Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Million Year Old HUMAN Footprint Found.

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

To wit, 1.5 million-year-old footprints excavated in Africa, initially thought to reflect a thoroughly modern walking style, were instead made by individuals that walked differently than people today do, researchers reported April 13 at the annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. And findings presented April 12 at the meeting revealed the surprisingly apelike qualities of foot fossils from a 2 million-year-old species that some researchers regard as the root of the Homo genus.


www.sciencenews.org...




I just uploaded this to my Youtube page



So what does this mean? That carbon dating is inaccurate, and this footprint is only few thousand years old (which would change the laughable geometric column) or that it IS accurate and everything we were taught about evolution is incorrect?

I think both are bull, IMO.




posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
How can you tell its human? I only see 4 distinct toes markings.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Interesting but to call it 'human' seems a bit of a stretch. I would say homonid, yes.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Give me a chisel and I can make you footprints dancing the Macarena.

Also explain to me how a human can indent his foot thru 4 inches of solid rock.

And where are the rest of his prints, Or is he a one legged super human who can traverse the earth in a single bound.

This belongs in the hoax forum with the missing "link"



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Cool find! I love prehistoric footprints like these.
Is'nt there a place in the US that has dino foot prints along side homonid type footprints?



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
i think they need to do more researching in the area they found this footprint, simply because something is not adding up.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


These prints would have been made on a muddy surface that over thousands of years solidified
into rock.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN


So what does this mean? That carbon dating is inaccurate, and this footprint is only few thousand years old (which would change the laughable geometric column) or that it IS accurate and everything we were taught about evolution is incorrect?

I think both are bull, IMO.

 


Did you bother to read the article? It is suggesting the hominid that made this footprint is the missing link. I don't know where you get either of your ideas from the information being presented.




posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 





Also explain to me how a human can indent his foot thru 4 inches of solid rock.


If the print is indeed 1.5 million years old.....then it would probably been mud wouldn't it.....how do you think we have prints from dinosaurs?



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Give me a chisel and I can make you footprints dancing the Macarena.

Also explain to me how a human can indent his foot thru 4 inches of solid rock.

And where are the rest of his prints, Or is he a one legged super human who can traverse the earth in a single bound.

This belongs in the hoax forum with the missing "link"



ichnofossils

Fossilized dinosaur tracks are forms of trace fossils, also known as ichnites or ichnofossils. Unlike body fossils, which are the remains of dead bodies, trace fossils record the active movements and behaviors of ancient organisms. Besides footprints, trace fossils include fossilized burrows, dens, feeding tunnels, eggs, nests, stomach contents, coprolites (excrement), tooth and claw marks, and any other product or trace formed while an ancient organism was still alive.



Danged people and their make believe science
... Oh wait.


Trace Fossils


Have fun....



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
So what does this mean? That carbon dating is inaccurate...



Carbon dating cant be mentioned in the context of a million year old item, since carbon dating only works back several thousands of years due to the short halflife.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Give me a chisel and I can make you footprints dancing the Macarena.

Also explain to me how a human can indent his foot thru 4 inches of solid rock.

And where are the rest of his prints, Or is he a one legged super human who can traverse the earth in a single bound.

This belongs in the hoax forum with the missing "link"


I love these statements.

Please... by all means. A chisel is pretty easy to find... a rock also. Tomorrow present us a footprint that looks like that... or half of it. I'll pay you. I'll wire you real money... go ahead. Seriously. And I wont even give you a deadline... its one of those WID projects.

"Also explain to me how a human can indent his foot thru 4 inches of solid rock."

Oh... wait, better not. After all, when someone says this I can't really trust him with a chisel let alone believe that he even knows what a chisel is.

What? Then people come and edit my posts because I insult people... seriously. Most of the times I'm joking but... this time, this is probably one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Give me a chisel and I can make you footprints dancing the Macarena.

Also explain to me how a human can indent his foot thru 4 inches of solid rock.

And where are the rest of his prints, Or is he a one legged super human who can traverse the earth in a single bound.

This belongs in the hoax forum with the missing "link"



You sure showed them.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Sorry guys, the article and the video are from different sources. my mistake



Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
So what does this mean? That carbon dating is inaccurate...



Carbon dating cant be mentioned in the context of a million year old item, since carbon dating only works back several thousands of years due to the short halflife.



Exactly.. Plus the world only recently is at an equailbrium of carbon coming in and out, due to stability of the sun (somewhat)

Who knows what it may have been millions, haha, of years ago.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
So what does this mean? That carbon dating is inaccurate, and this footprint is only few thousand years old (which would change the laughable geometric column) or that it IS accurate and everything we were taught about evolution is incorrect?

