2 million year old foot print found in egypt

reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel



Thanks, I'd trust an anthropology board before the MSM on something like this, although it seems the author is interpreting the story to be about a hominid (more plausible, still unusual though.) Seems (s)he is looking at the same sources we are.

Thanks, though, that link is probably a good place to bookmark to watch for developments.

Regards.

Here's a photo of the Egyptian footprint:

www.almasry-alyoum.com...

Here's a couple about the Paluxy River human/dinasour footprints:

www.talkorigins.org...

Modern man is usually dated back to 75,000 years ago. Of course, we know about Lucy who has been mentioned above. She is a pre-human. Dated to about5 2.7 million years ago. Wikipedia says anatomically modern humans appear in the fossil record in Africa about 130,000 years ago.

Via Google: Oldest human footprints found. Italian scientists find three human footprint trails that were made 350000 years ago.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2844287.stm


[edit on 8/21/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
Modern man is usually dated back to 75,000 years ago. Of course, we know about Lucy who has been mentioned above. She is a pre-human. Dated to about5 2.7 million years ago.

Actually, Lucy is no longer considered a direct ancestor. Oops... another Icon bites the dust, as they say.

Via Google: Oldest human footprints found. Italian scientists find three human footprint trails that were made 350000 years ago.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2844287.stm

[edit on 8/21/2007 by donwhite]

Cool, never heard of those, thanks. But if you read it carefully you'll notice it read: "Commentators say the prints were probably made by Homo heidelbergensis, a forerunner of Neanderthals, that dominated Europe at this time."

So it wasn't a "human footprint," but a hominid's. Which is, most likely, what we're dealing with here... only this one is much older. And, imagine, if it really is human.


Interesting to ponder the implications....

Where could I put a footprint that will be here 2 million years from now? What kind of conditions would have to be met? Immediately covered by sediment before rain could wash it away? How does this work?

reply to post by HimWhoHathAnEar




According to the OP source:

Archaeologists found the footprint, imprinted on mud and then hardened into rock, while exploring a prehistoric site in Siwa, a desert oasis.

Try a google search for fossil footprints, should be plenty of examples for a variety of species (especially dinosaurs.) Not commonplace, necessarily, but not hard to imagine how it might happen in a variety of conditions/scenarios.

Originally posted by theebdk
I am going to wait until carbon dating is done on this to pass judgement.Religions will freak out or at least deny deny deny to our face.

I think you may be riight here! The religious establishment will probably deny this; however, God never sets a limit to the amount of time man has been on this planet. God mentions through Moses, in Genesis, that he created man (and woman) in his likeness. The early church, which interpreted the Bible literally counted the geaneologies mentioned in Genesis as the entire line of man.

Personally, I believe God created Adam then Eve first. The rest of the geneology of Genesis outlines the patriarchs of every middleastern, N.African, S. Europe, and W. Asian country. The emphasis throughout the Bible is ultimately focused on the line of Jesus successfully from Abraham and through David.

The early religious leaders, Jesus also rebuked them in his day, set forth the dogmatic interpretation that we have been taught through the ages. These are the same people who had both Galilao and Capernicus jailed for their discoveries, even though the bible mentions both that the world is round (Is. 40:22) with the sun at it's center (can't remember currently).


We need to remember that most of the falacies that exist in religion today is the result of these early dogmatic religious leaders who could not tolerate a challenge to their authority. This is not what Jesus, who never started a church, had intended.

What I am tring to say by all this is that the Bible mostly traces the bloodline of Christ first, the development of Israel and Judaism (OT), then the spread of the gospel according to Jesus(NT).
It will not shake as many people's faith as some people believe, simply because I am concerned more about my relationship with Christ and God.
Paul said in Corinthians (2:2) that " I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Christ and him crucified".

I hope scientists find that man has been here for a googleplex. It doesn't bother me. I know that God is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the End.
My ways are not God's ways. His ways are as far from my ways as Heaven is from Earth. That's why man will never know the mind of God or understand the way God works! Also, that is why God will always be a mystery to man!

reply to post by Rren


I agree anything older than about 75,000 years cannot be called a modern human. Most of those mentioned here are in the general line of hominids that ultimately produced homo sapiens.

[edit on 8/21/2007 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite



Fair enough, we're on the same page I think, Mr. White. I still think this was just badly/mis-reported. But, either way, we've either got us a human, or an upright hominid, walking around Egypt ~2mya, which is pretty neat. Either way... but if human, wow!


Regards.

They still have to test it and see more or less how old it is. There are other methods for testing the age of this footprint.

It is interesting, but I would say we better wait to see.

I do think that mankind has been in this planet for a very long time.

I do think that mankind has been in this planet for a very long time.

Much as I agree with Muaddib, how come the populations of Hominids have only grown to current levels so recently, or....

