What proof would you need?

[Astridhere]

And not everyone feels the need to sully themselves in conspiracy theories to dismiss legitimate science. Like it or not, peer-review works, and has worked for several centuries now. If you think there are no papers supporting your views because of some global conspiracy theory, that's your business, but don't clog up my thread with your nonsense.

Listen lovey, Big Bang makes no sense at the singularity and requires multiple dimensions to make it work,,sort of. Now the universe sits on the edge of a bubble, does it?

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang Theory by Tom Van Flandern

If this is the sort of peer reviewed science you are talking about then perhaps you should reconsider what you call science. This theory below explains Big Bang in a way that does not require dark matter and energy that your researchers know nothing about except it makes their physics work better. This article speaks to the research and is published and peer reviewed.

Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route

This theory puts earth at or near the centre of the universe.

If dark matter and energy is some mysterious thing that holds the universe together, makes sense of the universe, is everywhere, then perhaps what you have found is evidence of God at work. A mystery that makes sense of the universe sounds like God physiscs to me. If this is the case it is unlikely to be explained as we are talking about a physics mankind has yet to imagine let alone understand.

I think you are a bit cheeky having a shot at anyone when the best you have to offer is nonsense.

 

[Astridhere]

Does anyone here remember what the topic is?

Yes, I do.

I have not seen any evolutionist have the guts to have a go at it either and speak to what may make them reconsider their view. They appear to prefer to hide in expectation of belittling any creationist comments and perhaps many are gutless wonders!

 

[Astridhere]

Yes you're right it was obvious to everyone that you have been well schooled in creationism, unfortunately it was equally obvious that you have not been schooled in evolution.

Have you ever thought about learning something about evolution so you could at least know a little about the subject you are so against? just a little? it might even help, unless of course you want people to think you're a bit of a lemon?
although as a creationist being thought of as a bit of a lemon is probably the least of your problems.

I have had a lot to say about my views and the nonsense of evolution putting human feet on apes, and modern bird feet on dinosaurs. I have demonstrated the confusion you call evolution.

If you think you know so much about evolution why don't you explain to us all how the fossil evidence was used to demonstrate how mankind evolved from something like a chimp while the same evidence is used now to demonstrate how mankind evolved from nothing like a chimp at all!

That being said Erectus is an ape. Turkana Boy is reconstructed not from a complete fossil found in tact but from pieces. The result is a child with upper thigh bones unlike man or chimp or any ape, an extra verterbra like many other apes, an ape head, long arms and nothing like mankind at all. There are no intermediate humans. A young Bornean Orangutan skull looks more human than many erectus skulls. Did you know that mankind shares more morphology with an orangutan than a chimp?

Go on explain how any Erectus is transitional when you have no idea what the supposed common ancestor looked like and the fossil evidence can be used to demonstrate whatever myth evolutionists propose?

 

[becon]

Go on explain how any Erectus is transitional when you have no idea what the supposed common ancestor looked like and the fossil evidence can be used to demonstrate whatever myth evolutionists propose?

You could very well be right and evolution is a load of rubbish, now let's talk about creationism, is it any closer to being right because evolution is wrong? no we still don't know what happened, we can all put forward fantastic ideas if you like just like the story in Genesis but where will that get us? should we check out the evidence? no that's not a very good idea is it because all we will end up with is evolution and we all know that's wrong, problems problems.

I suppose we could take a vote and decide what we want to be true and take it from there but then we will only end up with religion again, trying to make the answers fit the questions instead of trying to find the answers to the questions, problems problems.

May I ask you a question? why doesn't AiG ever find a fault with evolution? with all their resources you would think after all this time they would have come up with something, just one thing, don't you think?

Please don't tell us that they have but it's been squashed because science it'self would not let it be squashed.
If evolution is wrong believe me scientists would be the first ones who would want to know.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Listen lovey, Big Bang makes no sense at the singularity and requires multiple dimensions to make it work,,sort of. Now the universe sits on the edge of a bubble, does it?

