Article image.
Article image.
Curious how you’re saying that evidence of humanity being around for at least 300,000 years ‘proves’ that evolution is wrong but wait a moment:
Does that mean you’re no longer going to post articles that insist the earth is only 6,000 years old?
I mean if you’ve accepted that the earth is at least 300,000 years old then it’s not 6,000 years old, right?
Bookmark
True science is not a friend of Darwinism. Darwinism is one of the great lies of the modern era.
There were three human species sharing the planet at the same time. How does that effect evolution? All fossil records are incomplete due to the fact that fossils do not form easily. Anyhow doesn’t 300,000 years kind of mess with the six thousand year limit.
crevo bkmk
This doesn’t falsify evolution. If anything, it extends its reach. But I won’t try to show you the errors of creationism because I know it’s not possible to reason someone out of something they weren’t reasoned into.
Just one thought, though. Isn’t it odd that we can see the results of the scientific method in the civilization we have created with it, but when that same method bumps up against the tribal beliefs of some Bronze Age desert dwellers, the scientific method is completely fallacious?
Can't have heretical ideas such as that being proffered. All politically incorrect theories about the origins of man must be suppressed.
The post-flood world is around 6,000 years old.
The pre-flood world is obviously much older. This is why dating anything beyond 6,000 years is almost impossible.
Since when (I really don't track on these things) does FR condone NOT waiting for fuller analysis on such an important topic. Evolution is a complex subject.
It was inevitable. The anti-evolutionists are as divorced from reality as the anti-Trumpers.
The human species is apparently older than 200,000. At least 100,000 years older apparently. But the remains of these “modern” Homo Sapiens clearly bear primitive traits and are not as refined as contemporary humans and 300,000 is hardly a flicker in the millions of years of existence the earth has enjoyed.
But even this, the anti-evolutionists will challenge. They will try to count generations in the Bible and ignore physical and scientific facts there also. The Bible is not a science text and reducing its significance to that level is insulting. Its not a history book, although it contains history. Its a book about God, written by God through men, and His relationship to man, the failure of mankind to live up to His expectations, the promise of a Savior and redemption. Far more important than how bodies of animals developed, in my opinion.
These people can be given some degree of tolerance as there are some evolutionists who are atheists and claim evolution proves the Bible wrong and ergo there is no God.
But the anti-evolutionists PERSIST in giving their atheist enemies ammunition by denying scientific fact and rejecting the body of evidence that indicates PHYSICAL evolution is a reality.
Evolution can indeed explain the development of the human BODY. But SOULS don’t fossilize. At some point in the development of the hominid line, God imparted an immortal HUMAN soul to the bodies he created.
And THAT needs to be a rational defense of creation and God. But in order to do this, you have to acknowledge the OBVIOUS. The physical BODIES of organisms DO evolve over time.
I always wondered with the creationists? If you’re right then why is god trying to fool us? And if god did indeed set the fossil record as it is all at once, what’s makes you think YOU can suss him out?
PS I’m an atheist, I find this whole argument most interesting. I’ve studied evolutionary bio and find the theory of evolution simply as the best we know that fits the evidence. Like gravity, there could be a graviton out there that changes our theory but we can only make decisions based on the best evidence we have.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm
An interesting article on Darwin and his God given curiosity about this wondrous earth and inhabitants. God gave us the gifts of observation, inquiry, preservation and science.
IMHO Darwin did not attempt to destroy belief, he added to it.
This works either in showing the fallacy of dating or the fallacy of human population growth rate in the religion of Evolution.
Definitely sounds like they are trying to cover it up. Or should I say "they is?" LOL
That article is full of strawmen. The stuff coming out of Olduvai is mostly circa 4 million years ago i.e. earliest hominids. Modern “cro-magnon” humans don’t go much earlier than 40,000 years ago. The specimens coming out of Morocco aren’t truly “modern humans”; they have approximately modern facial structure, but other aspects including the brain case are more in line with earlier hominids.
Evolutionists use circular reasoning to prove their point.
Bmk.
If this were my site, you’d be banned as a serial spammer, repeatedly.