This is just a stray thought but it has always struck me that that the oldest human sites over African and Europe always have stone tools to be replaced by people with better technology.   Ken Ham and friends talk about people leaving from the Tower of Babel and someone losing their ability to make anything as they migrated across the Earth as fast as they could.  Sudden memory loss never sounded at all convincing to me and then it hit me today that why should these people go to England and have nothing by sharp rocks to kill an eat and yet the people that went to Egypt were able to create an amazing empire immediately after the Flood? Of course what Ken Ham does’t want to deal with is the fact that there actually are stone tools under the layers of sediments of Egypt but those are as impossible to fit into the timeline as are the footprints we have hear.  The YEC argument for stone age man is a total ad-hoc theory composed for the sole purpose of explaining away the obvious facts that at one time people had little technology.

If you haven’t recognized the glaring problem here it is:  Ham’s creation model has man dispersing from the Tower of Babel several hundred years after Noah’s Flood.  By that time the Biblical ice age (the one that Ken Ham believes must have happened because he DOES believe the historical scientific evidence that there were giant ice caps over North America and Europe even though he was not there to see it) was well underway.  Yet, these footprints are as close as you can get to proving that people were hanging out in Britain prior before a massive ice sheet descended on this area (see footnote about actual timing of the footprints).  At this time the River Thames was flowing north but these footprints were made very early in the life of that River at this location. After the footprints were made in some marsh or wetland, the river covered them with sediments.  During those years of deposition above the footprints, mammoths died and teeth, tusks and bones came to be trapped in the sediments that covered this entire part of England. To top it off, massive ice sheets moved in and scraped of much of the higher ground, reshaping the land and forcing the River Thames 60 miles south to its present position.

The footprints were found int he layer at water level in the picture. At one time this entire area including the footprints would have been covered by land as high as the top of these cliffs if not even higher.

Ken Ham might counter, how do you know the River Thames was there and then got pushed south. Where you there?  Well, again, there are so many pieces of data that all point to that history. Times arrow leaves powerful evidence of past events just like looking at the damage a bullet does can be used to determine the trajectory of that bullet without ever having to pull the trigger again.  Regardless, even if the story of the River Thames were not completely known, the enormous amount of sediment piled up on these footprints are  clearly river and glacial in origin.  Obviously even Ken Ham is not foolish enough to claim that these footprints happened during the Flood or before the Flood  given they sit above thousands of feet of sediments he believes were deposited by a global flood.  So when were they made?

If Ham’s task doesn’t seem difficult enough lets add on an additional observation/fact that his model must explain:  The current land surface above this fossil site has been occupied for thousands of years.  Archaeologists have found evidence that modern man has been in this part of England for more than 6000 years.  We have little reason to believe that the current topography (hills and valleys) of this part of England looked the same way it does today for at least the last 10,000 years.  Stonehenge itself is thought to be about 5000 years old.   Young earth creationists such as Ken Ham would reject these age estimates of course saying that no human occupation site could be more than 4500 years old.  For now let us assume that they are right and the settlements in England are younger than typically understood.  Still Stonehenge has got to be very old, let us say just 4000 years. This would necessitate that the current landscape of England has n0t changed in any significant way in the past 4000 years.

So where in the world did this 100 foot high and hundreds of square miles in area that cover these footprints come from?   That is a question that should keep Ken Ham up at night but I am sure it won’t bother him a bit.  I expect that anyone that isn’t as confident in their beliefs as he is will find these footprints very perplexing indeed.

The creationists timeline constantly finds itself at odds with observational data.   An old earth model can easily accommodate a new fossil find like this which is a hallmark of a well supported theory. The young earth model of origins must appeal to ad hoc hypotheses or claims of bias in interpretation to avoid the rather simple and obvious interpretation of the observations of fossils such as these footprints.

One thing that’s particularly frustrating to me, as a Christian, is that it seems so many of my fellow white Christians love to imagine that they would stand beside Longinus on Calvary, saying, “Truly this man was a son of God.” Yet at the same time they’re unwilling to look upon the slain body of Michael Brown, or Trayvon Martin, or Oscar Grant, and say the same thing.

The bitterest thing about Dex Digital’s bitter joke is that it’s already happened. And it just keeps happening.

There’s this mistaken idea in a lot of heroic stories that the oppressive evil villains can’t afford to kill the rebellious hero because they can’t risk turning them into a martyr. But that’s not how oppressive evil villains — or oppressive evil systems — work. They can kill without making martyrs because everyone they kill they also actively disgrace.

Thus when Ferguson, Missouri, police arrested the wrong Henry Davis then beat him bloody in a jail cell, they had to consequently thuggify him. They denied him his status as an innocent victim by charging him with a crime — four counts of property damage, because when one police officer kicked him in the head, his blood splattered onto four officers’ uniforms.

That’s a bitterly flimsy pretext for criminalizing Mr. Davis, but that’s what’s so disgraceful about this process of disgrace-ing. It doesn’t matter how flimsy or dishonest the pretext may be, it works and will keep working just as long as most people — most white people, that is — are eager to participate in the disgrace-ing and the thuggifying of innocent victims.

He “resisted arrest,” he didn’t do what he was told as quickly as he should have, he may have shoved someone, he smoked a joint, he flirted with a white girl, he broke the Sabbath and disturbed the peace. … Those are all the same thing.

Sure, in the Gospels — written decades later by devoted followers — Jesus is portrayed as perfect and sinless, an innocent, spotless lamb. But that’s not what it looked like at the time. He was executed because he was a thug who deserved it — a seditious vandal who knocked over tables, blasphemed, and threatened to destroy the House of God. Jesus died in disgrace.