The universe has been expanding for 13.5 billion years from a point of incredibly dense energy - what some inaccurately call a singularity. This expansion is called the Big Bang. We has substantial evidence that it is happening, and has happened for 13.5 billion years. The more speculative side is the how and the why.

The idea of multiple dimensions comes from a number of areas in physics, most notably string theory and other attempts to explain the fundaments of matter and energy. Ultimately, even if we don't know why the Big Bang is happening, or what triggered it, or whether its beginning coincided with the beginning of the universe - even if we don't know these things, we still know that it's there. We've measured the CMBR. We've seen galactic shadowing. We've seen gravitational lensing. We've seen the systematic redshift of stars and galaxies.

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang Theory by Tom Van Flandern

If this is the sort of peer reviewed science you are talking about then perhaps you should reconsider what you call science.

It's not, it's an article on the Internet, not a peer-reviewed paper published in a scientific journal, so your point is moot.

This theory below explains Big Bang in a way that does not require dark matter and energy that your researchers know nothing about except it makes their physics work better. This article speaks to the research and is published and peer reviewed.

Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route

Even though you didn't cite the actual paper, I found it here. A fascinating read, to be sure, but it ultimately boils down to a choice in interpretation: they choose, without qualification, to interpret the Cosmological Constant as a quirk of mathematics rather than a physical phenomenon.

But, ultimately, this is just an example of healthy to-and-fro in the scientific community. This kind of work is exactly the right sort of thing that makes science do what it does best: explain physical evidence. And, undoubtedly, a rebuttal will be published sometime soon - such is the way of scientific publications.

And notice that this is an alternate explanation to the 'dark energy' explanation of anomalous acceleration in the universe. It doesn't do away with the Big Bang (and, amusingly, can only work if the Big Bang is true), it doesn't affect dark matter at all, and it is a quirk of the mathematics that the Earth is at the centre of the explosion (I wonder, does it move in and out of that position as it orbits the Sun?).

So the paper, besides being interesting, doesn't do what you claim it does. It doesn't (as you claim) explain away the Big Bang or dark matter - only dark energy, which is ostensibly unrelated to both.

If dark matter and energy is some mysterious thing that holds the universe together, makes sense of the universe, is everywhere, then perhaps what you have found is evidence of God at work.

Or perhaps the smile on a baby's face is evidence of God. Who knows.

A mystery that makes sense of the universe sounds like God physiscs to me.

There are many mysteries in science. Slapping the label 'God' onto whichever one you fancy isn't science, it's intellectually dishonest.

But tell me: are you saying dark matter and energy are real, and are actually God? Or are you saying they're not real? You can't have it both ways, Astridhere.

I think you are a bit cheeky having a shot at anyone when the best you have to offer is nonsense.

Fortunately for me, your opinions of me are immaterial. Stick to the science, if you please.

 

[Astridhere]

You could very well be right and evolution is a load of rubbish, now let's talk about creationism, is it any closer to being right because evolution is wrong? no we still don't know what happened, we can all put forward fantastic ideas if you like just like the story in Genesis but where will that get us? should we check out the evidence? no that's not a very good idea is it because all we will end up with is evolution and we all know that's wrong, problems problems.

I suppose we could take a vote and decide what we want to be true and take it from there but then we will only end up with religion again, trying to make the answers fit the questions instead of trying to find the answers to the questions, problems problems.

May I ask you a question? why doesn't AiG ever find a fault with evolution? with all their resources you would think after all this time they would have come up with something, just one thing, don't you think?

Please don't tell us that they have but it's been squashed because science it'self would not let it be squashed.
If evolution is wrong believe me scientists would be the first ones who would want to know.

No, actually many of your scientists would be the first to the unemplyment line and have a vested interest in pursuing the myth.

