Verified answer

That site is full of creationist misinformation (read that as "lies").

"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."

That is a bald-faced lie, as is typical of creationist propaganda.

Homo erectus "is an extinct species of hominid that originated in Africa—and spread as far as China and Java—from the end of the Pliocene epoch to the later Pleistocene, about 1.8 to 1.3 million years ago."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

After spreading out from Africa, Homo erectus lived on and expanded its population as a separate hominid species for about a million years.

In fact, one of the most complete Homo erectus fossil skeletons dates from about 1.5 million years ago and was found in Africa long before that footprint was found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkana_Boy

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html

It is really incredible that the promoters of creationism think that they can get away with making up such lies. They must think that the lay creationists who read those lies are incredible idiots for believing what they say.

Whoops!

Added:

By the way, debunk this if you can.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.h...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hominina_foss...

Added:

And here's another abominable lie in that site.

"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."

Bullcrap! Darwin had worked on his theory and his book over a period of twenty years. And, though he was shocked at finding out that Wallace had come up with a similar theory, he was admirable in suggesting that a joint paper with Wallace on the subject be presented to the Linnean Society.

"Darwin's book was half way [completed] when, on 18 June 1858, he received a paper from Wallace describing natural selection. Shocked that he had been "forestalled", Darwin sent it on to Lyell, as requested, and, though Wallace had not asked for publication, he suggested he would send it to any journal that Wallace chose. ... [H]e put matters in the hands of Lyell and Hooker. They decided on a joint presentation at the Linnean Society on 1 July of On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

Darwin's book On the Origin of Species was published in 1859.

The unscrupulous lies of creationists never cease to astound me.

Are you just a failing troll or do you seriously believe that disproves evolution?

It's very interesting that you people think you can discount any evidence that goes against you but when you think you can twist something to support you (not that you can, a simple look at the evidence you've presented shows your conclusion is nonsense) it's suddenly not just evidence, but absolute proof.

Remains of creatures showing a very clear path of evolution, proof of DNA and mutations and logic that therefore different characteristics arising by mutation will be evolutionary advantageous or disadvantageous? Worthless. Silly little scientists. A footprint we can pretend is significant for being millions of years old? THIS PROVES CREATIONISM IS CORRECT... but, being naive, I'm under the impression that the existence of something 1.5 millions years old would go against the claim that the Earth is a few thousand years old. Please help me here, I'm kind of confused.

You know what amazes me? That people read stuff like this and actually believe it. It can only be the result of complete ignorance.

I counted 16 -- yes, *16* -- flat-out lies in just the first 5 paragraphs of that article, including lies about what "evolutionists" claim, saying that Lamarckian ideas (proven wrong) were "Darwinism," etc. In those same paragraphs were fallacious appeals to consequences, ignorance, and incredulity, and much more.

Look, if you want to argue against evolution by natural selection, then *learn something* and argue against evolution by natural selection! Science welcomes and encourages rational, well-presented arguments -- it's how science progresses. But when you present crap like this, which is a patchwork of lies, quote mining and logical fallacies, you just make yourself (and the people that write this crap) look incredibly ignorant and entirely dishonest. That page isn't an argument against natural selection, it's an argument against a made-up straw man that uses lies and deception as its only tactic. What could possibly make you think that lies are convincing to anyone with half a brain?

Peace.

"The first debunking of Darwin came with the discovery this year of a 1.5 million-year-old footprint in northern Kenya"

"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."

Homo erectus lived from 0.2 - 1.5 million years ago.

"“The prints match a men’s shoe size of about 9, which gives you a height of about 5 feet 9 inches,”"

Homo erectus also had an average height of around 5 foot 9.

Seems to support evolution.

No Evolution is a very solid explanation of how things came to be the way they are in the biological world. The thing that annoys believers is that God is not needed to explain anything in the biological world. God is simply not needed. That is why there is not a single scientific theory or law that has ever had to include God in its description of the universe.

I don't know what "Darwinism" is but evolution is backed up by tons of facts. Just because people refuse to accept these evidences is no reason to say they're not real.

Edit: I just looked at the article. You people and your footprints. Tell me, how can a person date a footprint? Can you explain that?

Try this, actually research the claims made in the site that you referenced. You will find that it is close to being completely wrong about its conclusions and not much better on the "facts" that is quotes.

No, the theory of evolution is gaining evidence daily.

This source is utter garbage. Look at the latest headline:

* UPDATED–Allah is nothing, but a pagan moon-god

If your source is as reliable as writing on the toilet stall wall, don't bother quoting it. Source this from a scientific journal.

Strange how only people who already don't believe evolution think it's a threat to evolution. The proper grown-up news didn't mention it being a problem.

Why is this in religion? "A big magic man did it" doesn't follow from "evolution is wrong."

Why do creationists think that discoveries that don't match up with their flawed understand of human evolution somehow 'debunk' evolution?