Disgrace is a vital weapon for the Powers That Be. It’s their main tool — perhaps even more than physical violence — for ensuring that they remain the Powers That Be.

If you accept the anti-abortion premise and the anti-abortion logic of the Catholic hierarchy’s opposition to embryonic stem-cell research, then you must also believe that IVF fertility clinics are slaughterhouses far worse than any abortion clinic. You must also believe that couples who have used IVF treatments to have children are also morally repugnant killers complicit in mass murder.

I doubt you believe this. I doubt that anyone is capable of truly believing this — intellectually, ethically, emotionally, instinctually.

We’ve discussed this thought experiment before, but let’s do it again:

A fire breaks out in an IVF clinic. There’s a young girl, 10 years old, unconscious on the floor, and there’s a tray of frozen embryos in the freezer. You have just enough time to rescue either the girl or the embryos, but you cannot rescue both. Do you leave the burning building with a single human person — the girl? Or do you leave the girl behind and rescue the dozens of “snowflake babies” from the freezer?

I would rescue the girl, every time. And I would probably regard anyone who chose otherwise as monstrous.

I try to imagine being a child and seeing my own mother pulled out of the car and handcuffed at gunpoint, and I just can’t. When I try anyway, I’m left wondering how it would affect my view of the police as I grew up. I wonder how well Kametra Barbour’s kids will remember this incident years from now, and how it will affect them. The incident itself is over, but how long will its impact last? Will it ever be “all better”?

Because of their direct experience with racism, my African American friends have a very different response to the Michael Brown shooting story than I do. As a white man, I hear the story as just another news event: A guy was shot by a police officer. Maybe it was justified; maybe it wasn’t. The truth will come out eventually. I can be patient. It doesn’t really impact my life much one way or the other.

But to my black friends, this is a very scary story. They’ve experienced racist treatment over and over at the hands of supposedly impartial institutions. Many of them have experienced racism at the hands of police, as hard as that is for white guys like me to understand. Now here’s a story—not an isolated incident, but the latest in a long line of such stories—of someone being killed by the very folks we rely on for protection, for no apparent reason other than judgments made based on his race. If that race is also your race, that’s frightening.

My friends don’t hate the police, or government, or laws. They’re not criminals or thugs. They’re not whiners complaining about past injustices. They’re reasonable, law-abiding citizens who want to know that incidents like this are taken seriously, that there’s transparency in the process, and that the same thing couldn’t happen to them or their loved ones. Because their own life experiences—experiences I have never had—have proven to them that when someone with a gun is making a split-second decision, race matters.

Was race a factor in the treatment of Kametra Barbour, the killing of Michael Brown and Kajieme Powell, or the trial of George Zimmerman? I don’t know. It’s hard to imagine otherwise, but I wasn’t there and I can’t see into the minds of the people who were. What I do know is that these are traumatic events for an entire community, and traumatic events leave scars that may never heal. We have to take them seriously, to continue the conversations about how we can do better as a nation, and to remember that when it comes to life-altering events, the past is only truly past for those who didn’t live through it.

Because it’s not all better. And understanding that is key to moving forward together.

These figures are but a sampling of the literature available on the Late Cambrian SPICE event, which has also been documented in Texas, Missouri, Argentina, and France. The well known global excursion has aided substantially in stratigraphic correlations and provides a fascinating example of how paleoceanographers can investigate Earth’s dynamic past. In the context of Flood geology, however, the ubiquitous shift in δ13C that accompanies unique fossil patterns makes absolutely no sense. We may conclude, therefore, that evidence for the SPICE event—one of dozens of isotopic excursions correlated around the globe—is definitive proof that the geologic column was not formed catastrophically in a worldwide Flood. Creation scientists can speculate all they want about how thick sedimentary sequences were deposited in rapid succession, or how index fossils were buried in the same order on every continent. But these fanciful tales are merely distractions, if one cannot explain why chemostratigraphy continues to work so well.

During her time in the national spotlight, Warren has focused overwhelmingly on domestic issues, rarely venturing into foreign policy discussions. Many of those domestic views, particularly her strident-for-D.C. opposition to banks, have been admirable, elevating her to hero status for many progressives.

But when Warren has spoken on national security, she has invariably spouted warmed-over, banal Democratic hawk tripe of the kind that she just recited about Israel and Gaza. During her Senate campaign, for instance, she issued wildly militaristic – and in some cases clearly false – statements about Iran and its nuclear program that would have been comfortable on the pages of The Weekly Standard. 

Even as conservative Democratic Senate candidates from red states such as Nebraska’s Bob Kerrey were vehemently condemning the threat of war against Iran during their campaigns, Warren was claiming (contrary to the U.S. Government’s own assessment) that “Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons”, adding: “I support strong sanctions against Iran and believe that the United States must also continue to take a leadership role in pushing other countries to implement strong sanctions as well.” Those claims about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons remained her position even after she was told that they squarely contradict the U.S. intelligence community’s clear assessment of Iran’s actions.

“I think the vote was right, and I’ll tell you why I think the vote was right. America has a very special relationship with Israel. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world where there aren’t many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that part of the world.”

Warren said Hamas has attacked Israel “indiscriminately,” but with the Iron Dome defense system, the missiles have “not had the terrorist effect Hamas hoped for.” When pressed by another member of the crowd about civilian casualties from Israel’s attacks, Warren said she believes those casualties are the “last thing Israel wants.”

“But when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they’re using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself,” Warren said, drawing applause.