You are welcome to look back at my posts here and see what I have to say for yourself. 150 years of instability and changing ideas is not science. Terms invented to address anomolies like convergent evolution, parrallel evolution, morphological and genetic homoplasy, accelerated genomic regions, deletions of what should be there but isn't etc etc sounds more like myth than science.

I have said and I will restate your evidence for evolution is not stable. Secondly you have no evidence for evolution other than misrepresentations, extrapolations of what is observed into fantastic stories and algorithms that could show our closest living ancestor is a turtle if they needed to. Bird footprints dated to 212mya throws your bird evolution into chaos. Tetrapods at 400mya that predate tiktaalic also thows some of your verterbrae phylonogy into chaos. The Laetolli footprints, dated 3.8mya, that predate Lucy are, according to you, belong to a 3.5ft ape with curved fingers that has a mix of gorilla and chimpanzee traits and is not a human ancestor after all. Remember Ardi, also dethroned, is not much older than Lucy and has been found with Ape feet. Thank goodness, otherwise Ardi would be another bipedal ape getting around with human feet.

The revolving door of human ancestors is not a good look.

Rather bird footprints that predate the supposed ancestors and dated half way back to the Devonian support the creationists paradigm that birds were created fully formed and functional as descibed in Genesis. Further to that it supports creationist predictions that intermediates between kinds will not be found.

Tetrapod footprints dated to to over 400mya also supports the sudden creation of kinds, fully formed, with no intermediates. Again supporting a creationist paradigm along with the Cambrian explosion.

Fully human footprints that predate our suposed ancestors again demonstrates that mankind predates our supposed ancestors so evolution is erraneous. Creationists do not have to use non plausible and ridiculous scenarios to make sense of the observed data.

I also note that in your reply you have absolutly nothing to say about evolutionists ability to use the same fossil evidence, erectus etc, to demonstrate we evolved from any myth they choose to support as flavour of the month. It suported ancestry from chimps, something like a chimp now some creature nothing like a chimp at all. Good work you guys. You must really think creationists are stupid to not suck this nonense up with delight! The news is we are not the silly ones!

If observed evidence for creation is not a reason for an evolutionist to alter their view, it is highly unlikely that myth and ridiculous algorithms are going to change a creationists view.

Why would any creationist feel the need to change their view based on the nonsense put up as evidence for evolution?

 

[Astridhere]

The universe has been expanding for 13.5 billion years from a point of incredibly dense energy - what some inaccurately call a singularity. This expansion is called the Big Bang. We has substantial evidence that it is happening, and has happened for 13.5 billion years. The more speculative side is the how and the why.

The idea of multiple dimensions comes from a number of areas in physics, most notably string theory and other attempts to explain the fundaments of matter and energy. Ultimately, even if we don't know why the Big Bang is happening, or what triggered it, or whether its beginning coincided with the beginning of the universe - even if we don't know these things, we still know that it's there. We've measured the CMBR. We've seen galactic shadowing. We've seen gravitational lensing. We've seen the systematic redshift of stars and galaxies.
It still sounds like fairytales

It's not, it's an article on the Internet, not a peer-reviewed paper published in a scientific journal, so your point is moot.
Rubbish the article speaks to a published paper. Look to the comments section just to see how prestigeous a journal it appeared in. Stop wasting your own thread space. You are like may naturalists, unable to accept the challenges many other of your researchers have already accepted as problematic.

Even though you didn't cite the actual paper, I found it here. A fascinating read, to be sure, but it ultimately boils down to a choice in interpretation: they choose, without qualification, to interpret the Cosmological Constant as a quirk of mathematics rather than a physical phenomenon.
..and the Hubble contstant is not contant. So just like evolution. big bang is very much a find what works and call that evidence.
But, ultimately, this is just an example of healthy to-and-fro in the scientific community. This kind of work is exactly the right sort of thing that makes science do what it does best: explain physical evidence. And, undoubtedly, a rebuttal will be published sometime soon - such is the way of scientific publications.

