Foiled Forever by Fossil Finding
Last January, Scientific American declared 2009 as “the year of Darwin” in celebration of the 200th anniversary of the birth of the revolutionary evolutionist who turned man into a monkey.
The celebration is understandable.
No thinker has accomplished more to create a cleft between science and religion.
No writer has done more to undermine the claim of scripture that man was made in the image and likeness of God.
No scholar has forged greater support for moral relativity and modern materialism.
His theories are treated as laws; his notions as knowledge; his speculation as science.
But a recent finding in Kenya has sent evolutionists into a tail-spin.
And freshly unearthed discoveries of Darwin’s life have caused the academic community to reconsider his greatness and his contribution to advancement of modern science.
The first debunking of Darwin came with the discovery this year of a 1.5 million-year-old footprint in northern Kenya – - the oldest relic of primitive man since Mary Leaky discovered 3.75 million-year-old tracks in the volcanic ash of northern Tanzania.
Darwinist scientists who the footprint discovered in Kenya reluctantly came to the conclusion that it was made by Homo Erectus who had no business appearing in the lower Paleolithic period of world history.
By scanning the footprints with lasers and measuring sediment compression, the scientists determined that the individual who left this print had a modern foot and stride: a mid-foot arch, straight big toe and heel-to-toe weight transfer.
David Braun, a professor at the South Africa Cape Town University and one of the scientists who came upon the fossil, states the following in Science magazine:
“It was kind of creepy excavating these things to see all of a sudden something that looks so dramatically like something that you yourself could have made 20 minutes earlier in some kind of wet sediment just next to the site. These could quite easily have been made on the beach today.”
“The prints match a men’s shoe size of about 9, which gives you a height of about 5 feet 9 inches,” says Brian Richmond of George Washington University, who was part of the excavation team. “Here, we have really compelling evidence that they were walking with a long stride, they had an arch in the foot the way we have, and the arch puts a spring in our step, which makes walking more efficient,” he says.
Compounding the problem was the discovery in the same area of a second set of human footprints that had been left about 1,000 years after the first set.
“It’s incredible. I’ve never excavated anything like this before,” says team director John Harris of Rutgers University.
The discoveries are not only incredible but devastating for Darwinists who have held that Homo Erectus did not appear on the scene until 200,000 years ago. This assumption is contained in almost every world history and social studies text in the United States.
Since Christians are compelled by the U.S. Department of Education to present Creationism as a fanciful theory, the same ruling should now be applied to the questionable theories of Darwin and his contemporaries.
To be sure, previous problems with the theory of evolution have been found. To support natural selection, Darwin argued that giraffes gradually grew long necks in order to reach into high trees for the leaves, which the Great Scientist believed, were their sole source of sustenance. He remained blissfully unaware that giraffes eat grass and bushes, and he failed to account for the fact that female giraffes are two or three feet shorter than the males.
In their efforts to materialize empirical proof for evolution, Darwin’s followers turned to scientific hoaxes, such as “Nebraska Man” — an anthropoid ape ancestor to man, whose tooth turned out to belong to a wild pig, and Piltdown Man, who was reported to represent the missing link between monkey and man.
Discovered in England in 1912, Piltdown Man created a sensation until the artifact was exposed in the 1950s as the skull of a Medieval Englishman which had been attached by jaded scientists to the jaw of an Asian ape, whose teeth had been filed down to look human and whose bones had been stained by shellac to look old.
Yet three English scientists were knighted for Piltdown Man.
Other Darwinian claims have been uncovered as asinine assertions. Bird feathers, for example, do not come from the scales of reptiles, human embryos contain no gills.
Thus far, not one fossil has been found to validate Darwin.
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists,” admitted Stephen J. Gould in 1977. But that fossil record now contains even more species that appear fully developed, with no traceable ancestors.
In addition to the discoveries in Kenya, newly uncovered data about Darwin the man present him as an opportunist and charlatan.
Darwin, noted scientist Eugene Winchy demonstrates in his book The End of Darwinism, stole his theory from Alfred Wallace, who had sent him a “completed formal paper on evolution by natural selection.”
“All my originality … will be smashed,” a distraught Darwin cried when he got Wallace’s manuscript.
Darwin also lied in “The Origin of Species” about believing in a Creator. By 1859, he was a confirmed agnostic and so admitted in his posthumous autobiography, which was censored by his family.
In his book, Windchy devotes a chapter to the Scopes trial which formed the basis for Inherit the Wind, a Bible-mocking movie with Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow and Frederick March as William Jennings Bryan.
