Quote:

But its really hard to tell from fossils now isn't it. Because according to my aforementioned fossil, humans were around at least 3.6 million years ago. Except, those aren't human foot prints when they don't fit the theory, so we'll just label them whatever fits the theory. Had they been found in rock that we thought was much younger, they wouldn't have hesitated to call them human footprints. How can you ever NOT find proof of evolution, when even disproof is proof? Actually, I'm pretty sure that the dating method is the only incompetent variable in that equation, but dating methods are not to be questioned....because we know the starting ratios even though we weren't there millions of years ago.



I think you got something wrong here.

Humans - if you mean our own species, homo sapiens - exist since 200,000 years and not 3.6 million years. Therefore there can hardly be any human foot prints from millions of years ago. They are from one of our evolutionary predecessors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

You were complaining at the same time that a) those foot prints were labeled "whatever fits the theory" and that b) they don't fit the theory. Obviously, a) and b) contradict each other, so you should make up your mind about which mischief to accuse the evil scientists of.

I don't know about those foot prints - but I guess it's probably difficult to assign some foot prints to a certain human predecessor species. They left bones, but no feet. And they all walked upright. So, with a) you could be correct. If the prints are really millions of years old, they were possibly left by homo habilis, an evolutionary predecessor of humans.