And notice that this is an alternate explanation to the 'dark energy' explanation of anomalous acceleration in the universe. It doesn't do away with the Big Bang (and, amusingly, can only work if the Big Bang is true), it doesn't affect dark matter at all, and it is a quirk of the mathematics that the Earth is at the centre of the explosion (I wonder, does it move in and out of that position as it orbits the Sun?).
Oh read what I write and stop wasting your own thread space. It is the mystery of dark matter, a subtance you know nothing about, that makes sense of your physics and big bang. I did not say the mystery disproves big bang I said you have based an entire theory on something you do not understand...just like the singularity and the wonderful multiple dimensions.
So the paper, besides being interesting, doesn't do what you claim it does. It doesn't (as you claim) explain away the Big Bang or dark matter - only dark energy, which is ostensibly unrelated to both.


Or perhaps the smile on a baby's face is evidence of God. Who knows.


There are many mysteries in science. Slapping the label 'God' onto whichever one you fancy isn't science, it's intellectually dishonest.
I have produced a theory that speaks to my assertion of earth be universe centred. Again here is a tip.., Read what people say. You will do much better.
But tell me: are you saying dark matter and energy are real, and are actually God? Or are you saying they're not real? You can't have it both ways, Astridhere.

I am saying you lot have no idea really

Fortunately for me, your opinions of me are immaterial. Stick to the science, if you please.

I have provided science to back an earth centred view. Unfortunately you canot tell what science is and are too narrow minded and inculcated to look at any other view untill your own goonies spell it out for you. You do not want to talk about science you want to talk about mysteries that make no sense and multiple dimensions straight out of sci fi.[/quote]


Oh bla bla Wiccan Child, I supposed you are an astrophysicist now. The best you can do is mimic what you read. I have posted a link that sums up the problems with big bang. Inflation does not solve them all. Many researchers are looking for alternatives. You can bury your head in the sand if you like and ignore that fact. That however does not make your view any more relevant than mine.

What is observed is galaxies moving away from the earth. The rest of your theory is an attempt to show how unremarkable the earth is in the grand scheme of things. This unfortunately is quite laughable given you have not even found so much as a bacteria on Mars. Or do you believe in aliens. Fess up!

I also note your inability to participate in your own thread.

How about you speak to what it would take to change your view. Obviously observed science is not the answer.

 

[Exial]

Whats the difference?

 

[Jonathan95]

Nothing, there's just nothing. I've seen the truth, experienced and heard it.

 

[becon]

No, actually many of your scientists would be the first to the unemplyment line and have a vested interest in pursuing the myth.

Many? unless you think that every scientist would be put out of a job there would still be plenty out there who would blow the whistle and love every minute.

No the sad fact as far as creationists are concerned is all they will ever be able to do is throw sticks and stones at evolution, it makes them happy to do that and it stops their children from learning but given time it will all dry up and blow away, if the government doesn't step in to stop the child abuse the kids will get the message themselves from the Internet, just as the Arab countries have done and are doing now.

It won't be long before creationist parent will need to cut their children off completely from technology otherwise it will kill their religion stone dead, the Amish spring to mind, religions have never faced a threat like information technology before.
Instant answers to a myriad of questions all at their finger tips, pulling the wool over their eyes will be a thing of the past in fact you guys could well be the last creationists.

 

[Exial]

Nothing, there's just nothing. I've seen the truth, experienced and heard it.

Muslims, Jews, Mormons can all say exactly the same thing as you just have with equal zeal.

Would be nice to have the world figured out at age 15 though, wish It had been that way for me.

 

[Astridhere]

I say without hesitation that Astridhere is a lost cause.

Please allow her to wallow in her ignorance.

Words come cheap and so do opinions without scientific backing.

Can you explain your use of the same line of fossil evidence to suuport ancestry from chimps, something like a chimp and some creature nothing like a chimp at all? No you haven't what you can do is prove me correct in saying many evolutionists cannot defend this psuedo science they think is so irrefuteable!

