lens. It will generally also tend to influence the choices an individual makes, but only if the person is deeply committed and well versed in the full body of Scripture. Those who make a profession of faith, but have little biblical knowledge will not necessarily act in accordance with its teachings and many have not. But such people are influenced by competing worldviews.

            I could give examples of other worldviews and how they influence beliefs, attitudes, and behaviour, but you should have the point, by now. I doubt you will accept it, however. It is quite clear to me that you don’t want to believe that there is any valid worldview other than your own, or even that beliefs about science are influenced by them.

          • D. Witzell

            And by the way, I am also a Canadian. There are a lot of YEC’s here and elsewhere in the world. We are just not as vocal or visible as our counterparts in the US.

          • This style 10/6

            And your “worldview” allows you to see only evidence which points to a young, created world, global flood, (how did the platypus get to Australia?), Joshua’s long day and the rest.

            Schweitzer’s soft tissue isn’t soft and her work problematic.

          • D. Witzell

            I do interpret the evidence in light of my worldview, yes. Everyone does. But I am aware of much of what is given as evidence for long ages and evolution and find the creationist interpretation of the facts more plausible and internally consistent.

            Australia’s monotremes (and marsupials) are not a problem for the creation model. The answer is either transport across oceans via rafting on log/vegetation mats or migration across land bridges that are now below sea level. Now I have a question for you. Secular scientists believe that South America and Africa were joined for millions of years. Why, then, are there more seed plants in common between South America and Asia than between South America and Africa? If South America and Africa had really been joined for millions of years, the opposite should be true.

            “Schweitzer’s soft tissue isn’t soft and her work problematic.”

            Standard assertions used to duck the obvious implications. Again, with no evidence offered. Not at ALL convincing, especially to someone who has seen the photomicrographs. Schweitzer’s work was quite thorough and meticulous, by any standard. Five different tests were performed and repeated numerous (17) times. They were also conducted independently in three different labs, to rule out contamination. Her work has been replicated by others, also with rigorous tests and checking of data. Repeatability is the gold standard of science. Soft tissue and organic material has been found in well over thirty fossil specimens. This includes osteocytes from a Brachylophosaurus allegedly 80 million years old which had classic look of osteocytes, including nuclei and connecting fibrils, as well as proteins such as collagen, hemoglobin, osteocalcin, actin, and tubulin.

          • This style 10/6

            “Australia’s monotremes (and marsupials) are not a problem for the creation model. The answer is either transport across oceans via rafting on log/vegetation mats or migration across land bridges that are now below sea level.”

            Surely, even you must see what silly twaddle this. Were the kangaroos, echidnas, koalas and all the other Australian animals on that raft as well? What about the Tasmanian Devils, wouldn’t they have eaten the others? Land bridges my Aunt Fanny.

            Young earth creationism, Noah’s flood and all the other baggage are too ridiculous to bother with. The age of the universe and earth has been measured by different methods and they all come up with the same answer. Noah’s ark has been blown out of the water dozens of times on these threads alone.

            You people start with a conclusion based on Genesis and select whatever piece of evidence you can contort to fit. Then discard everything else. That’s it!

            You are laughed at by serious scientists and despised by those who see you trying to get your lies into schools. I think we have had enough of this.

          • D. Witzell

            No one said it was the same raft or even at the same general time! There would have been myriads of them, huge ones, after the Flood. That was where all the vast coal deposits came from, once these rafts had settled, which would have taken some years, based on observations at Spirit Lake after the eruption of Mount St. Helens. And there would have been plenty of time for the dispersal. Do you not realize that rafting and migration across the land bridges are precisely the same mechanisms secular scientists use to explain the dissemination of plants and animals that the fossil record shows lived on more than one continent? Creationists differ with them only with regards to the time frame and duration.

            Yes, creationists start with Genesis, but we do not contort the evidence. It is evolutionists who do that! Evolutionists start with naturalism and evolution and shoe horn all the evidence into it, “in spite of the patent absurdity of some of [the] constructs” that result, as Dr. Lewontin confessed. Like I have said over and over again, it is a matter of worldview. But the evidence is by FAR more consistent with creation and the Flood than evolution!

            Creationists are not at all bothered that evolutionists laugh at us. It is no surprise to us at all. They, like you, just prove the fulfillment of a Bible prophecy made almost 2,000 years ago, that in the last days there would come scoffers who would be determinedly ignorant of (i.e. refuse to know) three things: Creation, the Flood and the return of Jesus Christ. You fit the profile of the scoffer completely, showing that you are determined to disbelieve the first two and therefore you are sure to disbelieve the last one.

