An interesting wrench to throw into the idea of pre-humans, and dating.

In a National Geographic magazine they reference the discovery of fossilized footprints in 3.6 million year old volcanic ash.

Quote:

As I kneel beside the large print and lightly touch its sole, I am filled with quiet awe. It looks perfectly modern. “I thought that at three and a half million years ago their prints might be somehow different from ours,” says Latimer. “But they aren’t. The bipedal adaptation of those hominids was full-blown.”



So in 3.6 million years feet haven't changed at all? But within a shorter time frame they managed to adapt to the more hand-like monkey feet seperate from ours, and ape feet, and the various other monkey feet, and all of the pre-human feet?

Evolutionists say these aren't human footprints though. (Is there anything more apparently biased than finding human footprints and saying, without any evidence, that they aren't human footprints?)

Of course, you can't bring any evidence against evolutionists. They'll just say, "That's just the way it is." There's no arguing with religious cranks, because their magical 'god' can work in mysterious ways.

Anyone with a rational mind can now (assuming the dating methods are correct) say that humans lived 3.6 million years ago. Which solves the problem of pre-humans because that puts us right alongside pretty much all of the extinct pre-humans.

Unless someone wants to argue that, for some reason, pre-humans evolved human feet millions and millions of years before they evolved all the rest of our features (which then throws a wrench into the interpretation of fossils, how didn't they see this coming from the fossil record)? Or perhaps you might want to question whether or not the date is right. Please, do.

I'm glad we finally got that concluded. If you want to check the article:

Gore, R. National Geographic, Feb. 1997, “The First Steps”, pp 72-99.

This is what creationists (like me) mean when we say evolution keeps people ignorant. The obvious fallacy of this conclusion should make it apparent that we can't trust people with such a strong bias to interpret fossils for us. But this is the type of smoke-and-mirrors that evolution is taught through in order to indoctrinate people into it. Its the only way anyone would believe anything so ridiculous.

If you find a print that would pass for a human, you say its a human's. You don't say it can't be a human's just because it doesn't match up with dating methods. Or you would say that your age for humans is off by...oh...let's say millions of years. Much like the age for coelacanths was off by roughly 80 million years. But that just throws a HUGE wrench in the entire idea of even attempting to make an evolutionary timeline. And it certainly throws a giant wrench into the supposed evolutionary lineage of humans.

"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."