As for Big Bang...

As influential as inflation has been in guiding modern cosmological thought, it has not resolved all internal difficulties. The most serious concerns the problem of a “graceful exit.” Unless the effective potential describing the effects of the inflationary field during the GUT era corresponds to an extremely gently rounded hill (from whose top the universe rolls slowly in the transition from the false vacuum to the true vacuum), the exit to normal expansion will generate so much turbulence and inhomogeneity (via violent collisions of “domain walls” that separate bubbles of true vacuum from regions of false vacuum) as to make inexplicable the small observed amplitudes for the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Arranging a tiny enough slope for the effective potential requires a degree of fine-tuning that most cosmologists find philosophically objectionable.

cosmology (astronomy) :: Inflation -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia



Perhaps you are ignorant of the bird footprints 212myo, tetrapod footprints dated to 400mya, Laetolli footprints being atrributed to an ape being Lucy. These all findings by your very own. However your ignorance is not my problem. In fact as a creationist I often know more about your evolutionary science than some of you lot do. Just look back or ask and I will fill you in on recent research and repost the links to reseach and data you may well be totally ignorant of.

So what exactly am I ignorant about? It most certianly is not about evolutionists and naturalists inability to defend their view. That is being substantiated as we speak.........

 

[Astridhere]

Many? unless you think that every scientist would be put out of a job there would still be plenty out there who would blow the whistle and love every minute.

No the sad fact as far as creationists are concerned is all they will ever be able to do is throw sticks and stones at evolution, it makes them happy to do that and it stops their children from learning but given time it will all dry up and blow away, if the government doesn't step in to stop the child abuse the kids will get the message themselves from the Internet, just as the Arab countries have done and are doing now.

It won't be long before creationist parent will need to cut their children off completely from technology otherwise it will kill their religion stone dead, the Amish spring to mind, religions have never faced a threat like information technology before.
Instant answers to a myriad of questions all at their finger tips, pulling the wool over their eyes will be a thing of the past in fact you guys could well be the last creationists.

Again you flutter around trying to appear clever while totally ignoring the provision of an explanation to the human fossil evidence being used to demonstrate ancestry to chimps, something like a chimp and nothing like a chimp that I requested.

You lot cannot defend your assertions and evidence when it comes down to it. If the answer is not spoon fed to you in some text book, clearly you are lost.

 

[Jonathan95]

Muslims, Jews, Mormons can all say exactly the same thing as you just have with equal zeal.

Would be nice to have the world figured out at age 15 though, wish It had been that way for me.

I saw Jesus at the age of 7~*.

I'm praying for all the lost ones at this forum.

That the Lord will open peoples hearts and eyes.

 

[Exial]

Words come cheap and so do opinions without scientific backing.

Can you explain your use of the same line of fossil evidence to suuport ancestry from chimps, something like a chimp and some creature nothing like a chimp at all? No you haven't what you can do is prove me correct in saying many evolutionists cannot defend this psuedo science they think is so irrefuteable!

As for Big Bang...

As influential as inflation has been in guiding modern cosmological thought, it has not resolved all internal difficulties. The most serious concerns the problem of a “graceful exit.” Unless the effective potential describing the effects of the inflationary field during the GUT era corresponds to an extremely gently rounded hill (from whose top the universe rolls slowly in the transition from the false vacuum to the true vacuum), the exit to normal expansion will generate so much turbulence and inhomogeneity (via violent collisions of “domain walls” that separate bubbles of true vacuum from regions of false vacuum) as to make inexplicable the small observed amplitudes for the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Arranging a tiny enough slope for the effective potential requires a degree of fine-tuning that most cosmologists find philosophically objectionable.

cosmology (astronomy) :: Inflation -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia



Perhaps you are ignorant of the bird footprints 212myo, tetrapod footprints dated to 400mya, Laetolli footprints being atrributed to an ape being Lucy. These all findings by your very own. However your ignorance is not my problem. In fact as a creationist I often know more about your evolutionary science than some of you lot do. Just look back or ask and I will fill you in on recent research and repost the links to reseach and data you may well be totally ignorant of.