            You also prove the truth of a Bible passage that speaks of people who choose not to acknowledge God and His creation, who suppress the truth of His existence and exchange or substitute His truth for a lie. It says such individuals profess themselves to be wise, but become foolish in their thinking and their hearts darkened. The Bible says that despite their deliberate suppression of the truth, all people know that He exists and created the universe, that He has placed that knowledge deep in their hearts. Because of that, when the time comes to face God at the Judgment, such individuals will have no defense that they can offer. I can only pray that your spiritual eyes will be opened before it is too late.

            And I agree. Enough is enough!

          • This style 10/6

            The lie that Darwin is resposible for the hollcaust. Hatred of Jews started with Christians long before Darwin. Hitler was RC and knew nothing of Darwin’s work. You people spread so many lies.

          • D. Witzell

            I have observed that whenever atheists don’t like the implications of creationist rebuttals to their precious worldview, they often reflexively make the false accusation that we are telling lies. You are obviously no different. I make it a point to double-check the accuracy of everything I write before posting it, so accusing me of lies is a waste of time. And either YOU are lying, or you have swallowed lies you got from someone else. Perhaps you are just in denial. Nevertheless, the connection between Darwinism and the Holocaust has been historically well-documented, as has Hitler’s antipathy towards Christianity, based on preserved Nazi documents and files and notes by investigators for the Nuremburg trials. Secular historians recognize these truths, however in recent decades they tend to downplay the connection to Darwinism.

            One of the reasons Darwinism took hold so rapidly in Germany, was not only because of the influence of Ernst Haeckel, but because Darwin’s notion of struggle for survival justified pre-existing German racism and anti-Semitism and ideas about superior versus inferior races. But Nazi policies were less a result of racial hatred than they were about preventing the “pollution of the master race.” Evolutionary theory was one of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine, consistent with Hitler’s beliefs and those of much of the German Intelligentsia. Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which means “My Struggle,” clearly outlines a number of evolutionary ideas, emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society. Hitler believed “The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future.” He stated: ‘If I can accept a divine Commandment, it’s this one: “Thou shalt preserve the species.”’ He believed that the individual was not important in the eyes of nature, so that in order to obey the law of nature and preserve the species, less evolved types should be actively eradicated by governments to aid natural selection. Therefore, the Nazis instituted political measures to eradicate … Jews, the Roma, and blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.’

            Hitler hated Christianity. On April 8, 1941, Goebbels wrote in his diary, “He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity.” In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock wrote, “In Hitler’s eyes, Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.” As a result of this hostility and worldview, well before its rise to power, an integral part of the Nazi plan for world conquest was the subversion and destruction of Christianity, because they saw Christians as a major obstacle to their evolution-inspired racist policies, their policy of unlimited aggressive warfare and the complete subordination of Church to State. Their strategic plan for the elimination of Christianity was to tell the churches lies and make deals with them, while engaging in slow, subtle, and gradual encroachment.
            In public speeches, Hitler deceptively portrayed himself and the Nazi movement as faithful Christians and they never renounced their official church enrollment. But he and his inner circle verbally expressed their true attitudes amongst themselves and Hitler’s inflammatory comments made his underlings feel free to actively persecute the Church, once Hitler assumed dictatorial powers. When Hitler became dictator, the gloves came off; the earlier deals were violated and greater control was imposed. Publishing and disseminating the Bible was banned, and the National Church was forced to clear away from its altars all Bibles, crucifixes, and icons of the saints, replacing them with Mein Kampf and a sword. the Nazis forbade religious youth movements, parish meetings, and scout meetings. The Nazis began to persecute the Church, both Protestant and Catholic. Church assets were taken, Church schools and seminaries were closed, and their teachers were dismissed. The SA and SS desecrated churches and religious statues and pictures. Three hundred clergy were expelled from the Lorraine region; monks and nuns were deported or forced to renounce their vows. More than 6,000 clergymen who dared to express dissent were charged with treasonable activity and were imprisoned in concentration camps or executed.

          • D. Witzell

            It is true that the distant starlight problem appears to pose a problem for YEC. But the Big Bang model has an equivalent problem, called the Horizon problem. The BB model would predict hugely different temperatures across the cosmos, but the CMB is almost uniform, even at opposite regions of the cosmos. So, they must have exchanged energy by radiation; however, the 13.73 -13.82 billion years given by secular scientists as the age of the universe is not enough time for light to travel the astronomical distance involved. If you accept the BB, it is therefore inconsistent to use light-travel time as an argument against YEC. The argument cuts both ways.

