Amazing Evidence: The Human Specie is Hundreds of Millions of Years Old!

reply to post by gekados


And here’s the flip side on two of them.
paleo.cc...
The Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy

paleo.cc...
A Russian "Paluxy?"

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I've been to Glen Rose too (not a bad golf course close to the dinosaur park) and seen the prints.

Very intriguing but I didn't leave with the feeling I had seen 100% total evidence it was true...

reply to post by Signals


I felt kind of the same way. I stopped in while viewing Fossil Rim with the family. The river had been flooded recently, so there was a lot of debris laying around, too.

Either man is far, far more ancient than we know. Or there are processes, geologically, in effect with which we are either ignorant, or do not include in our logic. Otherwise, how does a foot get petrified, still lodged in a boot, out in Ozona, TX? Or what about Stuckie, the weenie dog that was petrified inside a petrified tree trunk?

Sorry but the first human species emerged only about 2.4 million years ago with Homo Habilis. Mammals didn't even become dominant until about 64 million years ago.


As well the person who discovered the footprints later admitted that it was a hoax.

reply to post by gekados


Hope this subject will finally get some more attention.

I guess you know the work of Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson, If not you really got to check em out.
Read his book "Forbidden Archeology"
If you dont like reading he has some lectures on google i think.

I would be surprised if civilisation in many manifestations was not millions of years old, the way information degrades (for example present hard drives, environmental changes, weather erosion) it is increasingy difficult to leave a record that will last the test of time.

Our oldest records seem to be cave paintings and basic hard structures, present technology is less hard wearing and could vanish without trace given enough time. Even cave paintings could be sealed away after a series of gelogical changes never to be seen again.

Over many cycles messages could have been found, recorded on less reliable media storage, destroyed and then the only record did not last.

lol carbon dating ... CRAP/FALLIBLE

reply to post by Equinox99


that was my first thought when i read the o.p. how do they date it?

i would of thought it would be like trying to date the pyramids based on how old the stone is, it would not be accurate, it would only tell you how old the stone is. the foot print is in the rock so...... maybe i just do not get it.

Originally posted by fixer1967

How old is the human race? No one knows and may never know. We could have came from another planet or another dimension. The human race could be older that the planet Earth is for that matter. The human race has been around for a very long time but I fear we may be reaching our end, at least on this planet.

Actually no....

Let me explain why, and it will seem so simple that we evolved right here on our planet from the get go. This will also explain why our planet would most likely not be very hospitable to an alien race too.

Have any of you ever wonder why we use oxygen, and not, let’s say methane, or why iron is vital to us but lead is poison, and so on with the 100s of other chemical, mineral, gasses that make us human, or at least operate correctly? The answer is because that is what earth has available for us to use, and we evolved into this very earth centric life form that would have an extremely hard time living on other planets that were even slightly different than ours.

Most heavy metals sank to the earth’s center in the early stages of earth’s beginnings which made them rather rare, where iron is abundant. Oxygen is one of the most deadly and caustic gasses in the universe but to us it is life. In early earth days there was no oxygen on earth until the first plant life started to make it. We are basically and truly from the unique makeup of the earth.

We know life is fragile and even small changes can have huge negative reactions, so think of an alien life coming here and just walking about breathing out air drinking our waters…eating our foods… I would suggest they would need a life support system to match their own home world, and our world could and most likely would be very hostile to them…even deadly, as their planet would be to us.

We are also related to every plant and animal on this planet; we share DNA with grass and trees and closely match our DNA in the high percentile to all other animals. This means as we go back down the tree of life all life at some point branched off from the same early life form.

If you say humans lived 300 million years ago from some foot prints, who is to say they are human foot prints? We know now there were many varieties of “humans” that all have died out but us.

Food for thought

what really interests me is the shoe sole imprint. Time traveling anyone?

An amateur geologist discovered a fossilized imprint of a shoe complete with thread marks and broken heel in Fisher Canyon, Pershing County, Nevada.