The trial, as it turns out, was a carefully orchestrated scam to garner publicity for Dayton, Tennessee.
Scopes never taught evolution and never took the stand. His students were tutored to commit perjury.
And the devout Christian Bryan more than held his own against the atheist Darrow as evidenced by the actual transcript of the trial.
Corey S
on Jul 10th, 2009
@ 4:08 pm:
Wow. Based on the ads on this site, and the pictures spread about, I am not even going to bother with the article.
You are quite clearly an example of all that is wrong with America, and really the world at whole.
Congratulations on one thing though, I will know from here on out to never come back to this site and to recommend to every person that I know to avoid it as well.
This part though:
“a blog for those who take Reality seriously!”
I find that hilarious as you are most certainly living in your own little fantasy world.
nocompromise
on Jul 10th, 2009
@ 4:14 pm:
Yep, just another blathering leftard incapable of actually telling anyone why they disagree with any subject matter and with any level of intellect. Good, I’m glad you won’t be back as I wouldn’t want to actually make you think as it might damage your grey matter! Keep drinking that kool-aid!
quidpro
on Jul 10th, 2009
@ 4:28 pm:
This site is FULL of kool-aid. Serving it up with an extra cup of sugar, I see. Good luck with your blather. Hope it all works out for you.
Martyn Trappist
on Jul 10th, 2009
@ 4:31 pm:
I like Kool-aid, not so much sugar please………… I’ve seen what it does to Leftist minds (or is it “alleged minds”?)and it ain’t pretty.
KJ
on Jul 10th, 2009
@ 11:37 pm:
Woah! How can this be when the earth is only 6000 years old? “1.5 million-year-old footprint in northern Kenya”? My entire worldview has just collapsed.
nocompromise
on Jul 11th, 2009
@ 9:37 am:
Wow, your entire worldview has collapsed? Uhhh, that was easy. That’s on the same level as Marxists who can’t defend their positions and start their character assassinations, name calling and threats when their positions are challenged! Perhaps, it’s best NOT to have a collections of opinions, but rather Facts and Evidence as the basis for why we believe in what we believe in. Try that and perhaps your worldview won’t so easily collapse and the Marxists won’t need to beat up people who disagree with them!
noworries
on Jul 11th, 2009
@ 11:20 am:
Don’t worry. It appears the atheist trolls are out in force and have no rebuttal. When the debate is over, insults are the tool of the loser.
mntwin34
on Jul 11th, 2009
@ 11:27 am:
I’m a substitute teacher and, one day, I was asked to show a Bill Nye the Science Guy video to a 6th grade science class. In the video, it talked about how giraffes got their long necks through evolution in order to reach tree leaves for food which, as this article pointed out, is a complete falsehood. You’d be saddened how such flimsy Darwinist theories are passed off as irrefutable fact in our public schools. It is unethical, plain and simple.
hastings
on Jul 11th, 2009
@ 12:42 pm:
Not sure what textbooks you are reading, but every source I can find that mentions homo erectus states that they existed between 1.8 million and 500,000 years ago, with the oldest specimens dated to 1.6 and 1.7 million years ago. That includes Wikipedia, the encyclopedia Britannica, and several books on evolution, all published within the past 20 years. So it wouldn’t be a “shocking discovery” to find homo erectus footprints at 1.5 million years, nor would it over turn any of the currently accepted timeline of human evolution.
Not Darwin debunked, I’m afraid, but rather the premise of your article.
Nigel
on Jul 12th, 2009
@ 12:04 am:
This is interesting, because as I understand it, Homo erectus probably dates back two million years before the present (well within the early part of the Pleistocene). Homo sapiens, on the other hand, appeared around the date the author cites. And it was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck who hypothesized that giraffes lengthened their necks through strenuous attempts to gather acacia leaves. Also, both Wallace and Darwin fell upon the idea of evolution through natural selecton independently, and Darwin only published his work after finding out this out. hardly a “steal.”
