2 million year old human footprint found - How do you creationists explain this one? The devil?

Question

Or is it God "testing us" again?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070820/sc_nm/egypt_antiquities_dc

Foxtrot - yes, it is leaping ahead- but in the end, it is safe to say, it will be much, much older than 6-8,000 years.

wow, where are all the evolutionists and scientists tonight?

Answer 1

They will claim that radiometric dating is "unreliable", and probably confuse carbon dating with other radiometric methods.

In fairness, though the prints have not been definitively dated, so there's nothing to explain, yet.

Also it's unlikely that a 2 million year old footprint would be "human" - rather that of a hominid ancestor or more likely relative of modern humans.

Answer 2

first I want to say that I am a creationist...but this is just going to be too much fun. Ok now for the article. Am I the only one that finds it hysterically funny that this is classified as a 'human footprint'? I thought that WWWAAAAYYYYYY back then we were apes? Now you have a 'human footprint' before you had 'humans' it just gets better and better. Forget the part about the 'carbon dating' we know that that doesn't work and that they don't do blind studies with the testing.
Thanks for showing once again how absurd evolution really is =)

Answer 3

A lot of presuppositions going on here.

"This could go back about two million years," said Zahi Hawass

The operative word is "could" or could not. They do not know, simply presuming.


Scientists are using carbon tests on plants found in the rock to determine its exact age, Hawass said.

Carbon 14 testing reveals ages in the thousands, not millions.

"Khaled Saad, the director of prehistory at the council, said that based on the age of the rock where the footprint was found, it could date back even further than the renowned 3-million year-old fossil Lucy, the partial skeleton of an ape-man, found in Ethiopia in 1974."

And how did they determine the age of the rock? By the fossils found in them and the geologic column, which was a creation of Charles Lyell, who neither saw it or observed it, he made it up. How did they come up with the age of the fossils? By the rocks, and so the circular reasoning continues.

And, about Lucy, she or it is not a transitional form, that has been debunked.

"‘Lucy’ is the popular name given to the famous fossil skeleton found in 1974 in Ethiopia by American anthropologist Donald Johanson. To many people, Lucy is regarded as a certain link between ape-like creatures and man—thus supposedly proving evolution. But is Lucy really a pre-human ancestor?

According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is ‘imagination made of plaster of paris’.1 Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

In reinforcement of the fact that Lucy is not a creature ‘in between’ ape and man, Dr Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):

‘The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been’.2

Oxnard’s firm conclusion? ‘The australopithecines are unique.’3

Neither Lucy nor any other australopithecine is therefore intermediate between humans and African apes. Nor are they similar enough to humans to be any sort of ancestor of ours.

Lucy and the australopithecines show nothing about human evolution, and should not be promoted as having any sort of ‘missing link’ status. The creationist alternative, that humans, apes and other creatures were created that way in the beginning, remains the only explanation consistent with all the evidence. "

Answer 4

Paleontologists need to explain in more detail how they know the rocks are at least 2 million years old. Creationists use these redactions of details as ammunition to say that scientists cover things up.

.

Answer 5

I think the key words you glossed over in this article are the sprinklings of the word "could".

Why are you so willing to leap to the conclusion that the scientists would only assert?

If this is how the general public comes to trust is 'science', by gulping down the 'suggestive' nature of such an article, how is it you say the religious have 'blind faith'?

Keep up the good work.

So let's see the amount of suggestive language we can find shall. we?

We'll go sentence by sentence.
1. found what they said COULD BE....
2. This COULD go back...
3. It COULD be the......
4. nothing..
5. nothing..
6. carbon tests (only reliable if the conditions on the earth are a constant, but they aren't they fluctuate).
7. it could date...
8. nothing
9. dated back AROUND 200,000 years.

That is a whole lot of maybes.

Answer 6

how can you even be halfway sure that what you heard is even real?? did you see the footprint?? did you actually examine it to find that it was 2 million years old?? i bet you also fell for that guys claim that the divinci code was fact, right?? well you see how quickly that blew over...there is always gonna be someone somwhere that makes desperate attempts to disprove christianity.. and everytime, you guys have failed! you guys have yet to give any halfway solid theories to why GOD doesnt exist.....so, nice try, but looks like you may need to dig a lil deeper into your bucket of garbage and lies if your gonna try and sway someone.

Answer 7

No!
It was God that created that human and made him left his footprint there.

2 million years old? No tests that so accurate that you claim it to be true.

Answer 8

I think you have failed to take into account the fact that the bible is NOT dated. No where does it say WHEN he created the earth and mankind, Just that he did....

Peace and God bless from Texas <><

Answer 9

It's probably when the Martians landed, getting away from their dying planet.

Answer 10

I love it when people share interesting things like this, keeps me from being too ignorant and speaking before investigating. Thank you so much for sharing this article. That is so cool. Well done!

edit: Johno - you almost made me pee my pants, lmfao