290 million year old human footprint

Linnaeus

Have a look at this article, it's stunning!

www.ancient-code.com/290-million-year-old-human footprint-has-researchers-scratching-their-heads/

Hope this link works! If not, look in Google for "290 million year old human footprint". There are several online reports concerning this astonishing discovery.

Squall Leonhart

Complete rubbish.

Show me a credible source to back up the 'facts' in that link.

Linnaeus

Who knows? I never said it's true; I just said it's stunning! Would be awesome if it's a genuine ancient find...

Squall Leonhart

I would love it to be real, but it's just not...

Linnaeus

How can we know? The ways of nature are often mysterious. Evolution may repeat itself. At any rate, this footprint is not unique. Similar strange fossils have been found in various parts of the world; I think that some of them were imbedded in deep layers where it would have been extremely difficult to insert fakes...Man may have existed before "Adam and Eve", for all we know.

Squall Leonhart

I'll bow my hat to you and admit you're correct, I cannot disprove this in any way and I concede that it is possibly factual. However it is my opinion that it's not real, or if it's real that it's not as old as the article claims it to be.

Linnaeus

Please see also the following link:

www.genesispark.com/exhibits/.../footprints/

This article deals with diverse "tracks": apparently human footprints in a remote prehistoric setting.

Just in case the link doesn't work, the title of this article is "Fossil Footprints. Genesis Park".

Linnaeus

These apparently petrified footprints must be analyzed scientifically with greater care than has been given them until now. Microscope examination can determine if the impressions of feet are really ancient, or if these have been carved out in recent times.

Wibbs

If we forget about the great age involved, human footprints don't look like that and they don't appear singly in the record. That looks like a "cartoon" footprint. No tracker on earth would mistake it for the real deal. What it looks like is a a vaguely foot shaped depression that was later "improved" to make it look more real. This was quite commonly done(to even dinosaur tracks) in the USA a century ago, usually by fundamentalist Christians. That kind of interpretation continues down to today by those eager to believe the biblical story of creation(your second link is one such organisation).

Linnaeus

Thanks for this observation, Wibbs. Do your remarks apply just to that single footprint, or also to the tracks in which more than one footprint is evident? Wouldn't scientific examination be able to determine the real age of these tracks?

Why would Christians want to claim that human beings existed before Adam & Eve? Wouldn't that go against everything they had ever been taught? I know that the Kabbalah speaks of a Pre-Adamite creation, but most Christians don't seem to accept this idea.

Wibbs

Linnaeus wrote: »

Thanks for this observation, Wibbs. Do your remarks apply just to that single footprint, or also to the tracks in which more than one footprint is evident? Wouldn't scientific examination be able to determine the real age of these tracks?

Sure and they have. Or they've shown that the tracks were either a random depression, or an improvement of one or a carving.

Why would Christians want to claim that human beings existed before Adam & Eve? Wouldn't that go against everything they had ever been taught?

Not Adam and Eve, more trying to place dinosaurs and humans together, after Adam and Eve, pre "flood" in the Abrahamic timeline. Dinosaur fossils have always caused a problem with that story when their great ages were realised.

Oros

Maybe feet evolved by themselves before the rest of the human body.

Adam Khor

Most of these supossed human footprints from millions of years ago are either hoaxes (and crude ones at that), or misidentified traces from other animals.
For example, there's plenty of creationist sites claiming that human footprints were found in Texas along with those of dinosaurs, but serious scientists have studied said footprints and found them to be the partial imprint of dinosaur feet; dinosaurs, like birds, were digitigrades, meaning they walked on their toes. Once in a while, however, they would support their weight with their entire foot, either because they were sitting or because they were walking on unstable terrain and needed the extra support. This is what left the elongated track and why most of these tracks are said to be larger than a modern human's (of course, we all know creationists find dinosaurs to be a nuisance, whereas gigantic humans are perfectly ok...)

Linnaeus

At least Biblically speaking, Adam (not our dear moderator Adam, but the Father of Humankind";)) and his wife Eve are supposed to date back only 4000 years or so before Christ, which is impossibly late unless we calculate that years in Genesis actually refer to periods of many millenia. But if mainstrean Christians accept the low dating...Adam and Eve having been created when there were already several advanced civilizations on the Earth, such as the Sumerian and the Egyptian...then even they must admit that obviously our "primeval parents" were not the first humans on this planet. Pre-Diluvian civilizations before the Garden of Eden? Maybe; but Atlantis at any rate would not have existed contemporaneously with the dinosaurs. And the dinos would have gone into extinction long before the flood described in the Old Testament and the ancient Mesopotamian myth-chronicles.

So the arguments of these fanatic Christians you mentioned, Wibbs, chronologically make no sense. UNLESS there really were extremely ancient humans or humanoid beings on the Earth at the time of the dinos and even earlier...I will not expound further on this subject at this time, but will only repeat what I have said before: I've long suspected that man evolved or was created according to natural principles more than once, in diverse eras, and went into extinction or near extinction more than once.