Have populations of human like creatures expanded dramatically and then crashed over eons ?

If populations have crashed in the past then why ?

Disease ?
Ice ages ?
Polar shifts ?
Asteroid strikes ?
Worth thinking about...










[edit on 21-8-2007 by sy.gunson]

I don't see how carbon dating is going to help unless it says that it is under 60,000 years old. If I am not mistaken that is the limit that carbon dating can go. Carbon dating cannot go back millions of years.

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Ha ha this is so funny.

The Bible suggests that Adam and eve lived only a little over 4,000 years ago.

interesting.

The Mitochondrial Eve theory based on DNA holds that we all had a common ancestor. The Mitochondrial_Eve is suggested to have lived anywhere between 385,000 years ago and 140,000 years ago depending whose theory you listen to.

Even worse, Mitochondrial Adam is suggested to have only turned up 60,000 years ago... Hey one up for the femminists (alternately Nature could have decided to replace women as a failed experiment ha ha)

I know that fossil remains have pushed back early humans to at least one million years ago.

The real interesting footprints come from a river somewhere in USA, where a layer was exposed revealing human footprints and dinasour footprints in the same geological stratum...

Explain that one ?

Carbon dating is fairly inaccurate. What makes it even more inaccurate is that it is used by man. Since when did we become infallible? We know more about the depths of space then we do our own planet.

I think the dinosaur with the human footprints could actually go to show that man and dinosaur co-existed. In the bible I believe it talks about such beast (dinosaurs) living beside man. So that wouldnt necessarily go to disprove the bible. (not really sure why you laughed at that)

I think another thing that is interesting, is the hammer that turned up in sediment that was carbon dated to be well over 30 million years old. This, shows nothing more then an inaccurate way of how we simpleton ass humans go about 'predicting' such non sense.

Originally posted by BugZyZuncle

Personally, I believe God created Adam then Eve first. The rest of the geneology of Genesis outlines the patriarchs of every middleastern, N.African, S. Europe, and W. Asian country. The emphasis throughout the Bible is ultimately focused on the line of Jesus successfully from Abraham and through David.

I'm curious and nobody has yet provided an answer to a couple of questions, maybe you, as someone who believes in god can :

1. Who was the second woman?
2. Who were her parents or was she created like Eve?

Originally posted by malcr

I'm curious and nobody has yet provided an answer to a couple of questions, maybe you, as someone who believes in god can :

1. Who was the second woman?
2. Who were her parents or was she created like Eve?

I wonder what does "Lilith" have to do with this thread?...

Yes Lilith was Adam's first wife supposedly, who didn't want to be subservient to Adam and she was cast from paradise and transformed into a demoness who fornicated with other demons and gave birth to demons the world over. The story changes from culture to culture. Apparently it first appeared in Sumerian mythology as Lilitu, around the year 3,000 BC.

It really has nothing to do with this discovery.

Sy-gunson ...

i tend to lean towards us being around a lot longer than people think. we have probably been virtually wiped out many times due to natural disasters.

muadib.....

It really has nothing to do with this discovery.

Ty for that...

People please do not let this degreade into another religous discussion that has been done a billion times. lets focus on the footprint and speculate... when the scientist's come out and say yes its a modern human print and yes its 2 million years old then the religous discussion will take place on the proper forum i am sure. but remeber its incredibly difficult to shake faith regardless of evidence.

OMG this does not fit in with the time line that people have been spoon fed now for the last couple of hundred years......
Discredit it and sweep it under the carpet.....move along people.....nothing to see here......

West Coast wrote:

So that wouldnt necessarily go to disprove the bible. (not really sure why you laughed at that)

I laughed because this whole subject is rich with irony. Surely you don't need humour explained to you ?

Stop being so serious. You'll get hypertension

Quantum_squirral... Ditto. I absolutely agree.

Cyber wasp You've been watching too much Matrix again. Snap out of it boy.

Obviously carbon dating offers no explanations. Hard to see how isotope testing will explain anything more than the age of the rock. I suppose if it is sedimentary it may be possible to age the crystaline formation in the rock to when the print was frozen.

Someone asked about the process which causes a fossilised print. My suggestion is it was left on the muddy banks of drying out water hole, followed by an extensive drought and possibly covered by blowing sand.

And yes it is funny that this one defies the twin dogmas of science and religion.

But the "dogma" of science is malleable and meant to change, however only under harsh scrutiny.

I'd be interested to see how this effects our current understanding of Hominid migration through central and north Africa. When were hominids thought to be settled in North Africa before this discovery?

ERRRRRRRRR.....

How old is a Hammer you buy in the store?

The day you buy it?
The day it was forged?
The day the steel was melted?
The day the Iron Ore was taken out of the ground?
The day the Iron Ore was formed?