500 Million-Year-Old Human Footprint Fossil Baffles Scientists

[Wolseley]

MSN

^^^ (link)

I'll tell you what I think. I think the so-called "scientific experts" don't know half of what they'd like us all to *believe* they know. The most knowledgeable, well-informed, well-educated scientists in the world are really standing on a low island in the middle of a sea of ignorance; and any evidence that comes along which challenges their erudite theories, they deal with by airily dismissing them.

EXPLORER: "Here: I found a human footprint from 500 million years ago!"
SCIENTIST: "Impossible. Human beings didn't exist 500 million years ago."
EXPLORER: "Then how do you explain this concrete evidence?"
SCIENTIST: "I don't have to explain it. Human beings didn't exist 500 million years ago."
EXPLORER: "Apparently they must have---this is solid proof, right here in my hand!"
SCIENTIST: "That proves nothing. Human beings didn't exist 500 million years ago."
EXPLORER: "I am presenting you with evidence that says otherwise."
SCIENTIST: "I don't care *what* evidence you present. I will not accept it, because human beings didn't exist 500 million years ago."

And 'round and 'round we go.

Personally, I think this conundrum can only be reasonably explained in one of three ways:

1. Human beings have been around a lot longer than science believes.
2. The dating systems used by science are radically flawed.
3. Sometime in the future, mankind will develop time travel, allowing humans to go backwards 500 million years and leave their footprints behind.

I favor #2, myself; #1 might have some merit as well. #3, I have my doubts. But there we are.

 

[FaithT]

MSN

^^^ (link)

I'll tell you what I think. I think the so-called "scientific experts" don't know half of what they'd like us all to *believe* they know. The most knowledgeable, well-informed, well-educated scientists in the world are really standing on a low island in the middle of a sea of ignorance; and any evidence that comes along which challenges their erudite theories, they deal with by airily dismissing them.

EXPLORER: "Here: I found a human footprint from 500 million years ago!"
SCIENTIST: "Impossible. Human beings didn't exist 500 million years ago."
EXPLORER: "Then how do you explain this concrete evidence?"
SCIENTIST: "I don't have to explain it. Human beings didn't exist 500 million years ago."
EXPLORER: "Apparently they must have---this is solid proof, right here in my hand!"
SCIENTIST: "That proves nothing. Human beings didn't exist 500 million years ago."
EXPLORER: "I am presenting you with evidence that says otherwise."
SCIENTIST: "I don't care *what* evidence you present. I will not accept it, because human beings didn't exist 500 million years ago."

And 'round and 'round we go.

Personally, I think this conundrum can only be reasonably explained in one of three ways:

1. Human beings have been around a lot longer than science believes.
2. The dating systems used by science are radically flawed.
3. Sometime in the future, mankind will develop time travel, allowing humans to go backwards 500 million years and leave their footprints behind.

I favor #2, myself; #1 might have some merit as well. #3, I have my doubts. But there we are.

It’s said humans have been around for about 300,000 years. Hmmmmm…….

 

[FaithT]

It’s said humans have been around for about 300,000 years. Hmmmmm…….

They could’ve been around for 500 millions of years it I doubt it.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

MSN

^^^ (link)

I'll tell you what I think. I think the so-called "scientific experts" don't know half of what they'd like us all to *believe* they know. The most knowledgeable, well-informed, well-educated scientists in the world are really standing on a low island in the middle of a sea of ignorance; and any evidence that comes along which challenges their erudite theories, they deal with by airily dismissing them.

EXPLORER: "Here: I found a human footprint from 500 million years ago!"
SCIENTIST: "Impossible. Human beings didn't exist 500 million years ago."
EXPLORER: "Then how do you explain this concrete evidence?"
SCIENTIST: "I don't have to explain it. Human beings didn't exist 500 million years ago."
EXPLORER: "Apparently they must have---this is solid proof, right here in my hand!"
SCIENTIST: "That proves nothing. Human beings didn't exist 500 million years ago."
EXPLORER: "I am presenting you with evidence that says otherwise."
SCIENTIST: "I don't care *what* evidence you present. I will not accept it, because human beings didn't exist 500 million years ago."

And 'round and 'round we go.

Personally, I think this conundrum can only be reasonably explained in one of three ways:

1. Human beings have been around a lot longer than science believes.
2. The dating systems used by science are radically flawed.
3. Sometime in the future, mankind will develop time travel, allowing humans to go backwards 500 million years and leave their footprints behind.

I favor #2, myself; #1 might have some merit as well. #3, I have my doubts. But there we are.

A foot print is not evidence, where's the skeleton?