I think both are bull, IMO.


Carbon 14 dating is for organic matter only. Also, as I understand it, it's only good back about 70,000 years max, unless they've refined it considerably in the last few years. So Carbon dating would NOT be used on a footprint in the first place, and not one that is this old. As far as the conclusions of the article, it appears to be saying the footprint was made by a more primitive creature, more ape-like, than first thought, that it isn't modern at all. In other words, it's not an anomaly and its presence does not contradict what we think we know about human origins.

In terms of this undocumented video, i believe that's Michael Cremo talking. He wrote "Forbidden Archeology" a number of years ago where he claims to have cataloged hundreds of artifacts that "prove" ancient humans, giant skeletons, etc.

The problem with Cremo is two fold. First, his documentation is really bad, often consisting of old newspaper accounts from the 1800s. I've read his 1,000 page book clear through. Even here in this vid you notice he provided no proof at all that Mary Leakey found such footprints. He says it's all been suppressed because of money and power. How, exactly? That's a pretty broad claim. Further, Cremo is a Hare Krishna type guy, a Hindu creationist, deep into it, and his religion says humans are ancient, so he's sticking up for it. That's not exactly objective. His Hindu name is Drutakarma Dasa.

In conclusion, there's nothing in this find that contradicts anything about evolution at all.


Exactly.. Plus the world only recently is at an equailbrium of carbon coming in and out, due to stability of the sun (somewhat)


OoooooK! Which is PRECISELY why controls are sought and used. You think C14 guys have never thought of this? The very first carbon dating was done on an Egyptian boat where the age was known because of Egyptian historical texts. The C14 tests aligned perfectly with the texts, so it accurately determined the age of the boat. PhD dissertations have been done on this issue.

In any case C14 is NOT an issue here. It was not used, so why was it even brought up?
edit on 1/2/2013 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


Actually you're being way too generous. The 70k mark is only one special little snow flake isotopic method and its not very common to use it - the common way goes no more than 50k.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
How can they tell its 1 million years old as im sure carbon dating doesn't stretch back that far is it just a rough guess or is there some other way ?



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snoopie
How can they tell its 1 million years old as im sure carbon dating doesn't stretch back that far is it just a rough guess or is there some other way ?


There are other methods of course... stratification. But... for me stratification is based in a circular logic which can often lead to mistakes. Simple answer... we dont know anything for sure. Nothing about ancient history is absolute certainty, its all estimations.

Sometimes it gets really stupid... I'll try to make it simple... like "how do you know how old is this object? By how deep it is and the layer that was found. And how do you know how old is the layer? By the objects we found on that layer..." Seriously... it is like that sometimes. It gets really dumb like that. The problem is that,... I would say about 99% of all archaeologists and historians have 2 issues: 1) Ruining their careers and being the laughing stock of a whole community, AND 2) They have a problem saying "I... DONT... KNOW". But then if you dont know why are you an historian or an archaeologist? Because I've spent more time than you so I could be certain that I don't know.

Its kind of a disappointment but yes, everything you know, you dont... you only think you know until a better explanation comes along that makes more sense or its more logical than yours or the current theory.
edit on 2-1-2013 by FraternitasSaturni because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
In any case C14 is NOT an issue here. It was not used, so why was it even brought up?



It was brought up because...
1. Its the most "popular" one in the media, so its likely the only one that people ignorant of the topic have ever heard of.
2. Its the one that young earth creations, ignorant of the topic, like to bash on. And thus likely the only one that people who visit creationist sites have ever heard of.


But anyway, a bit of background reading shows that these footprints were discovered a few years back. Todays news is just a more recent bit of work on them.
HERE is an article from Science, in 2009. (pdf format)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
The article in Science I just cited says...



The footprints occur within a 9-m-thick sequence of fine-grained, normally graded, silt and sand units
deposited as overbank flood deposits with evidence of paleosol development.

Interbedded within this succession are three fluvially reworked volcanic ashes; the upper ash
(Northern Ileret Tuff) forms a prominent landscape bench that correlates with other nearby sites
where traces of hominin activity have been recovered (15) and is unconformably overlain by
the Galana Boi Formation of Holocene age (12).

The ash layers are correlated geochemically to dated tuffs within the Turkana Basin, thereby
providing an age of 1.51 to 1.52 Ma for the upper tuff and1.53Ma for the lower tuff.


The authors cite THIS journal article for the dating.


Sequence of tuffs between the KBS Tuff and the Chari Tuff in the Turkana Basin, Kenya and Ethiopia

The sequence of tuffs that is derived is consistent with 40Ar/39Ar ages reported separately


edit on 2-1-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join