            Both biblical creationists and BB supporters have proposed possible solutions to light-travel–time difficulties in their respective models. There are many competing conjectures that attempt to solve the horizon problem, so it remains a serious difficulty for the BB, despite claims to the contrary. As for the proposed YEC solutions either the one proposed by John Hartnett or the one by Russell Humphreys seems to hold promise. Both models are based on General Relativity and time dilation. They explain the CMB observations without recourse to speculation about dark matter and dark energy, as is required by models under the BB. They are also quite consistent with at least 11 verses in the Bible in which God declares that He “stretched out the heavens.”

          • D. Witzell

            “Right there you have destroyed any claim you might have to scientific knowledge.”

            More faulty logic and arrogant and elitist, besides. It is obvious to me that Bob Jones has a certain degree of scientific knowledge and that based on it, he has found evolutionary theory a weak model of origins and judged biblical creation to be more believable. You are judging him based on your own worldview. You conflate science, which is supposed to be empirical and repeatable, and evolution, which as a historical science and not testable (as in falsifiable) or repeatable. Bob Jones is using his knowledge of the former to evaluate the latter.

            “Sure, it makes more sense to have a man made out of dust and a woman from his rib 6000 years ago than the 4 billion year process of evolution!”

            This is mockery. A similar mocking statement could be made about evolutionary beliefs. But there is nothing inherently unbelievable about the biblical creation story you mock. Secular science also believes that man (and everything else) was ultimately formed from dust — stardust. And like Scripture, given that it is an observable fact, secular science also believes that man returns to dust.

            The earth’s crust contains most of the mineral nutrients our body requires. These minerals play critical roles in the structures of proteins and the activities of enzymes (serving as cofactors) in the human body. We get them from the soil via the plants we eat (which take up the inorganic forms and incorporate them into their tissues) and via the herbivorous animals we consume. Six of the eight most abundant elements in the crust are included in the 13 most abundant elements of the human body: the latter of which are oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen, sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, iron, phosphorus, sulfur, chlorine, and iodine. Silicon, the second most abundant element in the earth we require in small amounts for bone development, and it is found in skin and connective tissue. Aluminum, we require in trace amounts.

            The origin of Eve from the rib of Adam, is also not inherently unbelievable. Ribs grow back when removed, if the periosteum is left intact (it is a membrane that covers every bone and contains cells that can manufacture new bone). Rib periosteum has a much greater ability to regenerate bone than any other bone in the body, so the rib is used by surgeons as the source of bone for autologous grafting in facial reconstruction surgeries. This is a fact that could not possibly have been known by Moses, so this very detail in the origin of Eve testifies to the historicity of the account. In contrast, evolutionary theory has no mechanism to explain just how life could spontaneously arise from non-living chemicals, such an event is scientifically unsupportable by available data,

          • This style 10/6

            The T of E does not address origins.

            The Genesis creation myths are just that; myths, two of thousands. Ignorant ancient man had no idea of the origin and development of earth let alone the universe and so wove stories to account for natural phenomena, the pains of childbirth, why life was short and hard.

            There are stories older than those in the Bible which have all the same elements; why so many bad things happen, even virgin birth and resurrection. It is very likely that there is a common source, long lost, for these myths..

            The myths in the bible have absolutely nothing to do with reality and it is just foolish to try to make them so. Your little story of the rib is one of these feeble attempts to clothe the myth in an element of science. It is what creationists do.

            You are right in saying that all the elements ts of life are present in earth’s crust which makes it easy to believe that life started by a chance chemical reaction (which is what life is) in the chaos of early earth. No supernatural interference was required.

          • D. Witzell

            “The Genesis creation myths are just that; myths, two of thousands. Ignorant ancient man had no idea of the origin and development of earth let alone the universe and so wove stories to account for natural phenomena, the pains of childbirth, why life was short and hard.”

            There you go again, making dogmatic assertions that you cannot prove (because you were not there) and which you expect others to accept on your say so. You may choose to BELIEVE them, but that does not make them so. I think your dogmatic assertions are just as feeble as your opinion about what I said about the rib, which is just that — your opinion.

            “There are stories older than those in the Bible which have all the same elements; why so many bad things happen, even virgin birth and resurrection. It is very likely that there is a common source, long lost, for these myths..”

            Obviously, it has never occurred to you that the reason that ancient cultures have elements in common in their creation accounts, flood accounts and origin of differing languages is that the common source you speak of is the fact that the events in question really happened. You don’t want to believe it, so no amount of evidence or argumentation will convince you.

            “even virgin birth and resurrection.”

            It is not true that there are stories of a virgin birth outside the Bible, but it is a myth OFTEN repeated by atheists. As to whether or not there are stories of resurrection, although I doubt it, I cannot categorically assert there are not, as this is a question I have never researched. But given your propensity for dogmatic assertions about things that you cannot prove, I definitely won’t be taking your word for it! I would need reputable documentation first. But even so, it would not be sufficient to make an atheist of me. I know too much science to ever have enough faith for that!

