Home > FreeHovind > Content > Link: Footprints show human ancestor with modern stride
Footprints show human ancestor with modern stride
12 Comments - 23339 Views
Story about our human ancestors
Submitted By Brothertrucker on 09/02/27
FreeHovind, Brothertrucker, Links 
This Link originally posted in the "FreeHovind" Group

» Footprints show human ancestor with modern stride
» Reply to Comment
Excellent article, i hadn't heard about this
1 day - 1,984v
Posted 2009/02/28 - 1:04 GMT
Excellent article, i hadn't heard about this find, thanks.
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/02/28 - 3:32 GMT
Are you kidding? Seriously, this is exactly what we've been talking about. You find disheveled footprints in the sand and you presumably conclude that is half-human and it is a million years old ........ thats brilliant.

 

I am speechless, words can't describe the dynamic frustration that I feel now.
» Reply to Comment
What are ou talking about? nobody said anythi
1 day - 1,984v
Posted 2009/02/28 - 4:22 GMT
What are ou talking about? nobody said anything about Half-humans, this is the footprint of a homo erectus, based on the foot morphology.
» Reply to Comment
These snide machinations are contemptible!
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/02/28 - 6:09 GMT
These snide machinations are contemptible!

 

"What are ou talking about?"

 

The typical rebuttal for the pompous; A shrug of disinterest.

 

Let me repeat myself; It's garbage! Anybody that would believe the half-human or "homo-erectus" jargon, and the million year policy is willingly ignorant.

 

There is NOTHING to indicate that that foot print is a million years old or was a half-human (homo-erectus).

 

Has it once entered your minds that it could be a HUMAN or, in the very least, an ANIMAL?

 

Let me guess, nnnnooooooo. That would ruin the fun.
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/02/28 - 13:18 GMT
These snide machinations are contemptible!
"What are ou talking about?"
The typical rebuttal for the pompous; A shrug of disinterest.
I don't think it was disinterest. Your response was very hard to understand. You started talking about footprints in the sand. This was a case of footprints in rock.
Let me repeat myself; It's garbage! Anybody that would believe the half-human or "homo-erectus" jargon, and the million year policy is willingly ignorant.
I am not sure what "million year policy" you are referring to. If you are saying that scientists will say something is a million years old because all testing says that then you are right. So the people that read and accept science are willingly ignorant and the ones that put their fingers in their ears and say "God did it" are not?
There is NOTHING to indicate that that foot print is a million years old or was a half-human (homo-erectus).
And by nothing you mean scientific testing?
Has it once entered your minds that it could be a HUMAN or, in the very least, an ANIMAL?
Of course people think, how do we know it is not a fraud like the Pauxly footprints that Hovind liked to point to. BTW humans are animals, we went over that before.
Let me guess, nnnnooooooo. That would ruin the fun.
Yeah that is it. And people are atheist because they want to sin. :rolleyes:
 
 
» Reply to Comment
The article is interesting in how those who believ
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/02/28 - 18:29 GMT
The article is interesting in how those who believe it don't question it. It doesn't even say what kind of dating tecnique was used, just a claim.
» Reply to Comment
It is a news report. Why would you expect a r
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/02/28 - 18:31 GMT
It is a news report. Why would you expect a reporter to be complete?
» Reply to Comment
That's good point. They should let some creationi
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/02/28 - 19:10 GMT
That's good point. They should let some creationists examine from ICR to give complete objectivity.
» Reply to Comment
sure but then you also let to have other scie
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/02/28 - 22:14 GMT
sure but then you also let to have other scientist (re)test it, so you are absolutely sure that those creationists don't pull the "SATAN PUT IT THERE" trick on us.
» Reply to Comment
As long as they do it honestly I don't object
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/02/28 - 22:45 GMT
As long as they do it honestly I don't object at all. Even Creationists should be exposed to science.
» Reply to Comment
These snide machinations
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/03/01 - 20:31 GMT
These snide machinations are contemptible!

 Eh? How can a machination be snide?

"What are ou talking about?"
The typical rebuttal for the pompous; A shrug of disinterest.
 
No, a pompous reply would be something along the lines of: "What? Could you possibly translate that nonsenical rambling into something resembling English?"
» Reply to Comment
I conclude, it should be examined by all avenues o
1 day - 1,411v
Posted 2009/03/03 - 21:40 GMT
I conclude, it should be examined by all avenues of science and then discussed openly. Thats science.


GenTime: 0.0212 seconds

Site Design and Graphics Copyright 2002 - 2019 by Aubrey
Use of this site constitutes agreement to our » Legal Stuff