Humanlike Footprints
Humanlike footprints, supposedly 150-600 million years old, have been
found in rock formations in Utah (a), Kentucky (b), Missouri (c), and
possibly Pennsylvania (d). At Laetoli, in the east African country of
Tanzania, a team headed by Mary Leakey found a sequence of humanlike
footprints (e). They were dated at 3.7 million years. If human feet
made any of these prints, then evolutionary chronology is drastically
wrong.
a. Melvin A. Cook, "William J. Meister Discovery of Human Footprints
with Trilobites in a Cambrian Formation of Western Utah," Why Not
Creation? editor Walter E. Lammerts (Phillipsburg, New Jersey:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1970), pp. 185-193.
Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, Forbidden Archeology (San
Diego: Bhaktivedanta Institute, 1993), pp. 810-813.
b. "Geology and Ethnology Disagree about Rock Prints," Science News
Letter, 10 December 1938, p. 372.
c. Henry R. Schoolcraft and Thomas H. Benton, "Remarks on the Prints
of Human Feet, Observed in the Secondary Limestone of the Mississippi
Valley," The American Journal of Science and Arts, Vol. 5, 1822, pp.
223-231.
d. "Human-Like Tracks in Stone are Riddle to Scientists," Science News
Letter, 29 October 1938, pp. 278-279.
e. " 'Make no mistake about it,' says Tim [White, who is probably
recognized as the leading authority on the Laetoli footprints]. 'They
are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a
California beach today, and a four-year-old were asked what it was, he
would instantly say that someone had walked there. He wouldn't be able
to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you.
The external morphology is the same. There is a well-shaped modern
heel with a strong arch and a good ball of the foot in front of it.
The big toe is straight in line. It doesn't stick out to the side like
an ape toe, or like the big toe in so many drawings you see of
Australopithecines in books.' " Johanson and Edey, p. 250.
The big toe of Australopithecus africanus splayed out to the side, as
in apes. Obviously, the Laetoli footprints were not made by
Australopithecines, as most evolutionists claim.
"In sum, the 3.5-million-year-old footprint trails at Laetoli Site G
resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their
features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds
than we are. If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would
readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus,
Homo. ... we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli
footprints were made by Lucy's kind, Australopithecus afarensis."
Russell H. Tuttle, "The Pitted Pattern of Laetoli Feet," Natural
History, Vol. 99, March 1990, p. 64.
Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Are
Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.
To estimate a date prior to the beginning of written records, one must
assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the
clock's initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been
disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated,
overlooked, or invalid.
http://www.creationscience.com/
.
|