          • D. Witzell

            “The T of E does not address origins.”

            A common evolutionist cop out. But this claim was never made until evolutionists realized they were losing the debate on it and that it was scientifically unsupportable. It is a specious argument, anyway –mere quibbling about words, because atheists base their belief in the non-existence of God squarely on what they claim is the “fact of evolution.” In order to eliminate God from the equation, they must believe that life comes from non-life. It does not matter whether or not they use the word “evolution” to refer to the process. You proved that point yourself, when you said “We do not know exactly how life started on earth but all the elements of life were present and it needed only a catalyst of some kind to start a self replicating chain which eventually spawned all the life forms we see. We know that it did happen because we are here….I realise that there is a huge number of people who want to insert a god into the process. If that makes you happy, fine. I believe it was all natural.” But if you can’t give a plausible scientific explanation for the origin of life, then you have nothing.

          • This style 10/6

            “But if you can’t give a plausible scientific explanation for the origin of life, then you have nothing.”

            I can’t but there are plenty of good theories. You can look them up.

            “The T of E does not address origins.”
            A common evolutionist cop out. But this claim was never made until evolutionists realized they were losing the debate on it and that it was scientifically unsupportable.”

            This is ridiculous, stupid even.

          • D. Witzell

            “It is little use to point to bacteria evolving to become resistant to antibiotics as your answer is that they are still bacteria. The fact remains that they have evolved.”

            Evolution needs beneficial mutations that lead to novel information and onwards and upwards change, but nothing of the sort has ever been observed. Instead, the few mutations which can be considered beneficial (e.g. antibiotic resistance and sickle cell trait) do not confer major change and are only beneficial in certain special circumstances and always represent a LOSS of information that is usually otherwise deleterious. This kind of change is not evolution, it is adaptive DEVOLUTION.

          • This style 10/6

            I am tired of replying to such nonsense. The creation story is a myth. Evolution is a fact.

            I can tell by your arguments that you are a disciple of Ken Ham.

          • Cady555

            Yes. Evolution is happening right now. Every individual is slightly different than its parents and its offspring. Mutiply by a few million generations and that is evolution.

            The changes from generation to generation are minute. But some examples of animals that are changing are blind moles, lungfish, and European Blackcaps.

          • Bob Jones

            Human children are different than their parents, but that is not proof of evolution. In case you haven’t noticed, human reproduction has been going on for thousands of generations.

          • D. Witzell

            Evolution is NOT happening now. Mere change, such as adaptation and speciation seen in the blind mole rat and the European Blackcap warbler, is not the same as molecules to man evolution. The lungfish’s ability to survive drought buried in mud by breathing air through lungs while attributed to evolution, the far more likely explanation is that they have ALWAYS had this ability. See my post to plusaf, above, for the explanation why examples such as these do not prove evolution, either current or past.

          • Garbage Adams

            You are expecting to watch something that happens over millions of years? Better make some popcorn or something.

          • Bob Jones

            Explain how the fossilized bone structure of a bat that is supposedly 50 million years old, is the same as a modern day bat? You would expect that after that length of time there would be at least some minor changes. There aren’t. The bone structures are identical. Jews have practiced circumcision for centuries, and not an iota of physical change has occurred.

          • Garbage Adams

            They HAVE changed. Early fossils show that their limbs featured five claws on each limb. Today most species feature two claws on their limbs. The hind legs on the fossilized remains show that they were once much longer than today. Also, the front limbs were shorter than but are longer today. They also had shorter wings which indicates they couldn’t fly as quickly. Who told you they were unchanged?

          • Bob Jones

            An article in National Geographic.

          • Garbage Adams

            Link please.

          • Bob Jones

            That was over 20 years ago. Besides even if you did read the article, you wouldn’t change your mind.

          • Garbage Adams

            Yeah, I don’t think National Geographic is the magazine you want to use to defend a creationist standpoint.

          • Bob Jones

            When they ran the article, I don’t believe they realized that they were backing up a Creationist viewpoint.

          • Garbage Adams

            I haven’t been able to locate any such article from National Geographic. I have found many sources online of bat evolution however.

          • D. Witzell

            Not only have you confused a closed system with an isolated one, the claim that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to open systems is nonsense! Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. According to Dr John Ross of Harvard University, “… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … ” 1

            Even if it were true that the second law does not apply to open systems, this argument would not help evolution in the least. Local order can increase in an open system in only two instances: in crystallization and when programmed machinery directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, but this increase in order occurs at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere.

