Footprints

[mixin machine]

This fossilized sandal print is embedded in rock which is supposed to be from 300 million to 600 million years old.

It's clear that the rock was formed After this print was made.

Now, either 1)This is a fake (its been tested and is not) 2)or--This rock is not really 300 million plus years old 3)or---the rock is 300 million plus years old and man was around 300 million years ago.

This artifact was found in Utah in the 1960's. It's no wonder that geologists and the like are not swarming over it because, whichever of the solutions you accept above (except that it's a fake), it obliterates a number of the tenets of modern dating, geology and evolutionary science.
​

 

[gluadys]

This fossilized sandal print is embedded in rock which is supposed to be from 300 million to 600 million years old.

It's clear that the rock was formed After this print was made.

Now, either 1)This is a fake (its been tested and is not) 2)or--This rock is not really 300 million plus years old 3)or---the rock is 300 million plus years old and man was around 300 million years ago.

This artifact was found in Utah in the 1960's. It's no wonder that geologists and the like are not swarming over it because, whichever of the solutions you accept above (except that it's a fake), it obliterates a number of the tenets of modern dating, geology and evolutionary science.
​

The rest of the story
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/meister.htm

 

[shernren]

.

 

[notto]

Now, either 1)This is a fake (its been tested and is not) 2)or--This rock is not really 300 million plus years old 3)or---the rock is 300 million plus years old and man was around 300 million years ago.
​

You left out 4) its not a footprint.

Guess what the case is?

4) its not a footprint.

 

[mixin machine]

The rest of the story
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/meister.htm

So this is the explanation that site gave for the print.

the "print" itself appears to be due solely to inorganic, geologic phenomena.