Australopithecus Afarensis' Funny Footed Cousin?

s

The Daily Mail reports that a newly discovered fossilised foot has revealed a 'previously unknown human species' that lived three and a half million years ago.

The Darwinist media circus continues to churn out logical fallacies that stand for discoveries of great scientific importance. Now they have found the foot bones of a monkey and claim that it was an upright human ancestor that spent some time on  the ground, but not as much as the soon to evolve australopithecus, who found much more joy in swinging down from the trees for extended periods to be chased by lions.

A key point here is that finding bones in the dirt tells you nothing. Dates have to be assigned arbitrarily from the world view of the discoverer and the geologic column, made up of dates pulled from the thin air in the 1830s - there are no tags to tell you when it died or what it was. Then if it happens to just be a few bones you have to imagine the rest of the creature according as much to how you want it to look, as to what the few bones can tell you about its general structure - imagine finding the back end of a duckbill platypus and  presuming that it looked like a small beaver at the front.

Besides all the usual evolutionary propaganda blurb, Daniel Lieberman, professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard, was incredibly honest for a Darwinist saying 'The limitations of the fossil record leave ample room for debate about human origins'. Of course, he simply means debate between evolutionists about different ideas they want to pursue grant money with. If only he had the open-mindedness to mean that the limitations of finding bones in the ground means you can never empirically state anything about the distant past unless you were there.

As ridiculous as it was to say Lucy was anything but an ape that spent the majority of her time in the trees pales in comparison to finding JUST A FEW FOOT BONES and saying it was a 'hominin', human ancestor. The fact that these foot bones show an opposable toe make its even more ridiculous - I think that after all these years they have actually found Lucy's feet!

So how do we know its 3.4 million years old (say 'oooooooh!')? Because Dr Yohannes Haile-Selassie, of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History said it is. Wouldn't it be great if radiocarbon dating worked, let alone stretched back that far, and we could see that this poor monkey was happily swinging in the trees when the flood came?*

*Don't believe in/deny the global flood about 4400 years ago? See www.answersingenesis.org or www.icr.org.