            The open systems argument does not help evolution in the least. Undirected, raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things that they possess. Instead, it just speeds up destruction–witness the fading of colours in the sun and the decay of old and abandoned buildings and machines. Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed. Living things, in contrast, contain the machinery in their cells needed to increase order by directing and converting energy to make the complex structures of life.

            1 John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July 1980, p. 40; cited in Duane Gish, Creation Scientists Answer their Critics, Institute for Creation Research, 1993.

          • D. Witzell

            Adaptation does not prove evolution. It is not a characteristic that is predicted solely by the evolutionary model of origins; the creation model also predicts it. Ditto for speciation. Adaptation and speciation are therefore neutral as evidence for either model, a fact that evolutionists seem to have considerable difficulty comprehending. But several facts give the creation model better explanatory power.

            Modern genetics shows that adaptation comes from two mechanisms: pre-existing variability or loss of genetic information from the gene pool. Both are influenced by the environment. Pre-existing variability is predicted by the creation model, but not by the evolutionary one. It is genetic information already present and either expressed or silenced due to epigenetic changes (via turning epigenetic “switches” on or off) or lost due to population changes. Epigenetic changes are induced by such things as diet and chemical exposure. Natural selection has no direct affect on epigenetics. Inherent traits coded for in the genome and expressed are the ones which can be acted on by natural selection in response to environmental changes which influence whether the trait provides a fitness advantage to an organism. But natural selection is not a creative force. It cannot cause the development of NEW genetic information. It is a culling force only, removing genetic information from the gene pool. The creation model predicts this, evolution does not.

            Evolutionists count on random mutations to provide the basis for the generation of new genetic information, yet cutting edge research shows this to be impossible. Most mutations are neutral, because it has been found that living systems possess a great deal of redundancy, something of no surprise to creationists, because this is a basic feature of optimum design; good engineers include back up systems. Error correction systems find and repair most mutations, although not all. Neutral mutations and those just slightly deleterious that escape error correction are ‘invisible’ to natural selection, so are not culled out and therefore accumulate, leading to a gradual decline in the genome. This is fully consistent with the creation-followed-by-the Fall model, but not with evolution. Major mutations are most always very harmful, ESPECIALLY those that affect the body plan. Evolution needs beneficial mutations that lead to novel information and onwards and upwards change, but nothing of the sort has ever been observed. Instead, the few mutations which can be considered beneficial (e.g. antibiotic resistance and sickle cell trait) do not confer major change and are only beneficial in certain special circumstances and always represent a LOSS of information that is usually deleterious in normal circumstances.

            Information is a major problem for evolutionary theory; it is not a product or feature of matter. The only thing that has ever been shown to generate specified, complex information is mind – i.e. intelligence. While the components of DNA are like the hardware comprising a computer (which, incidentally does not spontaneously arise on its own; engineers design computers and manufacturers build them according to the engineer’s specifications), genetic information is like computer software. Software does not write itself; computer programmers write it.

            Furthermore, the empirical evidence that we OBSERVE shows that while variability has been programmed into organisms so that changes do occur, there is a natural limit to the nature of the changes that has never been crossed. Ducks always remain ducks, apes always remain apes, fish always remain fish, and bacteria always remain bacteria. Exactly as would be predicted by what research has shown about genetics and exactly as stated in the Bible, that organisms would reproduce after their kind.

          • Bob Jones

            Don’t waste your time. These people have no room for a God, because they believe they are god. Argued with these types before and when confronted with logic, such as cause and effect, you know, scientific dogma, they retreat to their talking points, and man-made excuses.

          • Garbage Adams

            Excuse me, but I didn’t see a single person here say they believed themselves to be God. As for “man-made excuses”, what other kinds are there?

          • Bob Jones

            Excuse me, but there are only 2 choices when it comes to how everything came to be. Either it evolved, or God created it all. By endorsing evolution, you necessarily deny the existence of God., even if you don’t say that out right.

          • Garbage Adams

            If it evolved – which IS what I’m saying, but you’re incorrect in your understanding of the word “evolution” in that sense, since evolution is NOT about origins, but about change (you probably mean to say abiogenesis or cosmology) – if it evolved, how does that mean anyone is making themselves out to be God? In all likelihood they don’t even believe in God.

          • Bob Johnson

            Binary thinking. There could be lots of other explanations – seeded from space, different gods, climbed out of a hole in the ground. god’s created beings who created man. The list goes on and on.

          • Bob Jones

            You offer lots of excuses, but nothing to back evolution. How did your other gods, or “seeded from space” come into being? Your list goes on and on with no answers. How did life spring from inorganic materials? I’m waiting for your answer.

          • Bob Johnson

            “You offer lots of excuses,”

            No, I am offering a few other possibilities. It was your claim that “there are only 2 choices.”