So what exactly am I ignorant about? It most certianly is not about evolutionists and naturalists inability to defend their view. That is being substantiated as we speak.........

Its not my job(or indeed anybodies on this forum) to educate you on something as fundemental to biology as evolution.

Go to the libary, get some biology text books and give them a read or go down to your local school or university and see if anyone is willing to impart knowledge to you...

... but wait, you've quite clearly already arrived at your conclusion. Evolution is false, scientists are evil liars blah blah blah

Now it seems you are trying to educate us, and failing quite spectaularly.

Astrid, have you ever even convinced 1 person that your beliefs are true?

Better yet, did you convince anybody that mattered? A teacher, politician, lecturer, scientist or biologist? You know, someone with the power and authority to influence teaching or advocacy of evolution? If not, your kinda, sorta, definatley, maybe wasting your time.

 

[rudez]

Whatever your stance on the evolution/creationism debate, what proof or evidence would you need to see to be convinced, however begrudgingly, that the opponents view is true? Additionally, what proof or evidence would convince you that your current view is false?

For evolutionists, it could be an ordinary species of mouse whose cells have something wholly unrelated to DNA. For Creationists, it could be a giraffe giving birth to a walrus.

So, what would change your mind?

An atheist coming over to debate,that's enough to make me believe that my god is true.You can't debate on false things-Nuff said !

 

[AV1611VET]

An atheist coming over to debate,that's enough to make me believe that my god is true.You can't debate on false things-Nuff said !

I'm fond of telling these guys that their preoccupation with Christianity should be considered as evidence for the existence of God.

 

[CTD]

And not everyone feels the need to sully themselves in conspiracy theories to dismiss legitimate science.

Conspiracy theories? Conspiracy theories?

Watch the typical scoffer attempt to explain away the New Testament sometime! Conspiracy after conspiracy with zero evidence beyond the desire to reach a conclusion contrary to reality.

 

[CTD]

Its not my job(or indeed anybodies on this forum) to educate you on something as fundemental to biology as evolution.

Go to the libary, get some biology text books and give them a read or go down to your local school or university and see if anyone is willing to impart knowledge to you...

... but wait, you've quite clearly already arrived at your conclusion. Evolution is false, scientists are evil liars blah blah blah

Now it seems you are trying to educate us, and failing quite spectaularly.

Astrid, have you ever even convinced 1 person that your beliefs are true?

Better yet, did you convince anybody that mattered? A teacher, politician, lecturer, scientist or biologist? You know, someone with the power and authority to influence teaching or advocacy of evolution? If not, your kinda, sorta, definatley, maybe wasting your time.

Shoot, Astridthere rocks. I know I've bookmarked at least three of the links she's provided here recently.

She provokes the funniest responses
"I can't see how bird tracks 50 million years older than my dino-bird story can accomodate is a problem"

No current creationist forces so much donning of the evogoggles.
Astrid: Fact A Fact B Fact C

Evolanders:
We don't see nothin' Ha Ha
(dozen insults)

Me:

 

[Astridhere]

Its not my job(or indeed anybodies on this forum) to educate you on something as fundemental to biology as evolution.
You would if you could, but you can't so you dont. Instead you make up excuses
Go to the libary, get some biology text books and give them a read or go down to your local school or university and see if anyone is willing to impart knowledge to you...
What a cop out!
... but wait, you've quite clearly already arrived at your conclusion. Evolution is false, scientists are evil liars blah blah blah
Then refute me with more than your valueless opinion
Now it seems you are trying to educate us, and failing quite spectaularly.
It seems I need to!
Astrid, have you ever even convinced 1 person that your beliefs are true?
I am not here to sober up those intoxicated by evolutionary myth, just to have fun....
Better yet, did you convince anybody that mattered? A teacher, politician, lecturer, scientist or biologist? You know, someone with the power and authority to influence teaching or advocacy of evolution? If not, your kinda, sorta, definatley, maybe wasting your time.

