Human Origins

by cofty 56 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • WhatshallIcallmyself

    "The substrate can be tested but how can one know when the footprints were actually made." - Fisherman

    The substrate would need to be soft enough to allow indents to be made, therefore lithification had not occurred at the point the prints were made.

    The prints must have been made during a period of deposition because if erosion was occurring we could not still see them as they would have been eroded at the time of making. Therefore as more layers were placed on top, compaction would begin the lithification process.

    After the lithified strata was eroded away revealing this particular layer, the now visible surface would be too hard to leave these impressions.

    Therefore, if this layer is dated to between 5-7 Ma then that is when the prints were made.

  • LoveUniHateExams

    The substrate can be tested but how can one know when the footprints were actually made - the footprints are fossilised, too.

    This means that the footprints are roughly the same age as the substrate ...

  • Fisherman
    The prints must have been made....

    Maybe -If it can be proven.

    Proof is not the language used in the article to describe the footprints.

  • WhatshallIcallmyself

    Fisherman -

    1 - You cannot leave footprints in rocks.

    2 - You cannot leave footprints in soft ground before the soft ground is there.

    3 - Layers have to be buried under subsequent layers in order to lithify.


    The foot prints you see (assuming they are human in origin) had to have been made shortly after (years to 10s of years) the deposition of the layer(s) they disturb.

    What is your take on these prints and how does that fit with known geological processes?

    As an aside, where you quoted me it can be proven that footprints cannot be preserved during a period of erosion; the reasons for this should be obvious...

  • Ruby456

    Interesting - so we have the Denisovans and the Neanderthals contributing some genes to our genomes but in very limited amounts (but mtDNA indicates that these two groups remained distinct). Too limited to support a multi regional theory for human origins. However, Australasian modern humans have the most Denisovan contributions in their genes while Europeans, East Asians and Australasian modern humans all have Neanderthal contributions in varying amounts. I think this is quite interesting as it indicates some interbreeding by common ancestors but not that much.

  • ttdtt

    For anyone who still thinks humans have been around for only 6,000 years, you should watch this documentary.

  • Vidiot

    While the evidence and arguments are all excellently presented (and correct), they're kind of moot, in a way.

    The core reason creationists reject evolution is because their cosmology - and thusly their entire worldview - requires the Genesis creation narrative to be literal history.

    To accept evolution, the'y have to be willing to significantly redefine said cosmology and worldview at the very least, if not reject it entirely (tantamount to "compromising with Satan").

    The WTS even admitted as much in an evolution-"refuting" piece from about five or six years back...

    ...that they - for all intents and purposes - have to reject it, otherwise the cornerstone of everything they believe is wrong.

  • cofty

    I agree Vidiot. Human evolution cannot be reconciled with Watchtower theology. The facts prove the entire edifice of JW doctrine is built on top of an error.

  • Fisherman

    Conclusions does not equal fact.

  • cofty

    Still waiting for you to actually say anything interesting on evolution Fishy.

Share this