            I have listed a few other possibilities, it need not be a binary choice. If you want to evaluate the evidence for other possibilities you need to talk to Pastafarians or Reptilians.

          • Bob Johnson

            Well for a non-man-made excuse, if you take “So Long and Thanks for All the Fish’ to be scriptural, then we have, “God’s Final Message to His Creation: ‘We apologize for the inconvenience.”

          • Cady555

            Atavisms and vestigial traits are among the lines of evidence that support evolution.

            Read Evidence of Common Descent on Wikipedia and follow the links.

        • D. Witzell

          Whales do NOT have “hidden legs.” The bones you refer to are needed for mating and were never legs. Whales have a slender bone which are called by some scientists a ‘pelvic bone,’ but which is not attached to the vertebral column. They freely float in the muscle tissue near the sex organs, just in front of the anus and they differ in males and female. This “pelvic” bone sometimes has another small, slender 2.5 cm bone attached or fused to it. Together, they serve as an anchorage for the male reproductive organs. They also strengthen the pelvic wall.

        • D. Witzell

          Pythons and boas have tiny claw-like structures near the base of the tail that some believe are vestigial legs. However, while not completely understood, they appear to be related to the boa’s sexual functions, serving as a means for the male to sexually stimulate the female. Fossils of extinct snakes reveal little legs, however, yet they had only hind limbs and still looked like snakes and had all the other skeletal characteristics of snakes. It is possible that these tiny limbs, too, were related to sexual function.

          But if they represent a true loss of limbs, which is not at all unusual, this does not prove these animals were “evolving.” There are also legless lizards with reduced or absent limbs, but they still look like lizards and have all the other skeletal characteristics of lizards. No one has ever yet identified a candidate for a transition between lizard and snake. Instead, all we have are either snakes or lizards.

          Furthermore, loss of body parts represents a LOSS of function due to loss of genetic information, which is easily achievable and well-documented. This is DEVOLUTION and is quite compatible with biblical creation and the subsequent fall. But it does not prove that new functions due to the evolutionary acquisition of new genetic information is possible. Not only has there been no documentation of the random acquisition of NEW genetic information, but the most up-to-date research findings in genetics render the genesis of new information mathematically impossible.

    • heteroxalstalker

      Birds go from eggs to birds. It is a rather significant change. Insects go from larva to mature insects. Throughout the animal kingdom various species got through changes every single generation. Just because you do not understand the science doesn’t mean
      it isn’t real.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        just because you have a false understanding of the evidence does not make it true ….. it makes it error ………….

      • Reason2012

        Fish to mankind evolution is claims about populations over generations, not what happens to one living thing in it’s lifetime.

    • Cady555

      The claim of “soft tissue” is a misnomer, caused by poor reporting in non-scientific publications.

      Scientists did not find a mass of bloody goop.

      Scientists found some microscopic material that, after being subjected to complex manipulation, kinda sorta looked like blood vessels. It was new to find something like this in a fossils, and it is interesting, but this finding in no way changes the knowledge about the age of the fossils.

      The evidence in support of evolution is observable. And overwhelming.

      • Oboehner

        “Scientists did not find a mass of bloody goop in a fossil” Wow, and I even saw on “60 Minutes” that they did!
        The only thing overwhelming is the evolutionism BS.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        overwhelming to whom …. yes the evidence is the same for all ….. the starting place of what the evidence means is not ….. worldview filters the observable evidence ….. when you eliminate God from the evidence …. you begin in error ….. garbage in … garbage out …..

      • D. Witzell

        As a person with a BSc in Biology and a lifetime interest in science that leads me to constantly research the many topics in all science disciplines which intrigue me, I find the “evidence” in favour of evolution distinctly UNDERWHELMING and primarily based on outdated science and wishful thinking. Cutting edge scientific discoveries over the last few decades blow it out of the water, revealing just how lame it is.

        • Nick Halflinger

          Cool. Could you enlighten us with where the Evidence” points and provide us with some of this cutting edge scientific evidence?

          • D. Witzell

            Try reading my post to plusaf, below.

      • Reason2012

        So first they claim soft tissue can last up to 100 million years old (admitting it’s soft tissue in the process). Now some try to claim it’s “not soft tissue”.

        No, there’s NO ‘evidence’ of fish to mankind evolution, only reasons to believe in it. Observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific facts shows there are barriers to evolution that cannot be crossed. Evolutionists cover their eyes and claim there are no barriers.

        • Cady555

          There is in fact clear evidence for evolution of life on earth. DNA evidence alone is sufficient, but there is extensive evidence in addition to DNA.

          I could claim over and over that there is no evidence a tadpole could become a frog, but I would just look stupid.