 

[Wolseley]

A foot print is not evidence, where's the skeleton?

Why do you feel that the footprint isn't evidence?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Why do you feel that the footprint isn't evidence?

Could have been a foot print of anything else, space aliens, angels, something extinct etc.

Without the skeleton, it's all just guesswork that it was a human.

 

[Wolseley]

Could have been a foot print of anything else, space aliens, angels, something extinct etc.

Without the skeleton, it's all just guesswork that it was a human.

So it is evidence, there's just no way of telling that it's evidence of what, is that what you mean?

 

[Sword of the Lord]

I don't believe in their dating system at all. I don't believe anything is nearly as old as they say it is.

 

[RileyG]

It’s said humans have been around for about 300,000 years. Hmmmmm…….

Maybe they meant the ancestors to humans?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

So it is evidence, there's just no way of telling that it's evidence of what, is that what you mean?

Yes.

What it was a footprint of could be extinct with no bones to analyse so ... The scientist saying, no that's impossible touches on an important point too.

 

[FaithT]

Maybe they meant the ancestors to humans?

Do you mean the ancestors to Adam and Eve or something else? Because I believe in theistic evolution.

 

[RileyG]

Do you mean the ancestors to Adam and Eve or something else? Because I believe in theistic evolution.

Adam and Eve were our first parents. I also accept theistic evolution.

 

[FaithT]

Adam and Eve were our first parents. I also accept theistic evolution.

I had some really frequent and in-depth conversations with my former pastor at the Lutheran church I went to about all kinds of science vs religion topics including theistic evolution. I was trying to get him to say something that would convince me that the beliefs of the LCMS were true and that I was wrong but he never did. Then it occurred to me that our conversations might’ve been affecting his faith negatively.

 

[RileyG]

I had some really frequent and in-depth conversations with my former pastor at the Lutheran church I went to about all kinds of science vs religion topics including theistic evolution. I was trying to get him to say something that would convince me that the beliefs of the LCMS were true and that I was wrong but he never did. Then it occurred to me that our conversations might’ve been affecting his faith negatively.

Interesting. Are you familiar with Lutheran Wisconsin Synod? They’re the most conservative and very insular.

 

[FaithT]

Interesting. Are you familiar with Lutheran Wisconsin Synod? They’re the most conservative and very insular.

I’ve heard of them but they aren’t in my area that I know of.

 

[JSRG]

MSN

^^^ (link)

I'll tell you what I think. I think the so-called "scientific experts" don't know half of what they'd like us all to *believe* they know. The most knowledgeable, well-informed, well-educated scientists in the world are really standing on a low island in the middle of a sea of ignorance; and any evidence that comes along which challenges their erudite theories, they deal with by airily dismissing them.

EXPLORER: "Here: I found a human footprint from 500 million years ago!"
SCIENTIST: "Impossible. Human beings didn't exist 500 million years ago."
EXPLORER: "Then how do you explain this concrete evidence?"
SCIENTIST: "I don't have to explain it. Human beings didn't exist 500 million years ago."
EXPLORER: "Apparently they must have---this is solid proof, right here in my hand!"
SCIENTIST: "That proves nothing. Human beings didn't exist 500 million years ago."
EXPLORER: "I am presenting you with evidence that says otherwise."
SCIENTIST: "I don't care *what* evidence you present. I will not accept it, because human beings didn't exist 500 million years ago."

And 'round and 'round we go.

Personally, I think this conundrum can only be reasonably explained in one of three ways:

1. Human beings have been around a lot longer than science believes.
2. The dating systems used by science are radically flawed.
3. Sometime in the future, mankind will develop time travel, allowing humans to go backwards 500 million years and leave their footprints behind.

I favor #2, myself; #1 might have some merit as well. #3, I have my doubts. But there we are.

Except this didn't "baffle scientists", nor did they not offer explanations. The video omits mentioning the fact rebuttals were offered decades ago, as only a little searching will quickly cover (and those rebuttals were not just saying "I don't have to explain it. Human beings didn't exist 500 million years ago.")

For example:

Tripping Over a Trilobite: A Study of the Meister Tracks | National Center for Science Education

On March 1, 1973, a creation-evolution debate was held at California State University in Sacramento. The creationist team consisted of Dr. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research and Reverend Boswell of a local Sacramento church. The scientific team consisted of Dr.

ncse.ngo

The "Meister Print"

Meister Print (alleged sandal print in stone)

paleo.cc

Heck, Wikipedia even has an article on it:

Meister Print - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The video not addressing, or even mentioning, these points shows either a lack of research on their part or perhaps they deliberately concealed it in order to make a more provocative video.