Get your facts straight, Mr. Williams. Maybe then you won’t sound so damn fuckwitted.
ontologist
on Jul 12th, 2009
@ 9:03 pm:
Although this discovery is a very significant scientific find, I do not find this discovery to be a very compelling or strong rebuttal for Darwinian evolutionary ideology. The reason why is that Darwinian evolutionary theory is an undemonstrated, a priori philosophical position regarding the origin of species, rather than a demonstrated and proven scientific fact regarding same. There is nothing in any observable scientific evidence or artifact of nature that would necessarily and causally require that the origin of Man or of any species should be the result only of random chance, natural selection, and long epoch durations. There are other plausible and reasonable causes, provided that the prevalent naturalistic philosophical presumption is not just automatically swallowed without thought, but is questioned just as rigorously as anything else would be by skeptical and scientific minds. As a result, Darwinian evolutionary theory cannot be scientifically proven without committing a logical fallacy of circular reasoning, where you assume the premise that you wish to prove. It is impossible to arrive at a necessary conclusion for the acceptance of Darwinian evolutionary theory, without first assuming that there are no other causes for the existence of natural things other than from other natural things. Thus it is that this presumptive naturalistic fallacy must be refuted, in order for this popular modern mythology of Darwinism to be finally laid to rest and discarded into the ash heap of history where it belongs.
We may be successful in correcting any scientific errors that Darwinists may have subscribed to, but these errors are completely irrelevant in addressing the fundamental issue of Naturalism. If we do not address the fundamental philosophical issues that give rise to the sophistry of Darwinism, we will not be able to satisfactorily and comprehensively disprove and refute this modern-day mythology.
It will be very instructive to philosophically examine the full title of Darwin’s landmark work:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
1. You will note that Darwin is claiming that Natural Selection is a means, or effective cause, for the Origin of Species. Right here we see a very fundamental and inescapable logical contradiction: How can any selection process be an efficient cause for anything, since there must always be something to select from, right? Which implies that whatever is selected must already exist. It does not explain the origin for anything! This is airtight logic, and there is absolutely no wiggle room to reach any other coherent or rational conclusion.
2. Favoured Races: Darwin uses the passive voice. Who or what is the Subject doing the favoring or disfavoring of certain Races? Is it an Intelligent Being, or is it unintelligent random Forces of Eternal Nature? This is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one. We can easily understand how an Intelligent Mind can favor or disfavor something, but how can a random Process favor anything? Perhaps we could ascribe this terminology to the anthropocentric projections of Darwin, and not read anything further into this, but it certainly does betray Darwin’s internal conflict between his understanding of an Intelligent Mind as the efficient cause for Species, and his proposed scientific mythology of natural selection being the cause for Species. Darwin doesn’t seem as convinced of his own sophistry as many of his modern disciples do.
Since naturalistic Darwinism necessarily presumes that Intelligence did not exist and therefore is excluded from being the cause for the existence of anything in Nature prior to the existence of Man, it has therefore created a much greater problem for itself than the questions that it presumed to solve. It now has to explain the Origin for Intelligence in Man from unintelligent Matter and Random Processes, whereas the doctrine of Pre-existent Intelligence suffers from no such disability. Darwinists have utterly and completely failed to accomplish this very necessary requirement for the veracity of their claims. The scientifically established 2nd law of thermodynamics is universal in its application of all Natural processes involving physical energy and matter, just as the laws of Gravity are. There are simply no observed instances of a more ordered state of being arising from a less ordered state of being, without the necessary input of new information into that previously disordered natural system. To claim otherwise for the dim distant unobservable past is to make exceptions to and contradict the universal application of strict empirical science. Such claims that contradict empirical observation have thereby removed themselves from the domain of serious scientific inquiry, and have truly entered into the domain of anti-empirical and unprovable mysticism and mythology.
Truly this is a case of not knowing the proper role or application of empirical Science. They try to make empirical science cover things that are not properly scientific in nature, but are rather philosophical in nature, and need to be discussed in those terms. Contrary to popular belief, even Mathematics is not an empirical Science, but is more properly classified as Quantitative Philosophy.
Blue Fire
on Jul 13th, 2009
@ 8:01 am:
Sounds like some folks need to go back to the basics and begin to understand what evolution and the theory of evolution really are. See my back to basics blog: http://eclecticsuniverse.blogspot.com/2009/07/evolution-back-to-basics.html
One point of clarification as an example: Evolution theory does NOT say that giraffes developed longer necks in order to reach higher food supplies! Mutation does NOT have a directed purpose. Giraffes just happened to develop longer necks due to a random mutation, and this longer neck just happened to give them an advantage in surviving and reproduction. Since those with longer necks survived and reproduced better than the others, they passed their genes for the longer neck on to their offspring. Thus the longer neck trait became dominant in the population over many generations.
I have found that those who don’t understand what evolution is, how it works, and what the evidence really is are those who rail against it the most.