          • Reason2012

            It’s observable, repeatable, verifiable that a tadpole in its lifetime becomes a frog, so your analogy is dishonest, which only shows how dishonest evolutionists need to be to promote their anti-science fish to mankind belief.

            And making up beliefs ABOUT fossils or DNA that never happens and then claim fossils or DNA are “evidence” of it is anti-science circular reasoning, not science.
            Evolutionist “That is really a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            “How do you know it is?”
            Evolutionist “Because fish to mankind evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know fish to mankind evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            (repeat)

            Evolutionist “DNA similarity shows this and that are actually cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”
            “How do you know it does?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”

            It would be similar to the analogy of someone else making up a brand new belief like “populations of trees morphed over generations eventually into human beings” and claiming fossilized tree branches and DNA similarity between tree branches and humans are “evidence” of it, and it would be just as much of an anti-science farce.

          • Cady555

            Just like there is plenty of evidence that tadpoles grow into frogs, there is plenty of evidence that life on earth has evolved over the last 3,600,000,000 years or so.

            One person’s choice to ignore evidence has no impact on the quality or completeness of the evidence.

  • Jack-b-Quicker

    Nonsense. Yawn.

  • Cady555

    If this is in fact evidence of a human ancestor 5.7 million years ago, this supports the theory of evolution far more than it supports the unsupported assumption that humans were poofed into existence 6000 years ago.

    New evidence does not bother scientists. New evidence does not confuse scientists. New evidence does not send scientists clutching for pearls. One item of new evidence does not cause scientists to toss millions of other items of evidence.

    New evidence is reviewed and tested. If it is found reliable, it is added to the existing evidence. So now instead of 10 million pieces of evidence, there are 10 million and one pieces of evidence. And the scientific theory explaining that evidence must account for all of it, not just the one that non-scientists dance around singing “A problem. A problem. A problem.”

    New data does not bother scientists in the least.

    • Oboehner

      Right, the universe was “poofed into existence” far earlier than that! ROFL.

      • plusaf

        Well, that’s what observations indicate, and until new data disproves it, that ‘theory’ will persist. THAT is how science works.
        New data can ‘obsolete’ old data if it can be replicated…
        Your turn… 🙂

        • Oboehner

          So what you’re saying is they believe what they want until proof that it’s bogus becomes public knowledge.

          • Steven Thompson

            That is, of course, not what plusaf is saying … and it’s still more rational than your strategy of believing what you want even after proof that it’s bogus has become public knowledge.

          • Beamer

            We believe it isn’t bogus, you believe it is. We’re allowed to believe different things and don’t have to be mean to each other doing it.

          • Garbage Adams

            Uh, no, that’s not what he said.

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          no … science is supposed to be repeatable …. so when did the explosion get repeated so it would be observable to everyone ………

          • Steven Thompson

            Observations are supposed to be repeatable. It’s entirely possible to repeat observations of the cosmic microwave background, spectroscopic studies that yield the ratio of hydrogen to helium in the universe, and measurements of redshifts of distant galaxies. These things do not depend on unique revelations to chosen individuals. But it’s perfectly possible to test hypotheses about unique past events; this is why forensic science exists, why medical examiners can determine cause of death without resurrecting their subject and watching him die again.

            Also, technically, the Big Bang was an expansion of space, not an explosion. And the universe is more or less the premier example of something observable by everyone.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            SCIENCE is supposed to be repeatable ….. the whole with controls must be repeatable ….. otherwise you are spinning cotton candy ……….. make things up out of …. well i was going to say whole cloth …. but you do not even have the cloth ……….

      • brucewang

        So say the Christians, at least.

        • Oboehner

          Ahhh no, evolutionists and their exploding dot.

          • brucewang

            Uhm, yeah, no believer in evolution thinks that. Thanks for playing.

    • AlwaysPursueTruth

      You seem kind of bothered… if you have to reassure us you’re not bothered 🙂
      Of course, you’re just speaking for the scientists and want to make sure we know “they” are not bothered, right?…

      • Cady555

        Oh goody, tone trolling.

        You might want to actually read the article. It is the standard christian blog nonsense that every new piece of knowledge “challenges” or “upsets” or “disconcerts” evolutionary biologists.

        Dr. Andrew Snelling, a geologist with Answers in Genesis, told Christian News Network that the discovery of these human-like footprints in Crete is not the first time a discovery of ancient footprints has put evolutionists in a bind.

        Sorry, dearie. Scientists are not “in a bind.” Unlike believers in mythology, actual scientists think evidence and new information are good things.

    • getstryker

      Gee, WHO are you trying so hard to convince . . .
      us or YOURSELF?!