Link to site

reply to post by gekados


I love this thread. Its something that has been a great interest for me a long time! So please continue this thread with updates when you find some S&F

from the first links i just dont understand how we have found so many bones of dinosaurs but none of a human, just a couple of heads

Originally posted by DesertedIsland
from the first links i just dont understand how we have found so many bones of dinosaurs but none of a human, just a couple of heads

edit on 5/6/11 by DesertedIsland because: spelling

Because most dinosaur fossils that we have found are due to the mass extinction of the dinosaurs, and of skeletons that no available carrion eater was capable of breaking apart and taking away with them. Our earliest human ancestors most likely went off into the woods to die (or similar, depending upon environment), or their bodies were exposed to the environment, human burials are only about 60,000 years old, and then it was most likely an adaptation of fixed settlements and having to deal with large predators. By burying our dead we were better able to prevent large predators, such as bears, wolves and cats, from being attracted to the easy food that out domesticated animals would have provided, or perhaps as likely, because once we were settled or confined to smaller roaming grounds, we didn't like coming across the bodies of our relatives all pulled apart and scavenged like that. So we hid them away and preformed ceremonies to prevent their disturbance, that eventually became ritual. But the main reason that the there are very few complete skeletons is because the bodies would have been seperated by scavengers and taken back to burrows. Think of how effectively Ted Bundy was able to avoid detection, even though he left most of his victims lying out on sheltered inclines next to major roads. The animals did the disposal work for him.

reply to post by Pythein


Now that you mention it, does seem logical.

Any thoughs on the shoe and sandal imprints?

Originally posted by DesertedIsland
reply to post by Pythein

 

Now that you mention it, does seem logical.

Any thoughs on the shoe and sandal imprints?

None, generally. But, early humans did sew, flint needles have been found at neo-lithic sites, not unreasonable to assume that they may have experimented earlier on with footwear, as you know, some terraines, no matter how hardened by use our soles become, just aren't nice to walk on without shoes. Goat tracks have been found alongside some of the prints...the goat tends to graze on high rocky ground...a hunter might have liked shoes...someone had to have the idea first, then it takes a several millenia to catch on because everyone else is hunting on low ground...

I guess this is what happens when you get your "information" from blogs rather than peer reviewed reliable sources

But there are a lot of issues regarding this theory and geneticists from all over the planet argue that evolution doesn't work this way. For such major changes to occur, evolution needs at least hundreds of millions of years - most probably billions of years, while the official version is trying to convince us that we basically evolved 'over night'.

The above is a quote from one of your source pages, and shows clearly how misinformed those people are. The official story (aka evolution) doesn't say it happened "over night", on the contrary. But who cares about facts if you can just make stuff up, right?

Originally posted by Pauligirl
reply to post by gekados

 

And here’s the flip side on two of them.
paleo.cc...
The Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy

paleo.cc...
A Russian "Paluxy?"

Thanks for bringing some sense to this thread!!

reply to post by MrXYZ



Evolution absolutely does happen over night.

Catastrophism is the primary driver of genetic drift. Large masses of animals die off for various reasons, leaving behind groups that were likely stronger (genetically) in one area or another.

Bottlenecks are what cause "evolution". Without a bottleneck, you are generally left with far too much genetic diversity to overcome using "genetic drift" as a tool.

Edit to add: dogs are another great example. Roughly 10k years from wolf to the current wide array of genetic diversity and physical differences. Of course human intervention drove this, but if humanity is older than we think, perhaps we have driven other genetic changes? Not to mention our ability to overhunt an area/population creating additional bottlenecks.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Evolution absolutely does happen over night.

Of course it does...it's an ongoing process, not a stop and go process that takes breaks.

But that site claims WE evolved overnight, which is complete and utter nonsense!

reply to post by Pythein


that's a nice statement you have there :O, people on ats are damn smart, seeing as I'm new, hopefully I'll open up my mind more as I browse the site