I have demonstrated that you lot have no observed evidence for your theory, humans are a case in point. Besides I got heaps of blessing putting up my views elsewhere so obviously some like what I have to say.

You are wasting your time trying to look as if you know how to refute me. Clearly..you do not! Throw offs are obvious!

What a monumental throw off, evasion and denial your entire post is. The truth of the mater is that you can not explain nor articulate why the same fossils are used to demonstrate ancestry to something like a chimp and to something unlike a chimp.

You lot may as well fess up now. Creationists know the delight evolutionists take in explaining the obvious stupidity of creationists. You haven't. Rather you have told me to go to a library. What a cop out and evidence that indeed you have no idea how to explain it.

Indeed what are any fossils transitional too when you have no idea what the common ancestor looked like. How would you know if any fossil was evolving into a variety of ape or supposed human? How come you have no demonstration of chimp ancestry.

Come on now have a go, it should be easy to explain for you evos!

The problem for you is there is no explanation other than to say the fossil evidence will be said to support a transition from a squirrel if it needs to.

I have told you Turkana Boy is an ape with ape features and what appear to be curved ape fingers almost down to his knees. Turkana Boys skull looks like Ardi's as does the upper thighbone.

I have also told you that Lucy is not the maker of the Laetolli footprints and guess what? Some of your own researchers agree with little creationist me. The only difference being your researchers are still quibbling about who made them. Where as I know it was mankind the only answer evos cannot deal with. Now fancy your researcher saying the Laetoli footprints could not have been made by the lovely Lucy after all the ridiculers that like to have a go at me?????

So here is your education for the day..
Footprints to Fill

Flat feet and doubts about makers of the Laetoli tracks

They also engendered controversy: scientists have debated everything from how many individuals made the prints to how best to protect them for posterity. Experts have generally come to agree, however, that the tracks probably belong to members of the species Australopithecus afarensis, the hominid most famously represented by the Lucy fossil. Now new research is calling even that conclusion into question

In contrast, the A. afarensis bone resembled that of the flat-footed apes, making it improbable that its foot had an arch like our own. As such, the researchers report, A. afarensis almost certainly did not walk like us or, by extension, like the hominids at Laetoli.

Footprints to Fill: Scientific American

Here is a little more education for this irefuteable nonsense that is heading for the garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past just like Lucy with human feet......

Ardi pieces

Ardi reconstruction of the pieces below...and Turkana Boy

See the upper thigh bones that are unlike either a living ape or human. They are much same. Tilt Turkana Boys side view of the skull back to square it up like Ardi's and they are very similar. The few finger bones on Turkana Boy come down almost to the knees and I'll bet they are curved. Tukana Boy has an extra verterbra like an ape and a small neural canal like an ape. In fact Turkana Boys legs sticking out past his hip bones make him look less human than Ardi, an ape with ape feet.

Ardi and Turkana Boy are so similar it is obvious both are varieties of apes.


Despite all the mumbo jumbo about Turkana Boy sharing this or that similarity to mankind, he is an ape. I cannot believe you evolutionists can't see it.

No intermediates is proof of creation, not evolution. Wish lists and non plausible scenarios are the supports for evolution.

Yes I have my view and you can keep believing human feet belong to a curved fingered, 3.5ft arboreal ape if you wish. However you guys really need to stop taking shots at creationists as you will believe any silly scenario as long as it is evolutionary.

You lot are obviously not able to differentiate fact from fiction. This is truly amazing as I am sure many of you are very clever. However the intoxication of evolutionary theory that blinds evolutionists to the obvious is truly scary.



BTW..thanks CTD.