  • james blue

    If the answers in genisis guys think this disproves evolution of man they must also think it disproves a 6000 year old earth.

  • Mark Andersen

    not only does it challenge Evolutionary theory, but it also challenges creationist theory too.

    • AlwaysPursueTruth

      The problem is with the “dating” itself…
      Of course I understand that people have to choose “something” to believe…
      But there is a lot of evidence that proves these dates of millions of years are wrong.
      Even in the grand canyon, if you learn more, you would find that the canyons were carved in a short amount of time by water, as supported by the layers in the rock….
      Not millions of years….
      But if people choose to be so sure of themselves, then they block out the ability to accept any new information… especially if it might point to a God they also know nothing about aside from stereotypes and their own fear of what is unknown to them… It’s easier to reject it all and feel in control with any other information people throw at you.

      • plusaf

        …. talk about “lacking the ability to accept any new information…”
        That is the precise definition of a Creationist!
        Thanks!

        • Bob Jones

          Spoken by one of the “If the facts don’t fit the story, change the story to fit the facts” people.

          • Michael C

            “If the facts don’t fit the story, change the story to fit the facts”

            Yep.

            The story should be based on the facts.

            If the facts contradict the story, odds are the story needs to be adjusted.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … the “facts” are already established ….. they are established by the story ….. what needs to be corrected is the worldview of the observer of the evidence …………..

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          lack of ability to view the evidence HONESTLY is the mark of an “evolutionist” ………. when your starting place of science is devoid of Christ … you begin in error …………

  • This style 10/6

    Dr Andrew Snelling, it is to laugh. This guy bases everything on his belief that Genesis is a true history and that the universe is 6000 years old. Everything has to be fitted into this dogma.

    In other words establish your belief and manipulate the evidence to fit rather than assembling evidence and finding where it leads.

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      “In other words establish your belief and manipulate the evidence to fit rather than assembling evidence and finding where it leads.”

      apt description of “evolution” and the “BBT” ……………..

      • This style 10/6

        Rubbish!

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          i agree … evolution is rubbish ………..

          • brucewang

            An evolution denier too. Figures.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            there is no concrete science to prove it …. as a science person …. you should respect that ….

          • This style 10/6

            Rubbish!

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            error …………

          • This style 10/6

            It really doesn’t matter what you say or think, evolution of life on earth is a fact. Outside the US the vast majority of people in the more advanced western countries just accept it. There is no pressure to have creationism taught in schools.

            The US is unique among advanced democracies in the number of people who are creationists.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            a fact supported by imagination ……… and nothing else … smoke and mirrors are not facts ….. when you can explain the motor proteins (KINESINS) and how they know how, when, and where they move proteins 5-6 times their size, that move along the micro-tubules and the SPEED at which they move through the liquid of the cell …… if they were our size, in the air they would be traveling at roughly 2000 miles per hour …… AGAIN, THROUGH A LIQUID ………. AND THEN explain how “evolution” brought that about ….. then we might be able to have an intelligent conversation about it ….. truth is you cannot even account for the micro-tubules they use as pathways …… and “EVOLUTION” and TIME is TOTALLY inadequate as an answer ……….. and so is “we dont know and that is “okay”” ……

            youtu;be/9RUHJhskW00?t=419
            youtube;com/watch?v=WFCvkkDSfIU
            replace the ; with a .

          • This style 10/6

            As I say, what you think doesn’t matter; evolution is a fact, there is no other explanation for the myriad life forms we see around us.

            We may not have all the answers but goddidit it not one of them.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            smoke and mirrors … you have no answers …. ERROR ………….

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “but goddidit it not one of them.”

            right ….. “evolution got’erdid” …. is not an answer …….. again TOTALLY INADEQUATE …….

          • Cady555

            Maybe that’s the real reason why their deity keeps sending hurricanes to Florida and Texas instead of Iceland and Sweden. Maybe the deity wants Americans to stop insulting it and respect science.

          • This style 10/6

            Never thought of that!

          • Bob Jones

            No I’d say Amos Moses is a rational human being who interprets facts logically, whereas you people follow “possibilities” and outlandish theories that are counter to scientific dogma.

          • brucewang

            Possibilities are to be explored, when they are found to have merit they turn into discoveries. That’s how the world works.

          • Garbage Adams

            “No I’d say Amos Moses is a rational human being”

            And you’d be the only one.

          • Bob Jones

            How can you make that statement? Have you surveyed every other person on earth? Of course Evolutionists routinely make assumptions don’t they?

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    Old Earth Creation Museum Now Open Six Billion Years A Week
    August 22, 2017

  • MCrow

    I’m personally curious. It’s far to early to draw conclusions from this, but it could be a lot of different things, including a divergent species. See what turns up.