Saturday, April 12, 2008

Hmmm, maybe the theory of Evolution is falsifiable after all...

Check out this link:
DINOSAUR AND HUMAN FOOTPRINTS WEBSITE
Especially notice this:
HUMAN FOOTPRINT
And this:
DINOSAUR FOOTPRINT
And this:
HUMAN FOOTPRINT 2
And this:
SIDE BY SIDE WITH MODERN FOOT
And this:
HUMAN FOOTPRINT 3
"NOVA TV Special, God, Darwin And The Dinosaurs, "...dinosaur footprints, side by side with humans. Finding them would counter evidence that humans evolved long after the dinosaurs became extinct and back up...[the] claim that all species, including man, were created at one time."

And this large cat track:
BIG CAT PAWPRINT

"Naturally, evolutionists must explain this away, so they just say, "It is carved." They don’t need evidence. They know large mammals did not live with dinosaurs, so this cat track must be carved.

Creationists on the other hand, test their hypotheses. We cross-sectioned the track with a view to looking for the possibility of subsurface structures. If the structures within the rock were randomly truncated by the foot-shaped depression, carving would be indicated. If however, the structures conformed to the depression, then there would be clear indication that the track was not carved, but genuine."
LARGE CAT TRACK FOUND AT GLEN ROSE

Some people might say, "If these are real, then why haven't we seen them in the News? If they were real, they would be all over the media!" However, evolutionary Scientists have a vested interest in their occupation. Besides that, they are prejudiced on the side of Evolution, and against the idea of Creation. Not only that, but the media filters out many things that go against its political or philosophical viewpoint. Scientists and reporters and the media are supposed to be disinterested parties that report on what they see, without letting their personal opinions affect what they report; but much of the time, this is not the case.

15 comments:

Jeff said...

This is an interesting site as well:
http://www.rae.org/tuba.html

thekingpin68 said...

Interesting. Perhaps the earth is still 'old', but dinosaurs did not cease to exist 65 million years ago. Or perhaps, the earth is younger than thought. I think Hugh Ross makes a good case for old earth with entropy arguments, and I have heard him debate two young earth creationists. I like the fact that Ross tries to be Biblical and does not believe in traditional evolution theory.

However...

I have a couple of male friends who are sadly hairy. I really have to wonder if they did evolve from apes.

Forget Hare Krishna...Hairy Christians?

Jeff said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeff said...

Hi Russ,

"Hairy Christians"...LOL!

I have Hugh Ross' book, "The Fingerprint of God," which is quite interesting.

Nevertheless, I personally believe that the universe was created in a literal 6 days, just as Genesis says.

Long-day Creationists, also known as theological evolutionists claim that “day” in Genesis actually means thousands or millions of years. One of their arguments is that the Bible says ‘a day is as a thousand years’ to God. Yet, in Gen. 1:5, it says, “God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.” Obviously, the hours of light were called “day,” and the hours of darkness were called “night.” So, unless the Earth rotated on its axis thousands of times more slowly back then, then a ‘day’ back then was the same as a ‘day’ is today.

satire and theology said...

I am writing a funny on s&t. I am going to use that funny again, please laugh again.;) A Hebrew/OT scholar at church pointed out to me the Hebrew word yom in Genesis 1 is used for six day creation, but in Genesis 2:4 creation occurred in a day, and the same Hebrew word is used.

Something to ponder on...

Jeff said...

OK, here's a Christian site that challenges some of those photos and says that they (or at least the ones it mentions) are not human footprints:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm

Jeff said...

Russ,

"please laugh again"...LOL!

I'm not sure I completely understood your comment, but I've heard that the word used in Genesis 1 for "day" can mean "a period of time."

satire and theology said...

Cheers.

I meant I am publishing that joke soon on satire and theology. I am going to lead with your article again.

Russ:)

Jeff said...

I understood that. The part I did not understand was, "the Hebrew word yom in Genesis 1 is used for six day creation, but in Genesis 2:4 creation occurred in a day, and the same Hebrew word is used." You're saying that the 'Hebrew scholar' told you that the Hebrew word for 'day' in Gen. 1 is "yom." And apparently you're saying that he said that "yom" is also used in Gen. 2:4. OK, but it sounds like you're saying "yom" means "six day creation" in Gen. 1 and also in Gen. 2:4.

I guess what I'm not understanding is:

-What exactly does "yom" mean, and what is the difference, if any, between where it is used in Gen 1 and Gen. 2:4?
-What point are you trying to make in mentioning that?

Jeff said...

And BTW, thank you that you are going to be using my article. I appreciate that.

Jeff said...

I guess what confused me in your comment was that you used the word "but," which sounds like you are trying to point out some difference between "yom" in Gen. 1 and "yom" in Gen. 2:4.

Jeff said...

Oh, I see. Duh. You said "six-day creation" for Gen. 1 and "creation occurred in a day" in Gen. 2:4. I see. OK, so he claims that Gen. 2:4 says that God created the universe in 1 day instead of 6 days?

Please excuse my lack of comprehension. Yesterday I worked from 10:15 AM until 3:00 AM (16 1/2 hours, with no lunch break and no dinner break; only stopping a few times to use the restroom). So I am not that alert right now.

satire and theology said...

No problem my friend.

Blogging equals fix up. I do it all the time.

Yes you are understanding the scholar as I did.:)

Jeff said...

Just for the record, and for anyone reading this, I want to state that, though some or all of those 'human' footprints may not actually be human after all, that doesn't affect my belief in Creation any more than whether the Shroud of Turin is genuine or fake affects my belief in Christ as my Savior.

Nevertheless, I find those footprints interesting, and they are certainly controversial (which makes for good posting material, because of the likelihood of attracting more readers and comments). Of course, just about everything I've posted on this blog site has been of a controversial nature, to one extent or another, because it is of a religious nature. But most of the other things have been things that I completely stand behind (i.e., Christianity, the validity and authenticity of Scripture, Creationism, etc.). This post concerning human footprints, however, is something that I don't know for sure are authentic or not, although it is appearing to me that at least some of them are not human after all. But again, whether they are human prints, eroded dinosaur prints, or carved, does not change what I believe about Creation.

thekingpin68 said...

I am curious on your views on my latest for thk68. Since I am not a scientist, but would like to learn more, I take scientific facts seriously, but as your work directs, we must separate scientific theories from facts.

Cheers.