Posted by: Jim | August 23, 2007

A Bad Day for Creationists


A footprint was found in Egypt that is believed to be 2 million years old. It’s a bit of a surprise, as it pre-dates any other fossil evidence of humanity by a very wide margin, but corroborates theories that we have been around for a good deal of time.

Since the dawn of civilization was 6,000 years ago, it goes to figure that much of our instinct and evolution is based on very very primitive conditioning.

Then again, our dating technology might be incorrect, or this might just be an Australopithecus with a bad case of corns.



  1. Don’t you know anything? SATAN put that footprint there to deceive us.

    Anyway, it’s never a bad day for creationists, because they simply dismiss any evidence you provide to them. This one would be rather easy to dismiss; all you have to do is assume the dating techniques are faulty, which is of course the basis of creationists’ thought: all science is suspect, but the Bible is infallible. So the slightly more rational/flexible types will say “well, that just proves that when the Bible says seven days, a ‘day’ to God is a million years, so this fits perfectly.” The rest of the fundies will just put their fingers in their ears and scream “BLASPHEMER!!!” as they run out of the room and into their SUV with the ‘God says it, I believe it, that settles it’ bumpersticker and the ‘support our troops’ ribbon on it, pop in their Amy Grant cassette and try real hard not to think of anything but Jesus.

    * * *

  2. Well, the Creationist Museum has dinosaurs living contemporaneously with humans, despite dinosaurs not being mentioned in the Bible.

    I read about a 19th Scottish religious sect who considered potatoes blasphemous and would only eat foods mentioned in the Bible.

    Creationists also recognise that bacterias evolve to become resistant to drugs, but they cleverly call this micro-evolution!

    I really enjoy seeing what madness people can come up with and believe in!

    Personally, I ascribe this footprint to it being from a man from the future, who went back two million years using a time machine. And like in the Terminator movies, you have to go back naked, hence, it is a footprint and not of a 43rd century shoe.

  3. It’s an Atheist plot, obviously.

  4. Of course! A naked time-traveler! That explains the dick-print found nearby. Or maybe that was from Moses’ rod.

    * * *

  5. Way to bring it right into the gutter, guys. LOL

  6. My query is thus…How is it that archaeologists can find a footprint purported to have been imprinted 2million years ago in the silt of the Nile Delta, yet I can’t find one of the socks I discarded in a drunken stupor last night? Is there no justice??

  7. If i read the picture correctly, it is the imprint of a right foot. Where is the imprint of the left foot? Or should we assume that Australopithecus had but one (right) leg and hopped?
    I find King Felix’ hypothesis lacking. Surely, if one came back from the 43rd century naked one would not need to hop.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: