info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Case 1 Mexican Footprints: Why Evolution is NOT Science But a Worldview
153 views
Skip to first unread message
Nivalian
Jul 26, 2012, 10:43:54 AM7/26/12
to
We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don�t question it. They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. You cannot falsify a worldview. If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn�t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it �sheds new light�.
One example (and yes there are much, much more), I�ll begin with the Mexican footprints. I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
Here�s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_2005.pdf
Here are some excerpts from that article:
�The discovery of human footprints in the Valsequillo Basin of Central Mexico challenges this model, providing new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.�
�Most early human occupation sites in the Americas date to the latest Pleistocene or Ice Age, between
10,000 and 12,500 years ago. The existence of 40,000 year old human footprints in Mexico means that the �Clovis First� model of human occupation can no longer be accepted as the first evidence of human presence in the Americas.�
�By laser scanning the footprints, Professor Matthew Bennett and Dr Xavier Velay from the University of Bournemouth, were able to create 3-d images and models of the footprints. The actual footprints remain in situ in the Mexican quarry. The 3-d models allowed the researchers to categorise the footprints according to their size and shape. Approx. 60% of the prints are human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children�s because of their size. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry and it is estimated that the adult humans were between 117 and 190 cm tall.�
Now pay close attention to this excerpt�
�The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
1) pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
3) the fact that they have deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical �figure of eight� contours
4) they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens�
Also, just as important, read this closely as well�
� Previous attempts to date the basin�s sediments and animal bones have had variable and controversial results, with finds dated from around 9,000 to 35,000 to even 200,000 to 600,000 years ago.�
There have been significant advances in dating techniques since the controversial excavations at the Valsequillo Basin during the 1960s. Dr Gonzalez and her team used the following techniques to date the human footprints and the sediments above and below these trace fossils:
- Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
- Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr�n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
- Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
- Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
- Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
Two things you should remember, 1) the dating methods and 2) the undisputed footprints.
Here�s another article about the footprints:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080606-ancient-footprints_2.html
In that article they go on to say for the dependable dating methods�
Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
"You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
And here are excerpts about the human footprints�
To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
"Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
"We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
They are many articles and pictures on the net so feel free to search for more. I just wish that one website was up and running because it had great pictures showing the left-right stride and all of the dating methods.
Here�s another article with more information:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141102.htm
Okay, the point is of this story is that the footprints are out of place. At really out of place if you want to accept the other different dates dating in the millions. And remember what I told you about paying close attention to the footprints and the dating because the story isn�t over. Now you are about to witness science at work�
After reading everything above, that has all now changed. The evidence about the dating methods, the footprints etc are no more. You see the evidence didn�t jive with the evolutionary worldview. Therefore, the evidence will change. Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-footprints_N.htm
One example (and yes there are much, much more), I�ll begin with the Mexican footprints. I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
Here�s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_2005.pdf
Here are some excerpts from that article:
�The discovery of human footprints in the Valsequillo Basin of Central Mexico challenges this model, providing new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.�
�Most early human occupation sites in the Americas date to the latest Pleistocene or Ice Age, between
10,000 and 12,500 years ago. The existence of 40,000 year old human footprints in Mexico means that the �Clovis First� model of human occupation can no longer be accepted as the first evidence of human presence in the Americas.�
�By laser scanning the footprints, Professor Matthew Bennett and Dr Xavier Velay from the University of Bournemouth, were able to create 3-d images and models of the footprints. The actual footprints remain in situ in the Mexican quarry. The 3-d models allowed the researchers to categorise the footprints according to their size and shape. Approx. 60% of the prints are human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children�s because of their size. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry and it is estimated that the adult humans were between 117 and 190 cm tall.�
Now pay close attention to this excerpt�
�The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
1) pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
3) the fact that they have deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical �figure of eight� contours
4) they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens�
Also, just as important, read this closely as well�
� Previous attempts to date the basin�s sediments and animal bones have had variable and controversial results, with finds dated from around 9,000 to 35,000 to even 200,000 to 600,000 years ago.�
There have been significant advances in dating techniques since the controversial excavations at the Valsequillo Basin during the 1960s. Dr Gonzalez and her team used the following techniques to date the human footprints and the sediments above and below these trace fossils:
- Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
- Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr�n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
- Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
- Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
- Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
Two things you should remember, 1) the dating methods and 2) the undisputed footprints.
Here�s another article about the footprints:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080606-ancient-footprints_2.html
In that article they go on to say for the dependable dating methods�
Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
"You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
And here are excerpts about the human footprints�
To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
"Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
"We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
They are many articles and pictures on the net so feel free to search for more. I just wish that one website was up and running because it had great pictures showing the left-right stride and all of the dating methods.
Here�s another article with more information:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141102.htm
Okay, the point is of this story is that the footprints are out of place. At really out of place if you want to accept the other different dates dating in the millions. And remember what I told you about paying close attention to the footprints and the dating because the story isn�t over. Now you are about to witness science at work�
After reading everything above, that has all now changed. The evidence about the dating methods, the footprints etc are no more. You see the evidence didn�t jive with the evolutionary worldview. Therefore, the evidence will change. Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-footprints_N.htm
Slow Vehicle
Jul 26, 2012, 11:01:57 AM7/26/12
to
On Jul 26, 8:43�am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
>
> One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
>
> Here s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_200...
>
> By laser scanning the footprints, Professor Matthew Bennett and Dr Xavier Velay from the University of Bournemouth, were able to create 3-d images and models of the footprints. The actual footprints remain in situ in the Mexican quarry. The 3-d models allowed the researchers to categorise the footprints according to their size and shape. Approx. 60% of the prints are human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children s because of their size. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry and it is estimated that the adult humans were between 117 and 190 cm tall.
>
> Okay, the point is of this story is that the footprints are out of place. �At really out of place if you want to accept the other different dates dating in the millions. �And remember what I told you about paying close attention to the footprints and the dating because the story isn t over. �Now you are about to witness science at work
>
> After reading everything above, that has all now changed. �The evidence about the dating methods, the footprints etc are no more. �You see the evidence didn t jive with the evolutionary worldview. �Therefore, the evidence will change. �Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-foo...
So wait;
One set of scientists made an extraordinary claim, and presented their
evidence for it.
Other sets of scientists examined that claim, and disagreed.
The original scientists looked at the contrary evidence, and realized
their original claims were not supported...which is exactly how
science is supposed to work.
You want to see conspiracy.
You want to claim dishonest collusion.
You want to demonstrate a monolithic uniformity impose from without.
...which only proves that you do not know how science works, at all.
Contrast this event with the Paluxy "footprints" hoax (no, not
"mistake", hoax) and the multitude of "true ark" hoaxes.
And none of this indicates in any way that the world is only 6K years
old.
> We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
>
> One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
>
> Here s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_200...
> Here are some excerpts from that article:
> The discovery of human footprints in the Valsequillo Basin of Central Mexico challenges this model, providing new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.
>
>
> Most early human occupation sites in the Americas date to the latest Pleistocene or Ice Age, between
> 10,000 and 12,500 years ago. The existence of 40,000 year old human footprints in Mexico means that the Clovis First model of human occupation can no longer be accepted as the first evidence of human presence in the Americas.
>
> By laser scanning the footprints, Professor Matthew Bennett and Dr Xavier Velay from the University of Bournemouth, were able to create 3-d images and models of the footprints. The actual footprints remain in situ in the Mexican quarry. The 3-d models allowed the researchers to categorise the footprints according to their size and shape. Approx. 60% of the prints are human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children s because of their size. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry and it is estimated that the adult humans were between 117 and 190 cm tall.
>
> Now pay close attention to this excerpt
>
> Now pay close attention to this excerpt
>
> The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
> 1) pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
> 2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
> 3) the fact that they have deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical figure of eight contours
> 1) pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
> 2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
> 4) they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens
>
>
> Also, just as important, read this closely as well
>
> Previous attempts to date the basin s sediments and animal bones have had variable and controversial results, with finds dated from around 9,000 to 35,000 to even 200,000 to 600,000 years ago.
>
> There have been significant advances in dating techniques since the controversial excavations at the Valsequillo Basin during the 1960s. Dr Gonzalez and her team used the following techniques to date the human footprints and the sediments above and below these trace fossils:
>
> - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
> - Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
>
> - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
> - Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
> - Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
> - Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
> Two things you should remember, 1) the dating methods and 2) the undisputed footprints.
>
> Here s another article about the footprints:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080606-ancient-footpr...
> - Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
> - Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
> Two things you should remember, 1) the dating methods and 2) the undisputed footprints.
>
>
> In that article they go on to say for the dependable dating methods
> In that article they go on to say for the dependable dating methods
> Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
> "You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
> The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
> The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
> And here are excerpts about the human footprints
>
> "You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
> The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
> The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
> And here are excerpts about the human footprints
>
> To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
>
> "Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
> "We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
>
> They are many articles and pictures on the net so feel free to search for more. �I just wish that one website was up and running because it had great pictures showing the left-right stride and all of the dating methods.
>
> Here s another article with more information:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141102.htm
>
> "Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
> "We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
>
> They are many articles and pictures on the net so feel free to search for more. �I just wish that one website was up and running because it had great pictures showing the left-right stride and all of the dating methods.
>
>
> Okay, the point is of this story is that the footprints are out of place. �At really out of place if you want to accept the other different dates dating in the millions. �And remember what I told you about paying close attention to the footprints and the dating because the story isn t over. �Now you are about to witness science at work
>
> After reading everything above, that has all now changed. �The evidence about the dating methods, the footprints etc are no more. �You see the evidence didn t jive with the evolutionary worldview. �Therefore, the evidence will change. �Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-foo...
So wait;
One set of scientists made an extraordinary claim, and presented their
evidence for it.
Other sets of scientists examined that claim, and disagreed.
The original scientists looked at the contrary evidence, and realized
their original claims were not supported...which is exactly how
science is supposed to work.
You want to see conspiracy.
You want to claim dishonest collusion.
You want to demonstrate a monolithic uniformity impose from without.
...which only proves that you do not know how science works, at all.
Contrast this event with the Paluxy "footprints" hoax (no, not
"mistake", hoax) and the multitude of "true ark" hoaxes.
And none of this indicates in any way that the world is only 6K years
old.
Greg Guarino
Jul 26, 2012, 11:27:57 AM7/26/12
to
On 7/26/2012 10:43 AM, Nivalian wrote:
> Okay, the point is of this story is that the footprints are out of place.
It seems to me that at 40,000 years they would be out of place for
> Okay, the point is of this story is that the footprints are out of place.
archaeology, but not for evolutionary biology.
John Stockwell
Jul 26, 2012, 11:36:11 AM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 8:43:54 AM UTC-6, Nivalian wrote:
> We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don�t question it. They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. You cannot falsify a worldview. If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn�t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it �sheds new light�.
>
> One example (and yes there are much, much more), I�ll begin with the Mexican footprints. I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
>
> Here�s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:
>
> �Most early human occupation sites in the Americas date to the latest Pleistocene or Ice Age, between
> 10,000 and 12,500 years ago. The existence of 40,000 year old human footprints in Mexico means that the �Clovis First� model of human occupation can no longer be accepted as the first evidence of human presence in the Americas.�
>
> �By laser scanning the footprints, Professor Matthew Bennett and Dr Xavier Velay from the University of Bournemouth, were able to create 3-d images and models of the footprints. The actual footprints remain in situ in the Mexican quarry. The 3-d models allowed the researchers to categorise the footprints according to their size and shape. Approx. 60% of the prints are human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children�s because of their size. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry and it is estimated that the adult humans were between 117 and 190 cm tall.�
>
> Now pay close attention to this excerpt�
>
> �The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
> 4) they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens�
>
> Also, just as important, read this closely as well�
>
> � Previous attempts to date the basin�s sediments and animal bones have had variable and controversial results, with finds dated from around 9,000 to 35,000 to even 200,000 to 600,000 years ago.�
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080606-ancient-footprints_2.html
>
> In that article they go on to say for the dependable dating methods�
> The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
>
> To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
>
> "Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
> "We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141102.htm
>
> Okay, the point is of this story is that the footprints are out of place. At really out of place if you want to accept the other different dates dating in the millions. And remember what I told you about paying close attention to the footprints and the dating because the story isn�t over. Now you are about to witness science at work�
>
> After reading everything above, that has all now changed. The evidence about the dating methods, the footprints etc are no more. You see the evidence didn�t jive with the evolutionary worldview. Therefore, the evidence will change. Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-footprints_N.htm
So, what is your point? The scientists made an observation, took great pains to established an age for the find, and to study the impressions to test the hypothesis that these are human tracks and they published in a peer reviewed scientific publication
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050704/full/news050704-4.html
There is growing evidence that humans have been in the New World for a time greater than the 12,000-15,000 years seen from discoveries in North America.
The possible discovery of a mammoth meat cache from 45,000 years ago in Snowmas, Colorado is another one:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_20562762/colorado-fossils-have-experts-pondering-mans-presence-26
(they haven't published in a journal yet, as far as I know.)
So, what is your point? You claim that "evolutionists" are all dishonest, so why aren't these discoveries 'covered up"?
How does the fact that improved dating methods have reduced the uncertainty
in the age dates support your claims of a young earth?
The evidence you present pretty much refutes your position.
-John
> We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don�t question it. They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. You cannot falsify a worldview. If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn�t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it �sheds new light�.
>
> One example (and yes there are much, much more), I�ll begin with the Mexican footprints. I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
>
> Here�s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:
> http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_2005.pdf
> Here are some excerpts from that article:
> �The discovery of human footprints in the Valsequillo Basin of Central Mexico challenges this model, providing new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.�
> Here are some excerpts from that article:
>
> �Most early human occupation sites in the Americas date to the latest Pleistocene or Ice Age, between
> 10,000 and 12,500 years ago. The existence of 40,000 year old human footprints in Mexico means that the �Clovis First� model of human occupation can no longer be accepted as the first evidence of human presence in the Americas.�
>
> �By laser scanning the footprints, Professor Matthew Bennett and Dr Xavier Velay from the University of Bournemouth, were able to create 3-d images and models of the footprints. The actual footprints remain in situ in the Mexican quarry. The 3-d models allowed the researchers to categorise the footprints according to their size and shape. Approx. 60% of the prints are human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children�s because of their size. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry and it is estimated that the adult humans were between 117 and 190 cm tall.�
>
> Now pay close attention to this excerpt�
>
> �The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
> 1) pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
> 2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
> 3) the fact that they have deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical �figure of eight� contours
> 2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
> 4) they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens�
>
> Also, just as important, read this closely as well�
>
> � Previous attempts to date the basin�s sediments and animal bones have had variable and controversial results, with finds dated from around 9,000 to 35,000 to even 200,000 to 600,000 years ago.�
> There have been significant advances in dating techniques since the controversial excavations at the Valsequillo Basin during the 1960s. Dr Gonzalez and her team used the following techniques to date the human footprints and the sediments above and below these trace fossils:
>
> - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
> - Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr�n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
>
> - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
> - Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
> - Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
> - Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
> Two things you should remember, 1) the dating methods and 2) the undisputed footprints.
>
> Here�s another article about the footprints:
> - Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
> - Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
> Two things you should remember, 1) the dating methods and 2) the undisputed footprints.
>
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080606-ancient-footprints_2.html
>
> In that article they go on to say for the dependable dating methods�
> Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
> "You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
> The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
> The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
> And here are excerpts about the human footprints�
>
> To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
>
> "Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
> "We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
>
> They are many articles and pictures on the net so feel free to search for more. I just wish that one website was up and running because it had great pictures showing the left-right stride and all of the dating methods.
>
> Here�s another article with more information:
> They are many articles and pictures on the net so feel free to search for more. I just wish that one website was up and running because it had great pictures showing the left-right stride and all of the dating methods.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141102.htm
>
> Okay, the point is of this story is that the footprints are out of place. At really out of place if you want to accept the other different dates dating in the millions. And remember what I told you about paying close attention to the footprints and the dating because the story isn�t over. Now you are about to witness science at work�
>
> After reading everything above, that has all now changed. The evidence about the dating methods, the footprints etc are no more. You see the evidence didn�t jive with the evolutionary worldview. Therefore, the evidence will change. Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-footprints_N.htm
So, what is your point? The scientists made an observation, took great pains to established an age for the find, and to study the impressions to test the hypothesis that these are human tracks and they published in a peer reviewed scientific publication
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050704/full/news050704-4.html
There is growing evidence that humans have been in the New World for a time greater than the 12,000-15,000 years seen from discoveries in North America.
The possible discovery of a mammoth meat cache from 45,000 years ago in Snowmas, Colorado is another one:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_20562762/colorado-fossils-have-experts-pondering-mans-presence-26
(they haven't published in a journal yet, as far as I know.)
So, what is your point? You claim that "evolutionists" are all dishonest, so why aren't these discoveries 'covered up"?
How does the fact that improved dating methods have reduced the uncertainty
in the age dates support your claims of a young earth?
The evidence you present pretty much refutes your position.
-John
Mephistopheles
Jul 26, 2012, 11:44:46 AM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:43:54 AM UTC-7, Nivalian wrote:
> We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don�t question it. They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. You cannot falsify a worldview. If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn�t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it �sheds new light�.
<snip claptrap>
Congratulations! You just described how science works.
Dammit Nivy, I had high hopes for you. As a long-time lurker here, I've been getting rather bored with the current crop of creationists. I had hoped you might bring something new and interesting to the table. Instead you bring the same old claptrap we've heard a thousand times. Come on Nivy, step up your game. Entertain us. You don't happen to have multiple wives, do you? Any dealings with various mafias? That's the kinda stuff I wanna hear. He may have been completely off his nut, but I miss Vowel Boy.
M
> We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don�t question it. They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. You cannot falsify a worldview. If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn�t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it �sheds new light�.
<snip claptrap>
Congratulations! You just described how science works.
Dammit Nivy, I had high hopes for you. As a long-time lurker here, I've been getting rather bored with the current crop of creationists. I had hoped you might bring something new and interesting to the table. Instead you bring the same old claptrap we've heard a thousand times. Come on Nivy, step up your game. Entertain us. You don't happen to have multiple wives, do you? Any dealings with various mafias? That's the kinda stuff I wanna hear. He may have been completely off his nut, but I miss Vowel Boy.
M
wiki trix
Jul 26, 2012, 11:28:36 AM7/26/12
to
On Jul 26, 10:43�am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
Ummm... Dude... seriously... what you are describing is exactly how
science done properly works. This is the scientific method, and it
works very well.
You say "They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or
affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence". Are you
saying that they should not change theory according to new evidence?
That would make it more like religion. But it would not help better
understand anything in the light of new evidence. Which is pretty
basic to good science. I am just wondering if you are this stupid in
all your thinking...
> We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
Ummm... Dude... seriously... what you are describing is exactly how
science done properly works. This is the scientific method, and it
works very well.
You say "They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or
affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence". Are you
saying that they should not change theory according to new evidence?
That would make it more like religion. But it would not help better
understand anything in the light of new evidence. Which is pretty
basic to good science. I am just wondering if you are this stupid in
all your thinking...
chris thompson
Jul 26, 2012, 11:38:40 AM7/26/12
to
On Jul 26, 10:43�am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
>
> One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
>
> Here s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_200...
(snip interesting articles)
The existence of humans 40 000 years ago is not in dispute. Does this
somehow argue against common ancestry?
Chris
Tom McDonald
Jul 26, 2012, 11:27:31 AM7/26/12
to
On Jul 26, 9:43�am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
>
> One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
>
> Here s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_200...
>
> By laser scanning the footprints, Professor Matthew Bennett and Dr Xavier Velay from the University of Bournemouth, were able to create 3-d images and models of the footprints. The actual footprints remain in situ in the Mexican quarry. The 3-d models allowed the researchers to categorise the footprints according to their size and shape. Approx. 60% of the prints are human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children s because of their size. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry and it is estimated that the adult humans were between 117 and 190 cm tall.
>
> Okay, the point is of this story is that the footprints are out of place. �At really out of place if you want to accept the other different dates dating in the millions. �And remember what I told you about paying close attention to the footprints and the dating because the story isn t over. �Now you are about to witness science at work
>
> After reading everything above, that has all now changed. �The evidence about the dating methods, the footprints etc are no more. �You see the evidence didn t jive with the evolutionary worldview. �Therefore, the evidence will change. �Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-foo...
I'm fairly familiar with this situation, though it's been a while
since I last looked into it deeply.
The issue is not about human evolution, but about the dating of a set
of probably-human footprints. The oldest dating, at ca. 40,000 ybp, is
anomalous, but only wrt the issue of when and how modern humans made
it to the Americas. There is a lot of evidence that humans might have
been in the Americas, especially South America, long before the Clovis
culture, ca. 12,500 ybp. In fact, recent work has shown that even in
North America south of Alaska, dates going back something like 1-2
thousand years before Clovis are probable.
There are several models of the Peopling of the Americas. The main
contender, the northern route via Beringia, appears most likely for
North America, at least.
However, there are other suggested models, including trans-Atlantic
(ca. 20,000 ybp); trans-Pacific (various dates); and coastal routes
via the Aleutians, and down the western coast of North America. Some
of these models suggest dates of from 15,000 to 20,000 ybp.
The Mexican footprints, if shown to be human (and it seems likely to
me that they are), and if shown to be dated to well before 20,000 ybp
(a much longer shot, in my view), would make for a great deal of
excitement among archaeologists studying the Peopling of the Americas.
I think you are trying to say that the 'Establishment' (in this case
archaeologists) is trying to cover up the anomalous findings in
Mexico. However, if you'd actually followed the conversations about it
among archaeologists, you'd see that the main problem with them is
that there are no other archaeological finds that come close to
corroborating the early dating of those footprints. IOW, we have the
prints, of disputed age, but no stone tools, campfires, human skeletal
remains, remains of plants or animals that can be shown to be used by
humans, or any other firmly dated archaeological evidence for humans
in the Americas that early.
Even if your insinuation about 'Establishment' nefariousitude in this
matter were 100% correct, it would have zero impact on the Theory of
Evolution, or any of the evidence for it. Showing that there are
controversies in science, in this case archaeology, is only stating
the obvious. There are tons of controversies in science; in fact,
scientists welcome controversy, since this spurs further
investigations and advances science. Which is, rather, the point of
science.
I also notice that you have become a born-again believer in
radiometric dating in this case. Good for you! Now apply that to other
radiometric observations and you too may become less ignorant.
> We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
>
> One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
>
> Here s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_200...
> Here are some excerpts from that article:
> The discovery of human footprints in the Valsequillo Basin of Central Mexico challenges this model, providing new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.
>
>
> Most early human occupation sites in the Americas date to the latest Pleistocene or Ice Age, between
> 10,000 and 12,500 years ago. The existence of 40,000 year old human footprints in Mexico means that the Clovis First model of human occupation can no longer be accepted as the first evidence of human presence in the Americas.
>
> By laser scanning the footprints, Professor Matthew Bennett and Dr Xavier Velay from the University of Bournemouth, were able to create 3-d images and models of the footprints. The actual footprints remain in situ in the Mexican quarry. The 3-d models allowed the researchers to categorise the footprints according to their size and shape. Approx. 60% of the prints are human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children s because of their size. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry and it is estimated that the adult humans were between 117 and 190 cm tall.
>
> Now pay close attention to this excerpt
>
> Now pay close attention to this excerpt
>
> The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
> 1) pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
> 2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
> 3) the fact that they have deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical figure of eight contours
> 1) pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
> 2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
> 4) they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens
>
>
> Also, just as important, read this closely as well
>
> Previous attempts to date the basin s sediments and animal bones have had variable and controversial results, with finds dated from around 9,000 to 35,000 to even 200,000 to 600,000 years ago.
>
> There have been significant advances in dating techniques since the controversial excavations at the Valsequillo Basin during the 1960s. Dr Gonzalez and her team used the following techniques to date the human footprints and the sediments above and below these trace fossils:
>
> - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
> - Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
>
> - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
> - Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
> - Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
> - Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
> Two things you should remember, 1) the dating methods and 2) the undisputed footprints.
>
> Here s another article about the footprints:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080606-ancient-footpr...
> - Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
> - Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
> Two things you should remember, 1) the dating methods and 2) the undisputed footprints.
>
>
> In that article they go on to say for the dependable dating methods
> In that article they go on to say for the dependable dating methods
> Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
> "You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
> The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
> The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
> And here are excerpts about the human footprints
>
> "You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
> The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
> The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
> And here are excerpts about the human footprints
>
> To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
>
> "Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
> "We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
>
> They are many articles and pictures on the net so feel free to search for more. �I just wish that one website was up and running because it had great pictures showing the left-right stride and all of the dating methods.
>
> Here s another article with more information:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141102.htm
>
> "Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
> "We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
>
> They are many articles and pictures on the net so feel free to search for more. �I just wish that one website was up and running because it had great pictures showing the left-right stride and all of the dating methods.
>
>
> Okay, the point is of this story is that the footprints are out of place. �At really out of place if you want to accept the other different dates dating in the millions. �And remember what I told you about paying close attention to the footprints and the dating because the story isn t over. �Now you are about to witness science at work
>
> After reading everything above, that has all now changed. �The evidence about the dating methods, the footprints etc are no more. �You see the evidence didn t jive with the evolutionary worldview. �Therefore, the evidence will change. �Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-foo...
I'm fairly familiar with this situation, though it's been a while
since I last looked into it deeply.
The issue is not about human evolution, but about the dating of a set
of probably-human footprints. The oldest dating, at ca. 40,000 ybp, is
anomalous, but only wrt the issue of when and how modern humans made
it to the Americas. There is a lot of evidence that humans might have
been in the Americas, especially South America, long before the Clovis
culture, ca. 12,500 ybp. In fact, recent work has shown that even in
North America south of Alaska, dates going back something like 1-2
thousand years before Clovis are probable.
There are several models of the Peopling of the Americas. The main
contender, the northern route via Beringia, appears most likely for
North America, at least.
However, there are other suggested models, including trans-Atlantic
(ca. 20,000 ybp); trans-Pacific (various dates); and coastal routes
via the Aleutians, and down the western coast of North America. Some
of these models suggest dates of from 15,000 to 20,000 ybp.
The Mexican footprints, if shown to be human (and it seems likely to
me that they are), and if shown to be dated to well before 20,000 ybp
(a much longer shot, in my view), would make for a great deal of
excitement among archaeologists studying the Peopling of the Americas.
I think you are trying to say that the 'Establishment' (in this case
archaeologists) is trying to cover up the anomalous findings in
Mexico. However, if you'd actually followed the conversations about it
among archaeologists, you'd see that the main problem with them is
that there are no other archaeological finds that come close to
corroborating the early dating of those footprints. IOW, we have the
prints, of disputed age, but no stone tools, campfires, human skeletal
remains, remains of plants or animals that can be shown to be used by
humans, or any other firmly dated archaeological evidence for humans
in the Americas that early.
Even if your insinuation about 'Establishment' nefariousitude in this
matter were 100% correct, it would have zero impact on the Theory of
Evolution, or any of the evidence for it. Showing that there are
controversies in science, in this case archaeology, is only stating
the obvious. There are tons of controversies in science; in fact,
scientists welcome controversy, since this spurs further
investigations and advances science. Which is, rather, the point of
science.
I also notice that you have become a born-again believer in
radiometric dating in this case. Good for you! Now apply that to other
radiometric observations and you too may become less ignorant.
Nivalian
Jul 26, 2012, 12:18:35 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:01:57 AM UTC-4, Slow Vehicle wrote:
> On Jul 26, 8:43�am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
> >
> > One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
> >
> > Here s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_200...
> > Here are some excerpts from that article:
> > The discovery of human footprints in the Valsequillo Basin of Central Mexico challenges this model, providing new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.
> >
> > Most early human occupation sites in the Americas date to the latest Pleistocene or Ice Age, between
> > 10,000 and 12,500 years ago. The existence of 40,000 year old human footprints in Mexico means that the Clovis First model of human occupation can no longer be accepted as the first evidence of human presence in the Americas.
> >
> > By laser scanning the footprints, Professor Matthew Bennett and Dr Xavier Velay from the University of Bournemouth, were able to create 3-d images and models of the footprints. The actual footprints remain in situ in the Mexican quarry. The 3-d models allowed the researchers to categorise the footprints according to their size and shape. Approx. 60% of the prints are human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children s because of their size. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry and it is estimated that the adult humans were between 117 and 190 cm tall.
> >
> > Now pay close attention to this excerpt
> >
> > The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
> > 1) pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
> > 2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
> > 3) the fact that they have deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical figure of eight contours
> > 4) they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens
> >
> > Also, just as important, read this closely as well
> >
> > Previous attempts to date the basin s sediments and animal bones have had variable and controversial results, with finds dated from around 9,000 to 35,000 to even 200,000 to 600,000 years ago.
> > There have been significant advances in dating techniques since the controversial excavations at the Valsequillo Basin during the 1960s. Dr Gonzalez and her team used the following techniques to date the human footprints and the sediments above and below these trace fossils:
> >
> > - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
> > - Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
> > - Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
> > - Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
> > - Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
> > Two things you should remember, 1) the dating methods and 2) the undisputed footprints.
> >
> > Here s another article about the footprints:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080606-ancient-footpr...
> >
> > In that article they go on to say for the dependable dating methods
> > Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
> > "You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
> > The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
> > The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
> > And here are excerpts about the human footprints
> >
> > To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
> >
> > "Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
> > "We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
> >
> > They are many articles and pictures on the net so feel free to search for more. �I just wish that one website was up and running because it had great pictures showing the left-right stride and all of the dating methods.
> >
> > Here s another article with more information:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141102.htm
> >
> > Okay, the point is of this story is that the footprints are out of place. �At really out of place if you want to accept the other different dates dating in the millions. �And remember what I told you about paying close attention to the footprints and the dating because the story isn t over. �Now you are about to witness science at work
> >
> > After reading everything above, that has all now changed. �The evidence about the dating methods, the footprints etc are no more. �You see the evidence didn t jive with the evolutionary worldview. �Therefore, the evidence will change. �Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-foo...
First the footprints...
�By laser scanning the footprints, Professor Matthew Bennett and Dr Xavier Velay from the University of Bournemouth, were able to create 3-d images and models of the footprints. The actual footprints remain in situ in the Mexican quarry. The 3-d models allowed the researchers to categorise the footprints according to their size and shape. Approx. 60% of the prints are human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children�s because of their size. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry and it is estimated that the adult humans were between 117 and 190 cm tall.�
�The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
4) they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens�
To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
"Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
"We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
Now the dating methods...
The only reason they rejected the dating methods used and the footprints is because it did not jive with the timescale for the theory of evolution! In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. The Theory of Evolution works the other way around (i.e. think of a theory and gather supporting evidence to support it) making it a worldview for naturalism. You cannot falsify naturalism.
The other dating methods used to falsify the other methods is just an illusion. And evolutionists will fall for it everytime.
> On Jul 26, 8:43�am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
> >
> > One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
> >
> > Here s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_200...
> > Here are some excerpts from that article:
> > The discovery of human footprints in the Valsequillo Basin of Central Mexico challenges this model, providing new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.
> >
> > Most early human occupation sites in the Americas date to the latest Pleistocene or Ice Age, between
> > 10,000 and 12,500 years ago. The existence of 40,000 year old human footprints in Mexico means that the Clovis First model of human occupation can no longer be accepted as the first evidence of human presence in the Americas.
> >
> > By laser scanning the footprints, Professor Matthew Bennett and Dr Xavier Velay from the University of Bournemouth, were able to create 3-d images and models of the footprints. The actual footprints remain in situ in the Mexican quarry. The 3-d models allowed the researchers to categorise the footprints according to their size and shape. Approx. 60% of the prints are human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children s because of their size. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry and it is estimated that the adult humans were between 117 and 190 cm tall.
> >
> > Now pay close attention to this excerpt
> >
> > The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
> > 1) pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
> > 2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
> > 3) the fact that they have deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical figure of eight contours
> > 4) they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens
> >
> > Also, just as important, read this closely as well
> >
> > Previous attempts to date the basin s sediments and animal bones have had variable and controversial results, with finds dated from around 9,000 to 35,000 to even 200,000 to 600,000 years ago.
> > There have been significant advances in dating techniques since the controversial excavations at the Valsequillo Basin during the 1960s. Dr Gonzalez and her team used the following techniques to date the human footprints and the sediments above and below these trace fossils:
> >
> > - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
> > - Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
> > - Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
> > - Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
> > - Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
> > Two things you should remember, 1) the dating methods and 2) the undisputed footprints.
> >
> > Here s another article about the footprints:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080606-ancient-footpr...
> >
> > In that article they go on to say for the dependable dating methods
> > Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
> > "You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
> > The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
> > The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
> > And here are excerpts about the human footprints
> >
> > To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
> >
> > "Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
> > "We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
> >
> > They are many articles and pictures on the net so feel free to search for more. �I just wish that one website was up and running because it had great pictures showing the left-right stride and all of the dating methods.
> >
> > Here s another article with more information:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141102.htm
> >
> > Okay, the point is of this story is that the footprints are out of place. �At really out of place if you want to accept the other different dates dating in the millions. �And remember what I told you about paying close attention to the footprints and the dating because the story isn t over. �Now you are about to witness science at work
> >
> > After reading everything above, that has all now changed. �The evidence about the dating methods, the footprints etc are no more. �You see the evidence didn t jive with the evolutionary worldview. �Therefore, the evidence will change. �Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-foo...
>
> So wait;
> One set of scientists made an extraordinary claim, and presented their
> evidence for it.
> Other sets of scientists examined that claim, and disagreed.
> The original scientists looked at the contrary evidence, and realized
> their original claims were not supported...which is exactly how
> science is supposed to work.
>
I said pay attention to the dating methods and the footprints. I will chop it up for you to understand the crux of my post:
> So wait;
> One set of scientists made an extraordinary claim, and presented their
> evidence for it.
> Other sets of scientists examined that claim, and disagreed.
> The original scientists looked at the contrary evidence, and realized
> their original claims were not supported...which is exactly how
> science is supposed to work.
>
First the footprints...
�By laser scanning the footprints, Professor Matthew Bennett and Dr Xavier Velay from the University of Bournemouth, were able to create 3-d images and models of the footprints. The actual footprints remain in situ in the Mexican quarry. The 3-d models allowed the researchers to categorise the footprints according to their size and shape. Approx. 60% of the prints are human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children�s because of their size. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry and it is estimated that the adult humans were between 117 and 190 cm tall.�
�The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
1) pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
3) the fact that they have deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical �figure of eight� contours
2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
4) they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens�
To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
"Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
"We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
There have been significant advances in dating techniques since the controversial excavations at the Valsequillo Basin during the 1960s. Dr Gonzalez and her team used the following techniques to date the human footprints and the sediments above and below these trace fossils:
- Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
- Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr�n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
- Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
- Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
- Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
- Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
- Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
- Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
"You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
Now what was wrong with the dating methods? Why were the footprints not footprints anymore? If the ash is millions of years old, why then did they find C14?
"You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
The only reason they rejected the dating methods used and the footprints is because it did not jive with the timescale for the theory of evolution! In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. The Theory of Evolution works the other way around (i.e. think of a theory and gather supporting evidence to support it) making it a worldview for naturalism. You cannot falsify naturalism.
The other dating methods used to falsify the other methods is just an illusion. And evolutionists will fall for it everytime.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Jul 26, 2012, 12:27:22 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:38:40 PM UTC+1, chris thompson wrote:
> The existence of humans 40 000 years ago is not in dispute. Does this
> somehow argue against common ancestry?
Of course, the existence of humans, or anything else, 40,000 years ago,
> The existence of humans 40 000 years ago is not in dispute. Does this
> somehow argue against common ancestry?
is disputed by "Young Earth" creationists. Maybe these were angels?
Nivalian
Jul 26, 2012, 12:29:15 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:27:31 AM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
> On Jul 26, 9:43�am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
> >
> > One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
> > "We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
> >
> > They are many articles and pictures on the net so feel free to search for more. �I just wish that one website was up and running because it had great pictures showing the left-right stride and all of the dating methods.
> >
> > Here s another article with more information:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141102.htm
> >
> > Okay, the point is of this story is that the footprints are out of place. �At really out of place if you want to accept the other different dates dating in the millions. �And remember what I told you about paying close attention to the footprints and the dating because the story isn t over. �Now you are about to witness science at work
> >
> > After reading everything above, that has all now changed. �The evidence about the dating methods, the footprints etc are no more. �You see the evidence didn t jive with the evolutionary worldview. �Therefore, the evidence will change. �Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-foo...
>
> I'm fairly familiar with this situation, though it's been a while
> among archaeologists, you'd see that the main problem with them is
Also I don't think you read the whole thing. The dating of the ash is now millions of years old and the footprints are not footprints because humans were not around then. Does that sound logical or scientific?
> On Jul 26, 9:43�am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
> >
> > One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
> >
> > They are many articles and pictures on the net so feel free to search for more. �I just wish that one website was up and running because it had great pictures showing the left-right stride and all of the dating methods.
> >
> > Here s another article with more information:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141102.htm
> >
> > Okay, the point is of this story is that the footprints are out of place. �At really out of place if you want to accept the other different dates dating in the millions. �And remember what I told you about paying close attention to the footprints and the dating because the story isn t over. �Now you are about to witness science at work
> >
> > After reading everything above, that has all now changed. �The evidence about the dating methods, the footprints etc are no more. �You see the evidence didn t jive with the evolutionary worldview. �Therefore, the evidence will change. �Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-foo...
>
> I'm fairly familiar with this situation, though it's been a while
> since I last looked into it deeply.
>
> The issue is not about human evolution, but about the dating of a set
> of probably-human footprints. The oldest dating, at ca. 40,000 ybp, is
> anomalous, but only wrt the issue of when and how modern humans made
> it to the Americas. There is a lot of evidence that humans might have
> been in the Americas, especially South America, long before the Clovis
> culture, ca. 12,500 ybp. In fact, recent work has shown that even in
> North America south of Alaska, dates going back something like 1-2
> thousand years before Clovis are probable.
>
> There are several models of the Peopling of the Americas. The main
> contender, the northern route via Beringia, appears most likely for
> North America, at least.
>
> However, there are other suggested models, including trans-Atlantic
> (ca. 20,000 ybp); trans-Pacific (various dates); and coastal routes
> via the Aleutians, and down the western coast of North America. Some
> of these models suggest dates of from 15,000 to 20,000 ybp.
>
> The Mexican footprints, if shown to be human (and it seems likely to
> me that they are), and if shown to be dated to well before 20,000 ybp
> (a much longer shot, in my view), would make for a great deal of
> excitement among archaeologists studying the Peopling of the Americas.
>
> I think you are trying to say that the 'Establishment' (in this case
>
> The issue is not about human evolution, but about the dating of a set
> of probably-human footprints. The oldest dating, at ca. 40,000 ybp, is
> anomalous, but only wrt the issue of when and how modern humans made
> it to the Americas. There is a lot of evidence that humans might have
> been in the Americas, especially South America, long before the Clovis
> culture, ca. 12,500 ybp. In fact, recent work has shown that even in
> North America south of Alaska, dates going back something like 1-2
> thousand years before Clovis are probable.
>
> There are several models of the Peopling of the Americas. The main
> contender, the northern route via Beringia, appears most likely for
> North America, at least.
>
> However, there are other suggested models, including trans-Atlantic
> (ca. 20,000 ybp); trans-Pacific (various dates); and coastal routes
> via the Aleutians, and down the western coast of North America. Some
> of these models suggest dates of from 15,000 to 20,000 ybp.
>
> The Mexican footprints, if shown to be human (and it seems likely to
> me that they are), and if shown to be dated to well before 20,000 ybp
> (a much longer shot, in my view), would make for a great deal of
> excitement among archaeologists studying the Peopling of the Americas.
>
> archaeologists) is trying to cover up the anomalous findings in
> Mexico. However, if you'd actually followed the conversations about it
> among archaeologists, you'd see that the main problem with them is
> that there are no other archaeological finds that come close to
> corroborating the early dating of those footprints. IOW, we have the
> prints, of disputed age, but no stone tools, campfires, human skeletal
> remains, remains of plants or animals that can be shown to be used by
> humans, or any other firmly dated archaeological evidence for humans
> in the Americas that early.
>
> Even if your insinuation about 'Establishment' nefariousitude in this
> corroborating the early dating of those footprints. IOW, we have the
> prints, of disputed age, but no stone tools, campfires, human skeletal
> remains, remains of plants or animals that can be shown to be used by
> humans, or any other firmly dated archaeological evidence for humans
> in the Americas that early.
>
> matter were 100% correct, it would have zero impact on the Theory of
> Evolution, or any of the evidence for it. Showing that there are
> controversies in science, in this case archaeology, is only stating
> the obvious. There are tons of controversies in science; in fact,
> scientists welcome controversy, since this spurs further
> investigations and advances science. Which is, rather, the point of
> science.
>
> I also notice that you have become a born-again believer in
> radiometric dating in this case. Good for you! Now apply that to other
> radiometric observations and you too may become less ignorant.
Tom - the crux of this topic is to show that the dating methods simply do not work. You can call them a good guess, but just don't call them accurate, scientific, reliable, etc.
> Evolution, or any of the evidence for it. Showing that there are
> controversies in science, in this case archaeology, is only stating
> the obvious. There are tons of controversies in science; in fact,
> scientists welcome controversy, since this spurs further
> investigations and advances science. Which is, rather, the point of
> science.
>
> I also notice that you have become a born-again believer in
> radiometric dating in this case. Good for you! Now apply that to other
> radiometric observations and you too may become less ignorant.
Also I don't think you read the whole thing. The dating of the ash is now millions of years old and the footprints are not footprints because humans were not around then. Does that sound logical or scientific?
chris thompson
Jul 26, 2012, 12:39:36 PM7/26/12
to
On Jul 26, 11:27�am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I also notice that you have become a born-again believer in
> radiometric dating in this case. Good for you! Now apply that to other
> radiometric observations and you too may become less ignorant.
Good catch!
>
> I also notice that you have become a born-again believer in
> radiometric dating in this case. Good for you! Now apply that to other
> radiometric observations and you too may become less ignorant.
Chris
Richard Norman
Jul 26, 2012, 12:40:51 PM7/26/12
to
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:18:35 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:01:57 AM UTC-4, Slow Vehicle wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 8:43�am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
>> >
>> > One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
>> > They are many articles and pictures on the net so feel free to search for more. �I just wish that one website was up and running because it had great pictures showing the left-right stride and all of the dating methods.
>> >
>> > After reading everything above, that has all now changed. �The evidence about the dating methods, the footprints etc are no more. �You see the evidence didn t jive with the evolutionary worldview. �Therefore, the evidence will change. �Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-foo...
>
>�The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
>4) they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens�
confusing the 1.5 million year old Kenyan footprints with the 80
thousand year old Mexican claim. Nobody doubts that hominids walked a
million years ago. Tom McDonald wrote a very clear and thorough post
about the more recent Mexican claim indicating why it is questionable.
None of this has any bearing on the validity of evolution. What both
print claims demonstrate clearly, though, are ages far in excess of
6000 years.
You also seem to think that there are no arguments or contested claims
or disagreements in science. There are. They are resolved by
re-evaluating arguments and collecting additional data. Real research
does not deal in things that we know and that are settled; it deals
with questions and problems and things that are still in some
confusion or uncertainty. The process of science moves these
uncertainties and questions into the realm of certitude but opens up
new areas to be resolved.
wrote:
>On Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:01:57 AM UTC-4, Slow Vehicle wrote:
>> > We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
>> >
>> > One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
>> >
>> > Here s another article with more information:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141102.htm
>> >
>> > Okay, the point is of this story is that the footprints are out of place. �At really out of place if you want to accept the other different dates dating in the millions. �And remember what I told you about paying close attention to the footprints and the dating because the story isn t over. �Now you are about to witness science at work
>> > Here s another article with more information:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141102.htm
>> >
>> >
>> > After reading everything above, that has all now changed. �The evidence about the dating methods, the footprints etc are no more. �You see the evidence didn t jive with the evolutionary worldview. �Therefore, the evidence will change. �Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-foo...
>>
>> So wait;
>> One set of scientists made an extraordinary claim, and presented their
>> evidence for it.
>> Other sets of scientists examined that claim, and disagreed.
>> The original scientists looked at the contrary evidence, and realized
>> their original claims were not supported...which is exactly how
>> science is supposed to work.
>>
>
>
>I said pay attention to the dating methods and the footprints. I will chop it up for you to understand the crux of my post:
>
>First the footprints...
>�By laser scanning the footprints, Professor Matthew Bennett and Dr Xavier Velay from the University of Bournemouth, were able to create 3-d images and models of the footprints. The actual footprints remain in situ in the Mexican quarry. The 3-d models allowed the researchers to categorise the footprints according to their size and shape. Approx. 60% of the prints are human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children�s because of their size. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry and it is estimated that the adult humans were between 117 and 190 cm tall.�
>> So wait;
>> One set of scientists made an extraordinary claim, and presented their
>> evidence for it.
>> Other sets of scientists examined that claim, and disagreed.
>> The original scientists looked at the contrary evidence, and realized
>> their original claims were not supported...which is exactly how
>> science is supposed to work.
>>
>
>
>I said pay attention to the dating methods and the footprints. I will chop it up for you to understand the crux of my post:
>
>First the footprints...
>
>�The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
>1) pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
>2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
>3) the fact that they have deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical �figure of eight� contours
>2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
>4) they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens�
>
>To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
>
>"Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
>"We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
>
>
>
>Now the dating methods...
>There have been significant advances in dating techniques since the controversial excavations at the Valsequillo Basin during the 1960s. Dr Gonzalez and her team used the following techniques to date the human footprints and the sediments above and below these trace fossils:
>- Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
>To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
>
>"Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
>"We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
>
>
>
>Now the dating methods...
>There have been significant advances in dating techniques since the controversial excavations at the Valsequillo Basin during the 1960s. Dr Gonzalez and her team used the following techniques to date the human footprints and the sediments above and below these trace fossils:
>- Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
>- Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr�n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
>- Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
>- Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
>- Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
>
>
>Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
>"You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
>The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
>The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
>
>
>Now what was wrong with the dating methods? Why were the footprints not footprints anymore? If the ash is millions of years old, why then did they find C14?
>
>The only reason they rejected the dating methods used and the footprints is because it did not jive with the timescale for the theory of evolution! In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. The Theory of Evolution works the other way around (i.e. think of a theory and gather supporting evidence to support it) making it a worldview for naturalism. You cannot falsify naturalism.
>
>The other dating methods used to falsify the other methods is just an illusion. And evolutionists will fall for it everytime.
Your discussion here and your previous citations indicate that you are
>- Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
>- Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
>
>
>Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
>"You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
>The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
>The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
>
>
>Now what was wrong with the dating methods? Why were the footprints not footprints anymore? If the ash is millions of years old, why then did they find C14?
>
>The only reason they rejected the dating methods used and the footprints is because it did not jive with the timescale for the theory of evolution! In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. The Theory of Evolution works the other way around (i.e. think of a theory and gather supporting evidence to support it) making it a worldview for naturalism. You cannot falsify naturalism.
>
>The other dating methods used to falsify the other methods is just an illusion. And evolutionists will fall for it everytime.
confusing the 1.5 million year old Kenyan footprints with the 80
thousand year old Mexican claim. Nobody doubts that hominids walked a
million years ago. Tom McDonald wrote a very clear and thorough post
about the more recent Mexican claim indicating why it is questionable.
None of this has any bearing on the validity of evolution. What both
print claims demonstrate clearly, though, are ages far in excess of
6000 years.
You also seem to think that there are no arguments or contested claims
or disagreements in science. There are. They are resolved by
re-evaluating arguments and collecting additional data. Real research
does not deal in things that we know and that are settled; it deals
with questions and problems and things that are still in some
confusion or uncertainty. The process of science moves these
uncertainties and questions into the realm of certitude but opens up
new areas to be resolved.
Tom McDonald
Jul 26, 2012, 12:50:22 PM7/26/12
to
On Jul 26, 11:29�am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:27:31 AM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
<snip twice-told tales>
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:27:31 AM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
your cherry-picking and argument by assertion do not.
>�You can call them a good guess, but just don't call them accurate, scientific, reliable, etc.
I can call them better than a good guess--I can call them 'absolute
dating'. Look it up--it's probably not what you think it is.
> Also I don't think you read the whole thing. �The dating of the ash is now millions of years old
dated to millions of years ago by any method. Pay attention.
> and the footprints are not footprints because humans were not around then.
one I know uses that argument to claim that the footprints can't be
human footprints, what is your point? On current evidence, it is to
throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.
But I do encourage you to continue to bring up Out Of Place Artifacts
(OOPARTS). There are a number of extremely entertaining, and
completely debunked, web sites about them, and bowling them over one
at a time on Usenet is a storied and revered part of our common
heritage.
>�Does that sound logical or scientific?
Note: when you set up a straw man, at least try to use decent straw.
Nivalian
Jul 26, 2012, 12:55:17 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:39:36 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
> On Jul 26, 11:27�am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I also notice that you have become a born-again believer in
> > radiometric dating in this case. Good for you! Now apply that to other
> > radiometric observations and you too may become less ignorant.
>
> Good catch!
>
> Chris
What's the good catch? That dating methods don't work?
> On Jul 26, 11:27�am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I also notice that you have become a born-again believer in
> > radiometric dating in this case. Good for you! Now apply that to other
> > radiometric observations and you too may become less ignorant.
>
> Good catch!
>
> Chris
What's the good catch? That dating methods don't work?
Will in New Haven
Jul 26, 2012, 1:03:25 PM7/26/12
to
and fuck" still works ok.
--
Will in New Haven
Nivalian
Jul 26, 2012, 1:06:11 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:50:22 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> Then you have failed at the crux of the topic. Dating methods do work;
> your cherry-picking and argument by assertion do not.
Read again because I think you forgot some parts...
>
> Then you have failed at the crux of the topic. Dating methods do work;
> your cherry-picking and argument by assertion do not.
Dr Gonzalez and her team used the following techniques to date the human footprints and the sediments above and below these trace fossils:
- Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
- Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr�n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
- Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
- Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
- Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
"You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said
Was the dating methods used right or wrong? If wrong, why?
>
> >�You can call them a good guess, but just don't call them accurate, scientific, reliable, etc.
>
> I can call them better than a good guess--I can call them 'absolute
> dating'. Look it up--it's probably not what you think it is.
>
> > Also I don't think you read the whole thing. �The dating of the ash is now millions of years old
>
> Which ash? The ash in which the notional footprints were found was not
> dated to millions of years ago by any method. Pay attention.
Again, read the following...
> Which ash? The ash in which the notional footprints were found was not
> dated to millions of years ago by any method. Pay attention.
In December of 2005, a team led by geochronologist Paul Renne of the University of California, Berkeley, reported in Naturethat the trackway ash layer dated to 1.3 million years ago, according to analysis of radioactive Argon elements in the rock. If the ash dated to 1.3 million years, that meant the footprints in it couldn't have been made by modern humans, who have only been around for about 200,000 years, tops, as indicated by bones and tools.
chris thompson
Jul 26, 2012, 12:37:20 PM7/26/12
to
On Jul 26, 10:43�am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it.
***
Actually, the theory of evolution gets tested on a regular basis. If
you would read the primary literature, you would know this. Sure, no
one comes out and says "This might disprove evolution". But if you
understood the meaning of "theory" in science, you'd know why. In
fact, no single anomaly would disprove the t. of e. There is so much
evidence supporting it that it would require an equal amount of
evidence to falsify it. As an analogy, look at what it took to
disprove the theory that continents were immobile.
***
They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it
and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to
gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory
of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview.
***
Wrong again. That is _exactly_ how science works. When new data are
collected that show your ideas were wrong, you modify the theory- not
the data.
Sorry, but this must be said: your ignorance is appalling.
***
Chris
(snip)
> We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it.
***
Actually, the theory of evolution gets tested on a regular basis. If
you would read the primary literature, you would know this. Sure, no
one comes out and says "This might disprove evolution". But if you
understood the meaning of "theory" in science, you'd know why. In
fact, no single anomaly would disprove the t. of e. There is so much
evidence supporting it that it would require an equal amount of
evidence to falsify it. As an analogy, look at what it took to
disprove the theory that continents were immobile.
***
They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it
and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to
gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory
of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview.
Wrong again. That is _exactly_ how science works. When new data are
collected that show your ideas were wrong, you modify the theory- not
the data.
Sorry, but this must be said: your ignorance is appalling.
***
Chris
(snip)
Glenn
Jul 26, 2012, 1:15:44 PM7/26/12
to
"Nivalian" <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5626d35a-e484-4498...@googlegroups.com...
the book and more will be thrown at you here, and they will soon get quite
uncivil, to put it mildly, if you persist.
John Stockwell
Jul 26, 2012, 1:28:13 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:29:15 AM UTC-6, Nivalian wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:27:31 AM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 9:43�am, Nivalian &lt;rhed...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:27:31 AM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
> > &gt; We haven&#39;t found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it&#39;s a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
> > &gt;
> > &gt; One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
> > &gt;
> > &gt; Here s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_200...
> > &gt; Here are some excerpts from that article:
> > &gt; The discovery of human footprints in the Valsequillo Basin of Central Mexico challenges this model, providing new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.
> > &gt;
> > &gt; Most early human occupation sites in the Americas date to the latest Pleistocene or Ice Age, between
> > &gt; 10,000 and 12,500 years ago. The existence of 40,000 year old human footprints in Mexico means that the Clovis First model of human occupation can no longer be accepted as the first evidence of human presence in the Americas.
> > &gt;
> > &gt; By laser scanning the footprints, Professor Matthew Bennett and Dr Xavier Velay from the University of Bournemouth, were able to create 3-d images and models of the footprints. The actual footprints remain in situ in the Mexican quarry. The 3-d models allowed the researchers to categorise the footprints according to their size and shape. Approx. 60% of the prints are human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children s because of their size. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry and it is estimated that the adult humans were between 117 and 190 cm tall.
> > &gt;
> > &gt; Now pay close attention to this excerpt
> > &gt;
> > &gt; The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
> > &gt; 1) pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
> > &gt; 2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
> > &gt; 3) the fact that they have deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical figure of eight contours
> > &gt; 4) they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens
> > &gt;
> > &gt; Also, just as important, read this closely as well
> > &gt;
> > &gt; Previous attempts to date the basin s sediments and animal bones have had variable and controversial results, with finds dated from around 9,000 to 35,000 to even 200,000 to 600,000 years ago.
> > &gt; There have been significant advances in dating techniques since the controversial excavations at the Valsequillo Basin during the 1960s. Dr Gonzalez and her team used the following techniques to date the human footprints and the sediments above and below these trace fossils:
> > &gt;
> > &gt; - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
> > &gt; - Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
> > &gt; - Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
> > &gt; - Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
> > &gt; - Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
> > &gt; Two things you should remember, 1) the dating methods and 2) the undisputed footprints.
> > &gt;
> > &gt; Here s another article about the footprints:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080606-ancient-footpr...
> > &gt;
> > &gt; In that article they go on to say for the dependable dating methods
> > &gt; Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
> > &gt; &quot;You can&#39;t date just one layer,&quot; she said. &quot;You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense.&quot;
> > &gt; The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez&#39;s team found.
> > &gt; The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
> > &gt; And here are excerpts about the human footprints
> > &gt;
> > &gt; To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez&#39;s team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
> > &gt;
> > &gt; &quot;Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints,&quot; she said.
> > &gt; &quot;We know there were adults and children,&quot; she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
> > &gt;
> > &gt; They are many articles and pictures on the net so feel free to search for more. �I just wish that one website was up and running because it had great pictures showing the left-right stride and all of the dating methods.
> > &gt;
> > &gt; Here s another article with more information:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141102.htm
> > &gt;
> > &gt; Okay, the point is of this story is that the footprints are out of place. �At really out of place if you want to accept the other different dates dating in the millions. �And remember what I told you about paying close attention to the footprints and the dating because the story isn t over. �Now you are about to witness science at work
> > &gt;
> > &gt; After reading everything above, that has all now changed. �The evidence about the dating methods, the footprints etc are no more. �You see the evidence didn t jive with the evolutionary worldview. �Therefore, the evidence will change. �Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-foo...
> >
> > I&#39;m fairly familiar with this situation, though it&#39;s been a while
> > since I last looked into it deeply.
> >
> > The issue is not about human evolution, but about the dating of a set
> > of probably-human footprints. The oldest dating, at ca. 40,000 ybp, is
> > anomalous, but only wrt the issue of when and how modern humans made
> > it to the Americas. There is a lot of evidence that humans might have
> > been in the Americas, especially South America, long before the Clovis
> > culture, ca. 12,500 ybp. In fact, recent work has shown that even in
> > North America south of Alaska, dates going back something like 1-2
> > thousand years before Clovis are probable.
> >
> > There are several models of the Peopling of the Americas. The main
> > contender, the northern route via Beringia, appears most likely for
> > North America, at least.
> >
> > However, there are other suggested models, including trans-Atlantic
> > (ca. 20,000 ybp); trans-Pacific (various dates); and coastal routes
> > via the Aleutians, and down the western coast of North America. Some
> > of these models suggest dates of from 15,000 to 20,000 ybp.
> >
> > The Mexican footprints, if shown to be human (and it seems likely to
> > me that they are), and if shown to be dated to well before 20,000 ybp
> > (a much longer shot, in my view), would make for a great deal of
> > excitement among archaeologists studying the Peopling of the Americas.
> >
> > I think you are trying to say that the &#39;Establishment&#39; (in this case
> > archaeologists) is trying to cover up the anomalous findings in
> > Mexico. However, if you&#39;d actually followed the conversations about it
> > among archaeologists, you&#39;d see that the main problem with them is
> > that there are no other archaeological finds that come close to
> > corroborating the early dating of those footprints. IOW, we have the
> > prints, of disputed age, but no stone tools, campfires, human skeletal
> > remains, remains of plants or animals that can be shown to be used by
> > humans, or any other firmly dated archaeological evidence for humans
> > in the Americas that early.
> >
> > Even if your insinuation about &#39;Establishment&#39; nefariousitude in this
> > matter were 100% correct, it would have zero impact on the Theory of
> > Evolution, or any of the evidence for it. Showing that there are
> > controversies in science, in this case archaeology, is only stating
> > the obvious. There are tons of controversies in science; in fact,
> > scientists welcome controversy, since this spurs further
> > investigations and advances science. Which is, rather, the point of
> > science.
> >
> > I also notice that you have become a born-again believer in
> > radiometric dating in this case. Good for you! Now apply that to other
> > radiometric observations and you too may become less ignorant.
>
>
> Tom - the crux of this topic is to show that the dating methods simply do not work. You can call them a good guess, but just don't call them accurate, scientific, reliable, etc.
>
> Also I don't think you read the whole thing. The dating of the ash is now millions of years old and the footprints are not footprints because humans were not around then. Does that sound logical or scientific?
Here's a USA Today article discussing the matter:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16 footprints_N.htm
The article on the improved dating:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7068/full/nature04425.html#a1
It is most definitely scientific, and it appears that this item is a tough nut to crack. It is tough, both from the age dating side of it, and from the
track identification side as well. It is not obvious that these are human
tracks.
From: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7068/full/nature04425.html#a1
"Geochronology: Age of Mexican ash with alleged 'footprints'
Paul R. Renne1,2, Joshua M. Feinberg2, Michael R. Waters3, Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales4, Patricia Ochoa-Castillo5, Mario Perez-Campa6 and Kim B. Knight2
Top of pageAbstract
Arising from: R. Dalton Nature doi: 10.1038/news050704-4 (2005)
A report of human footprints preserved in 40,000-year-old volcanic ash near Puebla, Mexico (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/exhibit.asp?id=3616&tip=1), was the subject of a press conference that stirred international media attention1. If the claims (http://www.mexicanfootprints.co.uk) of Gonzalez et al. are valid, prevailing theories about the timing of human migration into the Americas would need significant revision. Here we show by 40Ar/39Ar dating and corroborating palaeomagnetic data that the basaltic tuff on which the purported footprints are found is 1.300.03 million years old. We conclude that either hominid migration into the Americas occurred very much earlier than previously believed, or that the features in question were not made by humans on recently erupted ash."
The geochronology work reported by: Renne et al. (2005) combines multiple methods of
age dating (paleomagnetic and 40Ar/39Ar dating) and so what these authors
report is perfectly good science which cannot be ignored. Note that they say "hominid" because there were no modern humans 1.3 million years ago (this is well established).
It didn't end there. There are a number of papers back and forth. If you
read the USA Today article, you get an idea of what the process is like.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-footprints_N.htm
The Gonzales group now accepts the 1.3 million year age date. It has not
really been established that these are footprints at all. To see images
of the alleged tracks go to.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050704/full/news050704-4.html
It does not appear to be an example of fraud on the part of the scientific
community, but the result of the normal process of science. An honest
controversy well documented by the exchange of papers.
-John
Glenn
Jul 26, 2012, 1:32:07 PM7/26/12
to
news:98f6a0f2-7e2f-4e57...@googlegroups.com...
Assumedly, according to a recent observation by TomS, they must not have been
"thoroughly tested", since "so many different dating methods, based on so many
different principles, arrive at the same result". I get this mental image of
evolutionists with their shoestrings tied together telling others how to walk.
"thoroughly tested", since "so many different dating methods, based on so many
different principles, arrive at the same result". I get this mental image of
evolutionists with their shoestrings tied together telling others how to walk.
Boikat
Jul 26, 2012, 1:36:06 PM7/26/12
to
On Jul 26, 9:43�am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
>
> One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
>
> Here s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_200...
and would not even put a dent in the ToE.
<snip>
Boikat
> We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
>
> One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
>
> Here s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_200...
> Here are some excerpts from that article:
> The discovery of human footprints in the Valsequillo Basin of Central Mexico challenges this model, providing new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.
At best, that would only cast doubt on the history of human migration,
and would not even put a dent in the ToE.
<snip>
Boikat
Tom McDonald
Jul 26, 2012, 1:45:14 PM7/26/12
to
On Jul 26, 12:06�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:50:22 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
<snip>
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:50:22 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
> > > Also I don't think you read the whole thing. �The dating of the ash is now millions of years old
>
> > Which ash? The ash in which the notional footprints were found was not
> > dated to millions of years ago by any method. Pay attention.
>
> Again, read the following...
>
> �In December of 2005, a team led by geochronologist Paul Renne of the University of California, Berkeley, reported in Naturethat the trackway ash layer dated to 1.3 million years ago, according to analysis of radioactive Argon elements in the rock. If the ash dated to 1.3 million years, that meant the footprints in it couldn't have been made by modern humans, who have only been around for about 200,000 years, tops, as indicated by bones and tools.
actual scientific publications. AFAICS, your links are to popular
science, or journalistic, publications or, in the case of a USAToday
article, to frank journalism. Journalists get things wrong all the
time, especially when they are discussing technical aspects of a
particular science story. The more unusual/sensational the story, the
more likely the non-scientist writer is to flub stuff quite seriously.
If you had read a bit more deeply into the Gonzalez footprints
situation, you'd have noticed that much of the discussion was clouded
by the fact that not all of the samples collected for analysis by the
various investigators came from the actual site of the notional
footprints. The valley in which they were found is quite geologically
complex, and the layers dated do not always refer to the same
geological members or sites. IIRC, that was the case with the Renne
work, though I could be mistaken.
Again, though, if you'd provided links to the actual scientific papers
involved, we could have a real conversation, with everyone on the same
page. I don't think you want that, but you should.
BTW, you should know that Google Groups truncates URLs, which usually
means one cannot follow them to where you want to go. I suggest you
use something like TinyURL to shorten any links you provide, which GGs
does not seem to truncate, and do seem to work. I personally try to
give both the original URL, and a TinyURL to the same site each time I
post a link. That way we can all follow along at home.
Nivalian
Jul 26, 2012, 2:08:04 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:36:06 PM UTC-4, Boikat wrote:
> On Jul 26, 9:43�am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
> >
> > One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
> >
> > Here s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_200...
> > Here are some excerpts from that article:
> > The discovery of human footprints in the Valsequillo Basin of Central Mexico challenges this model, providing new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.
>
> Boikat
The point of this topic is dating methods and the footprints.
> On Jul 26, 9:43�am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
> >
> > One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
> >
> > Here s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_200...
> > Here are some excerpts from that article:
> > The discovery of human footprints in the Valsequillo Basin of Central Mexico challenges this model, providing new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.
>
>
> At best, that would only cast doubt on the history of human migration,
> and would not even put a dent in the ToE.
>
> <snip>
>
> At best, that would only cast doubt on the history of human migration,
> and would not even put a dent in the ToE.
>
>
> Boikat
The point of this topic is dating methods and the footprints.
Nashton
Jul 26, 2012, 2:15:35 PM7/26/12
to
On 07-26-12 1:50 PM, Tom McDonald wrote:
> On Jul 26, 11:29 am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:27:31 AM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
>
>>> I also notice that you have become a born-again believer in
>>> radiometric dating in this case. Good for you! Now apply that to other
>>> radiometric observations and you too may become less ignorant.
>>
>> Tom - the crux of this topic is to show that the dating methods simply do not work.
>
> Then you have failed at the crux of the topic. Dating methods do work;
> your cherry-picking and argument by assertion do not.
What utter nonsense.
> On Jul 26, 11:29 am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:27:31 AM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
>
>>> I also notice that you have become a born-again believer in
>>> radiometric dating in this case. Good for you! Now apply that to other
>>> radiometric observations and you too may become less ignorant.
>>
>> Tom - the crux of this topic is to show that the dating methods simply do not work.
>
> Then you have failed at the crux of the topic. Dating methods do work;
> your cherry-picking and argument by assertion do not.
What is this supposed to mean, anyway?
Closed minds.
Nashton
Jul 26, 2012, 2:18:34 PM7/26/12
to
Excellent example of the quality of arguments for evolution and the ilk
of the people that support it.
Just another bozo, with a faint understanding of anything scientific,
gets to be a bully.
Awwww
Tom McDonald
Jul 26, 2012, 2:26:29 PM7/26/12
to
that cherry-picked objections to those methods and argument by
assertion do not work.
Did you not get that from what I wrote.
> Closed minds.
Some are. Yours and Niv's, for instance.
Boikat
Jul 26, 2012, 2:27:46 PM7/26/12
to
On Jul 26, 1:15�pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> Closed minds.
Something about "pots and kettles" jumps to mind, for some reason....
But, I guess you don't know what that means, either.
Boikat
Glenn
Jul 26, 2012, 2:35:49 PM7/26/12
to
news:b7998668-03e9-450a...@googlegroups.com...
Your claim as seen above associates the ToE as a wordview, so the point of this
topic is not dating methods and footprints. However, both of Boikat's claims
should only reinforce your assumption of the ToE as being a worldview. There may
be at times some "doubt" on minor issues but would have no impact on the general
paradigm.
topic is not dating methods and footprints. However, both of Boikat's claims
should only reinforce your assumption of the ToE as being a worldview. There may
be at times some "doubt" on minor issues but would have no impact on the general
paradigm.
Nivalian
Jul 26, 2012, 2:39:13 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 2:26:29 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
> On Jul 26, 1:15�pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> > On 07-26-12 1:50 PM, Tom McDonald wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 26, 11:29 am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:27:31 AM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
> >
> > >>> I also notice that you have become a born-again believer in
> > >>> radiometric dating in this case. Good for you! Now apply that to other
> > >>> radiometric observations and you too may become less ignorant.
> >
> > >> Tom - �the crux of this topic is to show that the dating methods simply do not work.
> >
> > > Then you have failed at the crux of the topic. Dating methods do work;
> > > your cherry-picking and argument by assertion do not.
> >
> > What utter nonsense.
> > What is this supposed to mean, anyway?
>
> It's supposed to mean that radiometric dating methods do work, and
>
> Some are. Yours and Niv's, for instance.
Tom - which dates were right and why? If you choose the older date, then why the C14?
> On Jul 26, 1:15�pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> > On 07-26-12 1:50 PM, Tom McDonald wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 26, 11:29 am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:27:31 AM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
> >
> > >>> I also notice that you have become a born-again believer in
> > >>> radiometric dating in this case. Good for you! Now apply that to other
> > >>> radiometric observations and you too may become less ignorant.
> >
> > >> Tom - �the crux of this topic is to show that the dating methods simply do not work.
> >
> > > Then you have failed at the crux of the topic. Dating methods do work;
> > > your cherry-picking and argument by assertion do not.
> >
> > What utter nonsense.
> > What is this supposed to mean, anyway?
>
> It's supposed to mean that radiometric dating methods do work, and
> that cherry-picked objections to those methods and argument by
> assertion do not work.
>
> Did you not get that from what I wrote.
>
> > Closed minds.
> assertion do not work.
>
> Did you not get that from what I wrote.
>
>
> Some are. Yours and Niv's, for instance.
Tom - which dates were right and why? If you choose the older date, then why the C14?
Glenn
Jul 26, 2012, 2:46:35 PM7/26/12
to
"Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f756f88b-fb9f-4f43...@j19g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
utter nonsense. Apparently dating methods do not always "work", since they are
continually "improved", can be less than "thoroughly tested" and do not always
arrive at the same result. Apparently to you they "work" when "methods" are
"thorougly tested", and that argument by assertion is supported by...what. Other
dating methods that arrive at the same result? And those other methods "work"?
Glenn
Jul 26, 2012, 2:50:26 PM7/26/12
to
"Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2158af1a-19a8-431f...@v7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 26, 1:15 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> > On 07-26-12 1:50 PM, Tom McDonald wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 26, 11:29 am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:27:31 AM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
> >
> > >>> I also notice that you have become a born-again believer in
> > >>> radiometric dating in this case. Good for you! Now apply that to other
> > >>> radiometric observations and you too may become less ignorant.
> >
> > >> Tom - the crux of this topic is to show that the dating methods simply do
not work.
> >
> > > Then you have failed at the crux of the topic. Dating methods do work;
> > > your cherry-picking and argument by assertion do not.
> >
> > What utter nonsense.
> > What is this supposed to mean, anyway?
>
> If you don't know what it means, how do you know it's "nonsense"?
>
ohaojn aofhoih[iha i haihj oas asol lsl a ohjaopasjd huh?
> > On 07-26-12 1:50 PM, Tom McDonald wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 26, 11:29 am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:27:31 AM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
> >
> > >>> I also notice that you have become a born-again believer in
> > >>> radiometric dating in this case. Good for you! Now apply that to other
> > >>> radiometric observations and you too may become less ignorant.
> >
> > >> Tom - the crux of this topic is to show that the dating methods simply do
not work.
> >
> > > Then you have failed at the crux of the topic. Dating methods do work;
> > > your cherry-picking and argument by assertion do not.
> >
> > What utter nonsense.
> > What is this supposed to mean, anyway?
>
> If you don't know what it means, how do you know it's "nonsense"?
>
John Stockwell
Jul 26, 2012, 2:52:51 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:08:04 PM UTC-6, Nivalian wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:36:06 PM UTC-4, Boikat wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:36:06 PM UTC-4, Boikat wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 9:43�am, Nivalian &lt;rhed...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> > &gt; We haven&#39;t found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it&#39;s a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
> > &gt;
> > &gt; One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
> > &gt; We haven&#39;t found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it&#39;s a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
> > &gt;
> > &gt;
> > &gt; Here s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_200...
> > &gt; Here are some excerpts from that article:
> > &gt; The discovery of human footprints in the Valsequillo Basin of Central Mexico challenges this model, providing new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.
> >
> >
> > At best, that would only cast doubt on the history of human migration,
> > and would not even put a dent in the ToE.
> >
> > &lt;snip&gt;
> >
> > Boikat
>
> The point of this topic is dating methods and the footprints.
Apparently the dating methods *do* work. There is a progression of methods
>
> The point of this topic is dating methods and the footprints.
and evidence. Even the Gonzales team cannot dismiss the 1.3 million year age
for the ash flow. So, that means that they have to look more critically at the
alleged tracks.
Not everything in science is resolved. If we were as dishonest as you claim
we are, then you would never hear about scientific controversies such as this.
The controversy in this case are two fold, first is "are these hominid footprints" and second "how old is the ash flow".
The controversy is not the subject of geochronology, which is a well established branch of science with well tested methods, but the application in this situation.
-John
Tom McDonald
Jul 26, 2012, 3:05:19 PM7/26/12
to
literature so that we can make a determination as to what was dated,
and whether the dating you mention has anything to do with the
specific layer and locale in question.
Given your previous, proven penchant for vagueness and your apparent
inability to provide decent references, it is not at all clear that
everyone is talking about the same thing.
Do some digging in the actual scientific literature, and then bring
what you find back to us.
Until then, I think it most likely that all the dates and dating
techniques used were correct and appropriate for the samples each
used; but it is not clear that they all relate to the same thing.
Tom McDonald
Jul 26, 2012, 3:09:07 PM7/26/12
to
On Jul 26, 1:46�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Tom McDonald" <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
Or:
http://tinyurl.com/7btzwlc
> "Tom McDonald" <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Or:
http://tinyurl.com/7btzwlc
Boikat
Jul 26, 2012, 3:15:41 PM7/26/12
to
Did what Tom wrote look like a foreign language to you?
Boikat
Glenn
Jul 26, 2012, 3:37:57 PM7/26/12
to
news:e7a0670c-56f6-42dd...@g5g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
Does what I wrote look like a foreign language to you?
Glenn
Jul 26, 2012, 3:42:36 PM7/26/12
to
news:77f10f88-44cd-4434...@d24g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
There's a mouthful.
Mitchell Coffey
Jul 26, 2012, 4:09:46 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 3:37:57 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> "Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:e7a0670c-56f6-42dd...@g5g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 26, 1:50 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > "Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > news:2158af1a-19a8-431f...@v7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jul 26, 1:15 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> > > > > >>> radiometric dating in this case. Good for you! Now apply that to
> other
> > > > > >>> radiometric observations and you too may become less ignorant.
> > >
> > > > > >> Tom - the crux of this topic is to show that the dating methods
> simply do
> > > not work.
> > >
> > > > > > Then you have failed at the crux of the topic. Dating methods do work;
> > > > > > your cherry-picking and argument by assertion do not.
> > >
> > > > > What utter nonsense.
> > > > > What is this supposed to mean, anyway?
> > >
> > > > If you don't know what it means, how do you know it's "nonsense"?
> > >
> > > ohaojn aofhoih[iha i haihj oas asol lsl a ohjaopasjd huh?-
> >
> > Did what Tom wrote look like a foreign language to you?
> >
Mitchell
> "Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:e7a0670c-56f6-42dd...@g5g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 26, 1:50 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > "Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > news:2158af1a-19a8-431f...@v7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jul 26, 1:15 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> > > > > On 07-26-12 1:50 PM, Tom McDonald wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > On Jul 26, 11:29 am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > >> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:27:31 AM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
> > >
> > > > > >>> I also notice that you have become a born-again believer in
> > >
> > > > > >>> radiometric dating in this case. Good for you! Now apply that to
> other
> > > > > >>> radiometric observations and you too may become less ignorant.
> > >
> > > > > >> Tom - the crux of this topic is to show that the dating methods
> simply do
> > > not work.
> > >
> > > > > > Then you have failed at the crux of the topic. Dating methods do work;
> > > > > > your cherry-picking and argument by assertion do not.
> > >
> > > > > What utter nonsense.
> > > > > What is this supposed to mean, anyway?
> > >
> > > > If you don't know what it means, how do you know it's "nonsense"?
> > >
> > > ohaojn aofhoih[iha i haihj oas asol lsl a ohjaopasjd huh?-
> >
> > Did what Tom wrote look like a foreign language to you?
> >
> Does what I wrote look like a foreign language to you?
What your wrote looks like either Finnish or Dothraki to me. What Tom wrote appears to be English.
Mitchell
Tom McDonald
Jul 26, 2012, 4:18:03 PM7/26/12
to
conversation takes some minimum amount of work. If you want to
participate, do the work. If all you want to do is snipe, well, that's
a lot easier. But perhaps you could be so kind as to mark your
snipes. ;-)
Nivalian
Jul 26, 2012, 4:32:08 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 2:52:51 PM UTC-4, John Stockwell wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:08:04 PM UTC-6, Nivalian wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:36:06 PM UTC-4, Boikat wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:08:04 PM UTC-6, Nivalian wrote:
> > &gt; On Jul 26, 9:43�am, Nivalian &amp;lt;rhed...@gmail.com&amp;gt; wrote:
> > &gt; &amp;gt; We haven&amp;#39;t found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it&amp;#39;s a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
> > &gt; &amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt; One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
> > &gt; &amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt; Here s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_200...
> > &gt; &amp;gt; Here are some excerpts from that article:
> > &gt; &amp;gt; The discovery of human footprints in the Valsequillo Basin of Central Mexico challenges this model, providing new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.
> > &gt;
> > &gt;
> > &gt; At best, that would only cast doubt on the history of human migration,
> > &gt;
> > &gt; and would not even put a dent in the ToE.
> > &gt;
> > &gt; &amp;lt;snip&amp;gt;
> > &gt;
> > &gt; Boikat
> >
> > The point of this topic is dating methods and the footprints.
>
> Apparently the dating methods *do* work. There is a progression of methods
> and evidence. Even the Gonzales team cannot dismiss the 1.3 million year age
> for the ash flow. So, that means that they have to look more critically at the
> alleged tracks.
>
> Not everything in science is resolved. If we were as dishonest as you claim
> we are, then you would never hear about scientific controversies such as this.
> The controversy in this case are two fold, first is "are these hominid footprints" and second "how old is the ash flow".
> Apparently the dating methods *do* work. There is a progression of methods
> and evidence. Even the Gonzales team cannot dismiss the 1.3 million year age
> for the ash flow. So, that means that they have to look more critically at the
> alleged tracks.
>
> Not everything in science is resolved. If we were as dishonest as you claim
> we are, then you would never hear about scientific controversies such as this.
>
> The controversy is not the subject of geochronology, which is a well established branch of science with well tested methods, but the application in this situation.
>
> -John
John - I wish their website was still up and running so you could see it for yourself, but it's now shut down. Anyway, so you believe after testing and verifying the footprints by laser scanning, producing 3-d model images, and determining heights of the parents and children are nothing but markings?
> The controversy is not the subject of geochronology, which is a well established branch of science with well tested methods, but the application in this situation.
>
> -John
The multiple dating methods used and have been verified over and over are ALL wrong now because of reasons I don't know. Help me out here.
Tom McDonald
Jul 26, 2012, 4:28:46 PM7/26/12
to
"bunbwa nbsubvu[vun v unvuw bnf nfby yfy n buwnbcnfwq uhu"
So, yes. Dothraki.
Mitchell Coffey
Jul 26, 2012, 4:49:40 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:32:08 PM UTC-4, Nivalian wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 2:52:51 PM UTC-4, John Stockwell wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:08:04 PM UTC-6, Nivalian wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 2:52:51 PM UTC-4, John Stockwell wrote:
> > &gt; On Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:36:06 PM UTC-4, Boikat wrote:
> > &gt; &amp;gt; On Jul 26, 9:43�am, Nivalian &amp;amp;lt;rhed...@gmail.com&amp;amp;gt; wrote:
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; We haven&amp;amp;#39;t found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it&amp;amp;#39;s a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Here s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_200...
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Here are some excerpts from that article:
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; The discovery of human footprints in the Valsequillo Basin of Central Mexico challenges this model, providing new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.
> > &gt; &amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt; At best, that would only cast doubt on the history of human migration,
> > &gt; &amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt; and would not even put a dent in the ToE.
> > &gt; &amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;lt;snip&amp;amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt; Boikat
> > &gt;
> > &gt; The point of this topic is dating methods and the footprints.
> >
> > Apparently the dating methods *do* work. There is a progression of methods
> > and evidence. Even the Gonzales team cannot dismiss the 1.3 million year age
> > for the ash flow. So, that means that they have to look more critically at the
> > alleged tracks.
> >
> > Not everything in science is resolved. If we were as dishonest as you claim
> > we are, then you would never hear about scientific controversies such as this.
> > The controversy in this case are two fold, first is &quot;are these hominid footprints&quot; and second &quot;how old is the ash flow&quot;.
> >
> > The controversy is not the subject of geochronology, which is a well established branch of science with well tested methods, but the application in this situation.
> >
> > -John
>
> John - I wish their website was still up and running so you could see it for yourself, but it's now shut down. Anyway, so you believe after testing and verifying the footprints by laser scanning, producing 3-d model images, and determining heights of the parents and children are nothing but markings?
>
> The multiple dating methods used and have been verified over and over are ALL wrong now because of reasons I don't know. Help me out here.
Are you going to stop believing in the legitimacy of North Korean elections if ever the rulling party gets less than 100%?
Mitchell Coffey
Slow Vehicle
Jul 26, 2012, 5:04:20 PM7/26/12
to
On Jul 26, 11:15�am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Nivalian" <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Glenn:
...way to peg the irony meter, claiming that other posters will get
uncivil...
> "Nivalian" <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote in message
...way to peg the irony meter, claiming that other posters will get
uncivil...
Slow Vehicle
Jul 26, 2012, 5:06:42 PM7/26/12
to
result was reported, tested, retested, contested, and withdrawn.
Could you clarify what you think the problem is?
Slow Vehicle
Jul 26, 2012, 5:10:15 PM7/26/12
to
It means, "Dating methods do work".
That is, different methods of dating converge on equivalent dates.
If (for instance) some mystical effect that caused Ar to decay in a
different manner, or at a different rate, is posited, the problem is
raised as to why (for instance) dendrochronolgy results in concordant
dates, despite the posited alteration.
The TO site has several articles on the concept:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
and so forth. You should give them a read...
Glenn
Jul 26, 2012, 5:25:53 PM7/26/12
to
"Slow Vehicle" <oneslow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3edae340-f5e5-4531...@l6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...
Dana Tweedy
Jul 26, 2012, 5:31:58 PM7/26/12
to
On 7/26/12 8:43 AM, Nivalian wrote:
> We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don�t question it. They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. You cannot falsify a worldview. If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn�t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it �sheds new light�.
>
> One example (and yes there are much, much more), I�ll begin with the Mexican footprints. I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
>
> Here�s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:
> http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_2005.pdf
>
Ok... new evidence is always good.
> �Most early human occupation sites in the Americas date to the latest Pleistocene or Ice Age, between
> 10,000 and 12,500 years ago. The existence of 40,000 year old human footprints in Mexico means that the �Clovis First� model of human occupation can no longer be accepted as the first evidence of human presence in the Americas.�
Ok, it's controversial, as far as theories regarding the date humans
first inhabited the Americas, but nothing to do with evolution.
>
> �By laser scanning the footprints, Professor Matthew Bennett and Dr Xavier Velay from the University of Bournemouth, were able to create 3-d images and models of the footprints. The actual footprints remain in situ in the Mexican quarry. The 3-d models allowed the researchers to categorise the footprints according to their size and shape. Approx. 60% of the prints are human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children�s because of their size. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry and it is estimated that the adult humans were between 117 and 190 cm tall.�
>
Ok, used technology to make estimations...
> Now pay close attention to this excerpt�
>
> �The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
> 1) pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
> 2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
> 3) the fact that they have deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical �figure of eight� contours
> 4) they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens�
Ok, the footprints were likely human. Since modern humans have existed
for about 200,000 years, and upright hominids have been around for over
5 million years, no problem so far.
>
> Also, just as important, read this closely as well�
>
> � Previous attempts to date the basin�s sediments and animal bones have had variable and controversial results, with finds dated from around 9,000 to 35,000 to even 200,000 to 600,000 years ago.�
> There have been significant advances in dating techniques since the controversial excavations at the Valsequillo Basin during the 1960s. Dr Gonzalez and her team used the following techniques to date the human footprints and the sediments above and below these trace fossils:
>
This says that new dating methods have increased the confidence of the
ages involved. The prints were not able to be dated directly, so they
used the standard method of testing strata above, and below.
> - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
> - Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr�n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
> - Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
> - Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
> - Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
> Two things you should remember, 1) the dating methods and 2) the undisputed footprints.
Ok, the dating methods used were disclosed, and the conclusions were
offered. So far standard scientific work.
>
> Here�s another article about the footprints:
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080606-ancient-footprints_2.html
>
> In that article they go on to say for the dependable dating methods�
> Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
> "You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
> The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
> The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
> And here are excerpts about the human footprints�
>
> To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
>
> "Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
> "We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
What exactly here is your objection to evolution? The dates are are
consistent with what is known about modern humans, and different dating
techniques. It suggests that humans may have inhabited the Americas
earlier than thought.
>
> They are many articles and pictures on the net so feel free to search for more. I just wish that one website was up and running because it had great pictures showing the left-right stride and all of the dating methods.
>
> Here�s another article with more information:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141102.htm
>
> Okay, the point is of this story is that the footprints are out of place.
You do realize, don't you that these are entirely different footprints
from the ones in Mexico? The ones mentioned in the article above are
from Kenya, which is in Africa. Mexico is in North America. Entirely
different continents. Also, the footprints in Kenya are much older
than the footprints in Mexico.
> At really out of place if you want to accept the other different dates dating in the millions.
At 1.5 million years ago, the hominid species Homo erectus lived in that
area, and had legs and feet very much like modern humans. The dates of
those footprints were consistent with footprints being left by H.
erectus, or another similar hominid species.
> And remember what I told you about paying close attention to the footprints and the dating because the story isn�t over. Now you are about to witness science at work�
>
> After reading everything above, that has all now changed. The evidence about the dating methods, the footprints etc are no more.
Again, the footprints in the Science Daily article are entirely
different footprints from the ones found in Mexico.
> You see the evidence didn�t jive with the evolutionary worldview.
I don't see any evidence in any of those articles you listed that don't
"jive" (by the way, the word you are looking for is "jibe") with the
theory of evolution. The Mexico foot prints were most likely made by
anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) while the Kenya footprints were
most likely made by H. erectus about a million years earlier. What is
the problem?
> Therefore, the evidence will change. Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-footprints_N.htm
This is an example of scientists disagreeing over a particular matter.
That's fairly common in science. It has nothing to do with the
footprints in Kenya, and is not evidence changing. It's more
evidence clarifying the matter.
DJT
> We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don�t question it. They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. You cannot falsify a worldview. If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn�t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it �sheds new light�.
>
> One example (and yes there are much, much more), I�ll begin with the Mexican footprints. I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
>
> Here�s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:
> http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_2005.pdf
> Here are some excerpts from that article:
> �The discovery of human footprints in the Valsequillo Basin of Central Mexico challenges this model, providing new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.�
>
Ok... new evidence is always good.
> �Most early human occupation sites in the Americas date to the latest Pleistocene or Ice Age, between
> 10,000 and 12,500 years ago. The existence of 40,000 year old human footprints in Mexico means that the �Clovis First� model of human occupation can no longer be accepted as the first evidence of human presence in the Americas.�
Ok, it's controversial, as far as theories regarding the date humans
first inhabited the Americas, but nothing to do with evolution.
>
> �By laser scanning the footprints, Professor Matthew Bennett and Dr Xavier Velay from the University of Bournemouth, were able to create 3-d images and models of the footprints. The actual footprints remain in situ in the Mexican quarry. The 3-d models allowed the researchers to categorise the footprints according to their size and shape. Approx. 60% of the prints are human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children�s because of their size. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry and it is estimated that the adult humans were between 117 and 190 cm tall.�
>
Ok, used technology to make estimations...
> Now pay close attention to this excerpt�
>
> �The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
> 1) pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
> 2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
> 3) the fact that they have deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical �figure of eight� contours
> 4) they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens�
Ok, the footprints were likely human. Since modern humans have existed
for about 200,000 years, and upright hominids have been around for over
5 million years, no problem so far.
>
> Also, just as important, read this closely as well�
>
> � Previous attempts to date the basin�s sediments and animal bones have had variable and controversial results, with finds dated from around 9,000 to 35,000 to even 200,000 to 600,000 years ago.�
> There have been significant advances in dating techniques since the controversial excavations at the Valsequillo Basin during the 1960s. Dr Gonzalez and her team used the following techniques to date the human footprints and the sediments above and below these trace fossils:
>
This says that new dating methods have increased the confidence of the
ages involved. The prints were not able to be dated directly, so they
used the standard method of testing strata above, and below.
> - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
> - Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr�n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
> - Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
> - Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
> - Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
> Two things you should remember, 1) the dating methods and 2) the undisputed footprints.
Ok, the dating methods used were disclosed, and the conclusions were
offered. So far standard scientific work.
>
> Here�s another article about the footprints:
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080606-ancient-footprints_2.html
>
> In that article they go on to say for the dependable dating methods�
> Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
> "You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
> The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
> The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
> And here are excerpts about the human footprints�
>
> To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
>
> "Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
> "We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
What exactly here is your objection to evolution? The dates are are
consistent with what is known about modern humans, and different dating
techniques. It suggests that humans may have inhabited the Americas
earlier than thought.
>
> They are many articles and pictures on the net so feel free to search for more. I just wish that one website was up and running because it had great pictures showing the left-right stride and all of the dating methods.
>
> Here�s another article with more information:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141102.htm
>
> Okay, the point is of this story is that the footprints are out of place.
You do realize, don't you that these are entirely different footprints
from the ones in Mexico? The ones mentioned in the article above are
from Kenya, which is in Africa. Mexico is in North America. Entirely
different continents. Also, the footprints in Kenya are much older
than the footprints in Mexico.
> At really out of place if you want to accept the other different dates dating in the millions.
At 1.5 million years ago, the hominid species Homo erectus lived in that
area, and had legs and feet very much like modern humans. The dates of
those footprints were consistent with footprints being left by H.
erectus, or another similar hominid species.
> And remember what I told you about paying close attention to the footprints and the dating because the story isn�t over. Now you are about to witness science at work�
>
> After reading everything above, that has all now changed. The evidence about the dating methods, the footprints etc are no more.
Again, the footprints in the Science Daily article are entirely
different footprints from the ones found in Mexico.
> You see the evidence didn�t jive with the evolutionary worldview.
I don't see any evidence in any of those articles you listed that don't
"jive" (by the way, the word you are looking for is "jibe") with the
theory of evolution. The Mexico foot prints were most likely made by
anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) while the Kenya footprints were
most likely made by H. erectus about a million years earlier. What is
the problem?
> Therefore, the evidence will change. Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-footprints_N.htm
This is an example of scientists disagreeing over a particular matter.
That's fairly common in science. It has nothing to do with the
footprints in Kenya, and is not evidence changing. It's more
evidence clarifying the matter.
DJT
Glenn
Jul 26, 2012, 5:32:41 PM7/26/12
to
"Mitchell Coffey" <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b727d21c-49db-42d2...@googlegroups.com...
Glenn
Jul 26, 2012, 5:38:11 PM7/26/12
to
"Dana Tweedy" <reddf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:SJSdnXkyjsbSKozN...@giganews.com...
> On 7/26/12 8:43 AM, Nivalian wrote:
> > We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's
a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. Now
since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don�t
> > We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's
a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. Now
question it. They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms
it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. In science, you are to gather
the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. The Theory of Evolution works
the other way around making it a worldview. You cannot falsify a worldview. If
a worldview makes a prediction and doesn�t turn out the way it should, then that
it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. In science, you are to gather
the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. The Theory of Evolution works
the other way around making it a worldview. You cannot falsify a worldview. If
worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it �sheds new light�.
> >
> > One example (and yes there are much, much more), I�ll begin with the Mexican
footprints. I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by
a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific
data, is now gone.
> >
> > Here�s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:
a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific
data, is now gone.
> >
> > http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_2005.pdf
> > Here are some excerpts from that article:
> > �The discovery of human footprints in the Valsequillo Basin of Central
> > Here are some excerpts from that article:
Mexico challenges this model, providing new evidence that humans settled in the
Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.�
> >
>
> Ok... new evidence is always good.
>
>
>
> > �Most early human occupation sites in the Americas date to the latest
>
> Ok... new evidence is always good.
>
>
>
Pleistocene or Ice Age, between
> > 10,000 and 12,500 years ago. The existence of 40,000 year old human
footprints in Mexico means that the �Clovis First� model of human occupation can
> > 10,000 and 12,500 years ago. The existence of 40,000 year old human
no longer be accepted as the first evidence of human presence in the Americas.�
>
> Ok, it's controversial, as far as theories regarding the date humans
> first inhabited the Americas, but nothing to do with evolution.
>
Perhaps there is nothing you are not willing to say to champion evolutionary
> Ok, it's controversial, as far as theories regarding the date humans
> first inhabited the Americas, but nothing to do with evolution.
>
theory.
John Stockwell
Jul 26, 2012, 5:40:27 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 2:32:08 PM UTC-6, Nivalian wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 2:52:51 PM UTC-4, John Stockwell wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:08:04 PM UTC-6, Nivalian wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 2:52:51 PM UTC-4, John Stockwell wrote:
> > &gt; On Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:36:06 PM UTC-4, Boikat wrote:
> > &gt; &amp;gt; On Jul 26, 9:43�am, Nivalian &amp;amp;lt;rhed...@gmail.com&amp;amp;gt; wrote:
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; We haven&amp;amp;#39;t found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it&amp;amp;#39;s a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Here s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_200...
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Here are some excerpts from that article:
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; The discovery of human footprints in the Valsequillo Basin of Central Mexico challenges this model, providing new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.
> > &gt; &amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt; At best, that would only cast doubt on the history of human migration,
> > &gt; &amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt; and would not even put a dent in the ToE.
> > &gt; &amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;lt;snip&amp;amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt; Boikat
> > &gt;
> > &gt; The point of this topic is dating methods and the footprints.
> >
> > Apparently the dating methods *do* work. There is a progression of methods
> > and evidence. Even the Gonzales team cannot dismiss the 1.3 million year age
> > for the ash flow. So, that means that they have to look more critically at the
> > alleged tracks.
> >
> > Not everything in science is resolved. If we were as dishonest as you claim
> > we are, then you would never hear about scientific controversies such as this.
> > The controversy in this case are two fold, first is &quot;are these hominid footprints&quot; and second &quot;how old is the ash flow&quot;.
> >
> > The controversy is not the subject of geochronology, which is a well established branch of science with well tested methods, but the application in this situation.
> >
> > Apparently the dating methods *do* work. There is a progression of methods
> > and evidence. Even the Gonzales team cannot dismiss the 1.3 million year age
> > for the ash flow. So, that means that they have to look more critically at the
> > alleged tracks.
> >
> > Not everything in science is resolved. If we were as dishonest as you claim
> > we are, then you would never hear about scientific controversies such as this.
> > The controversy in this case are two fold, first is &quot;are these hominid footprints&quot; and second &quot;how old is the ash flow&quot;.
> >
> >
> > -John
>
> John - I wish their website was still up and running so you could see it for yourself, but it's now shut down. Anyway, so you believe after testing and verifying the footprints by laser scanning, producing 3-d model images, and determining heights of the parents and children are nothing but markings?
I guess you haven't read the papers either. These marks were on the surface
of the bottom of a quarry, so there are a lot of marks from picks and the like
there. The alleged footprints were not "verified", nor were they conclusively
even tracks, which is why all of the high tech methods were brought to bear by Gonzales and her team. At most, Gonzales tried to justify the footprint hypothesis by devising various measurement and modeling schemes. In the end, the results were inconclusive. That is why we have peer review, and why we have open investigation in science.
Future work could strengthen the case for any of the following scenarios
1) 1.3 million year old surface with pre-human hominid tracks (least likely)
2) 40,000 year old tracks of modern humans (more likely than 1)
3) 1.3 million year old surface, and no tracks at all. (the current and most likely scenario)
>
> The multiple dating methods used and have been verified over and over are ALL wrong now because of reasons I don't know. Help me out here.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The most recent age estimates of 1.3 million years, are the dates that have the most confidence. So, if these were tracks, they were not modern human tracks, but rather pre-human hominid tracks. That is an extraordinary claim, now if in a couple of years, anthropologists started finding homo erectus, or other pre-homo sapiens hominid fossils in material of the same age in Mexico, then the ball would be back in Gonzales' court. That is the least likely (but the most scientifically revolutionary)
scenario.
-John
Dana Tweedy
Jul 26, 2012, 5:47:06 PM7/26/12
to
On 7/26/12 10:18 AM, Nivalian wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:01:57 AM UTC-4, Slow Vehicle wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 8:43�am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
>> >
>> > One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
>> >
>> > Here s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_200...
>> > Here are some excerpts from that article:
>> > The discovery of human footprints in the Valsequillo Basin of Central Mexico challenges this model, providing new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.
>> >
>> > Most early human occupation sites in the Americas date to the latest Pleistocene or Ice Age, between
>> > 10,000 and 12,500 years ago. The existence of 40,000 year old human footprints in Mexico means that the Clovis First model of human occupation can no longer be accepted as the first evidence of human presence in the Americas.
>> >
>> > By laser scanning the footprints, Professor Matthew Bennett and Dr Xavier Velay from the University of Bournemouth, were able to create 3-d images and models of the footprints. The actual footprints remain in situ in the Mexican quarry. The 3-d models allowed the researchers to categorise the footprints according to their size and shape. Approx. 60% of the prints are human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children s because of their size. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry and it is estimated that the adult humans were between 117 and 190 cm tall.
>> >
>> > Now pay close attention to this excerpt
>> >
>> > The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
>> > 1) pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
>> > 2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
>> > 3) the fact that they have deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical figure of eight contours
>> > 4) they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens
>> >
>> > Also, just as important, read this closely as well
>> >
>> > Previous attempts to date the basin s sediments and animal bones have had variable and controversial results, with finds dated from around 9,000 to 35,000 to even 200,000 to 600,000 years ago.
>> > There have been significant advances in dating techniques since the controversial excavations at the Valsequillo Basin during the 1960s. Dr Gonzalez and her team used the following techniques to date the human footprints and the sediments above and below these trace fossils:
>> >
>> > - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
>> > - Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
>> > - Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
>> > - Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
>> > - Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
>> > Two things you should remember, 1) the dating methods and 2) the undisputed footprints.
>> >
>> > Here s another article about the footprints:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080606-ancient-footpr...
>> >
>> > In that article they go on to say for the dependable dating methods
>> > Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
>> > "You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
>> > The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
>> > The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
>> > And here are excerpts about the human footprints
>> >
>> > To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
>> >
>> > "Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
>> > "We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
>> >
>> > They are many articles and pictures on the net so feel free to search for more. �I just wish that one website was up and running because it had great pictures showing the left-right stride and all of the dating methods.
>> >
>> > Here s another article with more information:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141102.htm
>> >
>> > Okay, the point is of this story is that the footprints are out of place. �At really out of place if you want to accept the other different dates dating in the millions. �And remember what I told you about paying close attention to the footprints and the dating because the story isn t over. �Now you are about to witness science at work
>> >
>> > After reading everything above, that has all now changed. �The evidence about the dating methods, the footprints etc are no more. �You see the evidence didn t jive with the evolutionary worldview. �Therefore, the evidence will change. �Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-foo...
>>
>> So wait;
>> One set of scientists made an extraordinary claim, and presented their
>> evidence for it.
>> Other sets of scientists examined that claim, and disagreed.
>> The original scientists looked at the contrary evidence, and realized
>> their original claims were not supported...which is exactly how
>> science is supposed to work.
>>
>
>
> I said pay attention to the dating methods and the footprints. I will chop it up for you to understand the crux of my post:
>
> First the footprints...
often get reported badly.
>
>
> Now the dating methods...
To determine that, one would have to read the original papers. There
are any number of reasons why the dating may have been wrong.
> Why were the footprints not footprints anymore?
The suggestion is they weren't footprints at all, but misinterpreted as
them.
> If the ash is millions of years old, why then did they find C14?
Again, one would have to read the actual papers to see.
>
> The only reason they rejected the dating methods used and the footprints is because it did not jive with the timescale for the theory of evolution!
The timescale of human evolution is fairly well established, so finding
marks that look like human footprints where it's unlikely any human
species existed tends to cast doubts on the identification of the marks
as footprints. Note the article did offer the possibility that other
hominid species left the "prints", but that is considered to be unlikely.
> In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory.
and evolution is a good theory, that was established by gathering
evidence. Scientists rarely abandon a working theory because of a
single anomaly.
> The Theory of Evolution works the other way around (i.e. think of a theory and gather supporting evidence to support it) making it a worldview for naturalism.
That doesn't follow from your claims. Science makes use of
methodological naturalism, not a "worldview" of naturalism.
> You cannot falsify naturalism.
Why would you want to?
>
> The other dating methods used to falsify the other methods is just an illusion. And evolutionists will fall for it everytime.
There's no "illusion" here, just a difference of opinion between
scientists.
DJT
>
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:01:57 AM UTC-4, Slow Vehicle wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 8:43�am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
>> >
>> > One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
>> >
>> > Here s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_200...
>> > Here are some excerpts from that article:
>> > The discovery of human footprints in the Valsequillo Basin of Central Mexico challenges this model, providing new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.
>> >
>> > Most early human occupation sites in the Americas date to the latest Pleistocene or Ice Age, between
>> > 10,000 and 12,500 years ago. The existence of 40,000 year old human footprints in Mexico means that the Clovis First model of human occupation can no longer be accepted as the first evidence of human presence in the Americas.
>> >
>> > By laser scanning the footprints, Professor Matthew Bennett and Dr Xavier Velay from the University of Bournemouth, were able to create 3-d images and models of the footprints. The actual footprints remain in situ in the Mexican quarry. The 3-d models allowed the researchers to categorise the footprints according to their size and shape. Approx. 60% of the prints are human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children s because of their size. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry and it is estimated that the adult humans were between 117 and 190 cm tall.
>> >
>> > Now pay close attention to this excerpt
>> >
>> > The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
>> > 1) pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
>> > 2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
>> > 3) the fact that they have deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical figure of eight contours
>> > 4) they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens
>> >
>> > Also, just as important, read this closely as well
>> >
>> > Previous attempts to date the basin s sediments and animal bones have had variable and controversial results, with finds dated from around 9,000 to 35,000 to even 200,000 to 600,000 years ago.
>> > There have been significant advances in dating techniques since the controversial excavations at the Valsequillo Basin during the 1960s. Dr Gonzalez and her team used the following techniques to date the human footprints and the sediments above and below these trace fossils:
>> >
>> > - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
>> > - Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
>> > - Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
>> > - Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
>> > - Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
>> > Two things you should remember, 1) the dating methods and 2) the undisputed footprints.
>> >
>> > Here s another article about the footprints:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080606-ancient-footpr...
>> >
>> > In that article they go on to say for the dependable dating methods
>> > Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
>> > "You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
>> > The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
>> > The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
>> > And here are excerpts about the human footprints
>> >
>> > To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
>> >
>> > "Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
>> > "We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
>> >
>> > They are many articles and pictures on the net so feel free to search for more. �I just wish that one website was up and running because it had great pictures showing the left-right stride and all of the dating methods.
>> >
>> > Here s another article with more information:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141102.htm
>> >
>> > Okay, the point is of this story is that the footprints are out of place. �At really out of place if you want to accept the other different dates dating in the millions. �And remember what I told you about paying close attention to the footprints and the dating because the story isn t over. �Now you are about to witness science at work
>> >
>> > After reading everything above, that has all now changed. �The evidence about the dating methods, the footprints etc are no more. �You see the evidence didn t jive with the evolutionary worldview. �Therefore, the evidence will change. �Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-foo...
>>
>> So wait;
>> One set of scientists made an extraordinary claim, and presented their
>> evidence for it.
>> Other sets of scientists examined that claim, and disagreed.
>> The original scientists looked at the contrary evidence, and realized
>> their original claims were not supported...which is exactly how
>> science is supposed to work.
>>
>
>
> I said pay attention to the dating methods and the footprints. I will chop it up for you to understand the crux of my post:
>
> First the footprints...
> �By laser scanning the footprints, Professor Matthew Bennett and Dr Xavier Velay from the University of Bournemouth, were able to create 3-d images and models of the footprints. The actual footprints remain in situ in the Mexican quarry. The 3-d models allowed the researchers to categorise the footprints according to their size and shape. Approx. 60% of the prints are human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children�s because of their size. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry and it is estimated that the adult humans were between 117 and 190 cm tall.�
>
>
> �The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
> 1) pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
> 2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
> 3) the fact that they have deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical �figure of eight� contours
> 4) they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens�
>
> 1) pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
> 2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
> 3) the fact that they have deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical �figure of eight� contours
> 4) they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens�
>
> To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
>
> "Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
> "We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
>
A good example of journalistic science writing, and how overblown claims
>
> "Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
> "We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
>
often get reported badly.
>
>
> Now the dating methods...
> There have been significant advances in dating techniques since the controversial excavations at the Valsequillo Basin during the 1960s. Dr Gonzalez and her team used the following techniques to date the human footprints and the sediments above and below these trace fossils:
> - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
> - Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr�n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
> - Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
> - Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
> - Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
>
>
> - Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr�n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
> - Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
> - Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
> - Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
>
>
> Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
> "You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
> The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
> The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
>
>
> Now what was wrong with the dating methods?
> "You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
> The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
> The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
>
>
To determine that, one would have to read the original papers. There
are any number of reasons why the dating may have been wrong.
> Why were the footprints not footprints anymore?
The suggestion is they weren't footprints at all, but misinterpreted as
them.
> If the ash is millions of years old, why then did they find C14?
Again, one would have to read the actual papers to see.
>
> The only reason they rejected the dating methods used and the footprints is because it did not jive with the timescale for the theory of evolution!
The timescale of human evolution is fairly well established, so finding
marks that look like human footprints where it's unlikely any human
species existed tends to cast doubts on the identification of the marks
as footprints. Note the article did offer the possibility that other
hominid species left the "prints", but that is considered to be unlikely.
> In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory.
evidence. Scientists rarely abandon a working theory because of a
single anomaly.
> The Theory of Evolution works the other way around (i.e. think of a theory and gather supporting evidence to support it) making it a worldview for naturalism.
That doesn't follow from your claims. Science makes use of
methodological naturalism, not a "worldview" of naturalism.
> You cannot falsify naturalism.
Why would you want to?
>
> The other dating methods used to falsify the other methods is just an illusion. And evolutionists will fall for it everytime.
There's no "illusion" here, just a difference of opinion between
scientists.
DJT
>
Dana Tweedy
Jul 26, 2012, 5:50:26 PM7/26/12
to
On 7/26/12 10:55 AM, Nivalian wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:39:36 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 11:27�am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:39:36 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 11:27�am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I also notice that you have become a born-again believer in
>> > I also notice that you have become a born-again believer in
>> > radiometric dating in this case. Good for you! Now apply that to other
>> > radiometric observations and you too may become less ignorant.
>>
>>
>> Good catch!
>>
>> Chris
>
> What's the good catch? That dating methods don't work?
>
The "good catch" is that you are using radiometric dating to make your
>>
>> Chris
>
> What's the good catch? That dating methods don't work?
>
points, without realizing that you are accepting radiometric dating.
Radiometric dating destroys any suggestion the earth is less than 10,000
years old.
DJT
John Stockwell
Jul 26, 2012, 5:53:27 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 2:32:08 PM UTC-6, Nivalian wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 2:52:51 PM UTC-4, John Stockwell wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:08:04 PM UTC-6, Nivalian wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 2:52:51 PM UTC-4, John Stockwell wrote:
> > &gt; On Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:36:06 PM UTC-4, Boikat wrote:
> > &gt; &amp;gt; On Jul 26, 9:43�am, Nivalian &amp;amp;lt;rhed...@gmail.com&amp;amp;gt; wrote:
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; We haven&amp;amp;#39;t found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it&amp;amp;#39;s a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it sheds new light .
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; One example (and yes there are much, much more), I ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Here s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_200...
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Here are some excerpts from that article:
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; The discovery of human footprints in the Valsequillo Basin of Central Mexico challenges this model, providing new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.
> > &gt; &amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt; At best, that would only cast doubt on the history of human migration,
> > &gt; &amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt; and would not even put a dent in the ToE.
> > &gt; &amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;lt;snip&amp;amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt;
> > &gt; &amp;gt; Boikat
> > &gt;
> > &gt; The point of this topic is dating methods and the footprints.
> >
> > Apparently the dating methods *do* work. There is a progression of methods
> > and evidence. Even the Gonzales team cannot dismiss the 1.3 million year age
> > for the ash flow. So, that means that they have to look more critically at the
> > alleged tracks.
> >
> > Not everything in science is resolved. If we were as dishonest as you claim
> > we are, then you would never hear about scientific controversies such as this.
> > The controversy in this case are two fold, first is &quot;are these hominid footprints&quot; and second &quot;how old is the ash flow&quot;.
> >
> > The controversy is not the subject of geochronology, which is a well established branch of science with well tested methods, but the application in this situation.
> >
> > Apparently the dating methods *do* work. There is a progression of methods
> > and evidence. Even the Gonzales team cannot dismiss the 1.3 million year age
> > for the ash flow. So, that means that they have to look more critically at the
> > alleged tracks.
> >
> > Not everything in science is resolved. If we were as dishonest as you claim
> > we are, then you would never hear about scientific controversies such as this.
> > The controversy in this case are two fold, first is &quot;are these hominid footprints&quot; and second &quot;how old is the ash flow&quot;.
> >
> >
> > -John
>
> John - I wish their website was still up and running so you could see it for yourself, but it's now shut down. Anyway, so you believe after testing and verifying the footprints by laser scanning, producing 3-d model images, and determining heights of the parents and children are nothing but markings?
>
> The multiple dating methods used and have been verified over and over are ALL wrong now because of reasons I don't know. Help me out here.
Another followup is the following paper:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110000909
Sarita Amy Morse, Matthew R. Bennett, Silvia Gonzalez, David Huddart (2010) Techniques for verifying human footprints: reappraisal of pre-Clovis footprints in Central Mexico Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 29, Issues 19-20, September 2010, Pages 2571-2578
"Abstract
Verification of human footprints within the geological record provides critical evidence of presence as well as information on the biomechanics of the individuals who made those prints. Consequently, the correct identification of human footprints is important, but is something for which critical and objective criteria do not exist. The current paper attempts to address this issue by presenting a new statistically based approach to the verification of human footprints. The importance of this is illustrated by the recent controversy surrounding a series of marks identified as human prints in the Valsequillo Basin in Central Mexico dated originally to 40 000 years ago. The dating of these marks remains highly controversial with some teams placing their age at 1.3 million years old. Irrespective of this debate the crucial question that must be addressed is whether or not they represent evidence of human presence. Using an objective statistically based methodology developed here, these controversial marks are re-
examined and found to be of questionable origin, as they are inconsistent with a suite of other, known human and hominin prints. Consequently, we argue that they should be removed as evidence in the ongoing controversy surrounding the colonization of the Americas."
You will notice that Silvia Gonzales is one of the co-authors. The alleged tracks were studied statistically using better methods, which led them to withdraw the claim. This, also, is good very good science, and should be read as part of this unfolding story of scientific investigation.
-John
Boikat
Jul 26, 2012, 6:03:48 PM7/26/12
to
It could be. Or it could be nothing but random letters. The point is
that I did not call it "utter nonsense" simply because I did not know
what it meant. OTHO, you characterized Tom's post as "utter
nonsense", then asked "what is this supposed to mean, anyway?"
Boikat
Glenn
Jul 26, 2012, 6:19:39 PM7/26/12
to
news:7f8cb08e-e9a1-4be3...@e7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Well, its good to know that you didn't call it utter nonsense.
Boikat
Jul 26, 2012, 6:48:42 PM7/26/12
to
Boikat
Slow Vehicle
Jul 26, 2012, 6:54:56 PM7/26/12
to
On Jul 26, 3:25�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Slow Vehicle" <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
...good thing...
> "Slow Vehicle" <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Glenn
Jul 26, 2012, 7:04:11 PM7/26/12
to
news:ae4c6114-1798-46a0...@m8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
You taking book on it?
Glenn
Jul 26, 2012, 7:05:02 PM7/26/12
to
news:27bd9df2-03da-4995...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...
.............................Why......... is
..............that.....................................
..............that.....................................
Mitchell Coffey
Jul 26, 2012, 7:40:36 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:05:02 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> "Slow Vehicle" <oneslow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:27bd9df2-03da-4995...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 26, 3:25 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > "Slow Vehicle" <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > news:3edae340-f5e5-4531...@l6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...> On
> Jul 26, 11:15 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > "Nivalian" <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > >news:5626d35a-e484-4498...@googlegroups.com...> On
> Thursday,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > On Jul 26, 11:27 am, Tom McDonald &lt;kilt...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > &gt; I also notice that you have become a born-again believer in
> > > > > > > &gt; radiometric dating in this case. Good for you! Now apply that
> to
> > > other
> > > > > > > &gt; radiometric observations and you too may become less ignorant.
> > >
> > > > > > > Good catch!
> > >
> > > > > > > Chris
> > >
> > > > > > What's the good catch? That dating methods don't work?
> > >
> > > > > That tea leaf readin is gettin better all the time. You'll find every
> trick
> > > in
> > > > > the book and more will be thrown at you here, and they will soon get
> quite
> > > > > uncivil, to put it mildly, if you persist.
> > >
> > > > Glenn:
> > > > ...way to peg the irony meter, claiming that other posters will get
> > > > uncivil...
> > >
> > > That is ironic, since I have not professed to be Mr. Civility.
> >
> > ...good thing...
> >
> .............................Why......... is
> ..............that.....................................
Why, because then you'd look like a hypocritical douche.
Mitchell
> "Slow Vehicle" <oneslow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:27bd9df2-03da-4995...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 26, 3:25 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > "Slow Vehicle" <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > news:3edae340-f5e5-4531...@l6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...> On
> Jul 26, 11:15 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > "Nivalian" <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > >news:5626d35a-e484-4498...@googlegroups.com...> On
> Thursday,
> > >
> > > July 26, 2012 12:39:36 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > On Jul 26, 11:27 am, Tom McDonald &lt;kilt...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > &gt; I also notice that you have become a born-again believer in
> > > > > > > &gt; radiometric dating in this case. Good for you! Now apply that
> to
> > > other
> > > > > > > &gt; radiometric observations and you too may become less ignorant.
> > >
> > > > > > > Good catch!
> > >
> > > > > > > Chris
> > >
> > > > > > What's the good catch? That dating methods don't work?
> > >
> > > > > That tea leaf readin is gettin better all the time. You'll find every
> trick
> > > in
> > > > > the book and more will be thrown at you here, and they will soon get
> quite
> > > > > uncivil, to put it mildly, if you persist.
> > >
> > > > Glenn:
> > > > ...way to peg the irony meter, claiming that other posters will get
> > > > uncivil...
> > >
> > > That is ironic, since I have not professed to be Mr. Civility.
> >
> > ...good thing...
> >
> .............................Why......... is
> ..............that.....................................
Why, because then you'd look like a hypocritical douche.
Mitchell
Nivalian
Jul 26, 2012, 7:52:53 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 5:31:58 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>
> This says that new dating methods have increased the confidence of the
> ages involved. The prints were not able to be dated directly, so they
> used the standard method of testing strata above, and below.
>
>
>
> > - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
>
> This says that new dating methods have increased the confidence of the
> ages involved. The prints were not able to be dated directly, so they
> used the standard method of testing strata above, and below.
>
>
>
> > - Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Grün at the Australian National University, Canberra.
> > - Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
> > - Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
> > - Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
> > Two things you should remember, 1) the dating methods and 2) the undisputed footprints.
>
> Ok, the dating methods used were disclosed, and the conclusions were
> offered. So far standard scientific work.
>
>
>
>
> >
> Ok, the dating methods used were disclosed, and the conclusions were
> offered. So far standard scientific work.
>
>
>
>
> > Here’s another article about the footprints:
> > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080606-ancient-footprints_2.html
> >
> > In that article they go on to say for the dependable dating methods…
> > Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
> > "You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
> > The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
> > The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
> > "You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
> > The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
> > And here are excerpts about the human footprints…
> >
> > To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
> >
> > "Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
> > "We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
> > To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
> >
> > "Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
>
> What exactly here is your objection to evolution? The dates are are
> consistent with what is known about modern humans, and different dating
> techniques. It suggests that humans may have inhabited the Americas
> earlier than thought.
>
>
>
>
> > You see the evidence didn’t jive with the evolutionary worldview.
> What exactly here is your objection to evolution? The dates are are
> consistent with what is known about modern humans, and different dating
> techniques. It suggests that humans may have inhabited the Americas
> earlier than thought.
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't see any evidence in any of those articles you listed that don't
> "jive" (by the way, the word you are looking for is "jibe") with the
> theory of evolution. The Mexico foot prints were most likely made by
> anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) while the Kenya footprints were
> most likely made by H. erectus about a million years earlier. What is
> the problem?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Therefore, the evidence will change. Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:
> anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) while the Kenya footprints were
> most likely made by H. erectus about a million years earlier. What is
> the problem?
>
>
>
>
>
> > http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-footprints_N.htm
>
> This is an example of scientists disagreeing over a particular matter.
No, no, no...these are numerous dates that were rejected by the so-called reliable dating methods because it didn't fit certain paradigm.
> This is an example of scientists disagreeing over a particular matter.
Why were the dates rejected?
Glenn
Jul 26, 2012, 7:56:14 PM7/26/12
to
news:d7659d1b-c7b9-4b92...@googlegroups.com...
Don't we all?
Boikat
Jul 26, 2012, 8:02:57 PM7/26/12
to
I'll take that as a "No".
Boikat
Tom McDonald
Jul 26, 2012, 8:09:10 PM7/26/12
to
On Jul 26, 6:52�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 5:31:58 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>
> > This says that new dating methods have increased the confidence of the
> > ages involved. � �The prints were not able to be dated directly, so they
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 5:31:58 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>
> > This says that new dating methods have increased the confidence of the
> > used the standard method of testing strata above, and below.
>
> > > - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
> > > - Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr�n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
>
> > > - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
> > > - Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
> > > - Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
> > > - Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
> > > Two things you should remember, 1) the dating methods and 2) the undisputed footprints.
>
> > Ok, the dating methods used were disclosed, and the conclusions were
> > offered. � So far standard scientific work.
> > > - Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
> > > - Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
> > > Two things you should remember, 1) the dating methods and 2) the undisputed footprints.
>
> > Ok, the dating methods used were disclosed, and the conclusions were
>
> > >
> > > Here�s another article about the footprints:
> > >http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080606-ancient-footpr...
> > >
> > > In that article they go on to say for the dependable dating methods�
> > > Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
> > > "You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
> > > The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
> > > The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
> > > And here are excerpts about the human footprints�
> > > "You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
> > > The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
> > > The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
> > >
> > > To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
> > >
> > > "Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
> > > "We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
>
> > What exactly here is your objection to evolution? � The dates are are
> > > To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
> > >
> > > "Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
> > > "We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
>
> > consistent with what is known about modern humans, and different dating
> > techniques. � It suggests that humans may have inhabited the Americas
> > earlier than thought.
>
> > > You see the evidence didn�t jive with the evolutionary worldview.
>
> > I don't see any evidence in any of those articles you listed that don't
> > "jive" (by the way, the word you are looking for is "jibe") with the
> > theory of evolution. � �The Mexico foot prints were most likely made by
> > I don't see any evidence in any of those articles you listed that don't
> > "jive" (by the way, the word you are looking for is "jibe") with the
> > anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) while the Kenya footprints were
> > most likely made by H. erectus about a million years earlier. � What is
> > the problem?
>
> > > Therefore, the evidence will change. �Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:
> > >http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-foo...
>
> > This is an example of scientists disagreeing over a particular matter.
>
> No, no, no...these are numerous dates that were rejected by the so-called reliable dating methods because it didn't fit certain paradigm.
>
> Why were the dates rejected?
Please specify the dates that were rejected, and link to where we can
> > This is an example of scientists disagreeing over a particular matter.
>
> No, no, no...these are numerous dates that were rejected by the so-called reliable dating methods because it didn't fit certain paradigm.
>
> Why were the dates rejected?
read about them. As I wrote, the valley is very complex geologically,
and we need to be sure we're talking about the same site and levels.
Otherwise we can't tell what is what.
Also, you haven't shown that dates were rejected 'because it didn't
fit certain paradigm' (sic). Some dates appear to have been rejected
for reasons other than paradigmatic sins.
Mitchell Coffey
Jul 26, 2012, 8:12:35 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:56:14 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d7659d1b-c7b9-4b92...@googlegroups.com...
> > On Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:05:02 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> > > &quot;Slow Vehicle&quot; &lt;oneslow...@gmail.com&gt; wrote in message
> > > news:27bd9df2-03da-4995...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...
> > > &gt; On Jul 26, 3:25 pm, &quot;Glenn&quot;
> &lt;glennshel...@invalid.invalid&gt; wrote:
> > > &gt; &gt; &quot;Slow Vehicle&quot; &lt;oneslowvehi...@gmail.com&gt; wrote in
> message
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt;
> news:3edae340-f5e5-4531...@l6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...&gt; On
> > > Jul 26, 11:15 am, &quot;Glenn&quot; &lt;glennshel...@invalid.invalid&gt;
> wrote:
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;Nivalian&quot; &lt;rhed...@gmail.com&gt; wrote in
> message
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;news:5626d35a-e484-4498...@googlegroups.com...&gt; On
> > > Thursday,
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; July 26, 2012 12:39:36 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; On Jul 26, 11:27 am, Tom McDonald
> &amp;lt;kilt...@gmail.com&amp;gt; wrote:
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; I also notice that you have become a
> born-again believer in
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; radiometric dating in this case. Good
> > > &gt; &gt; other
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; radiometric observations and you too
> may become less ignorant.
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Good catch!
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Chris
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; What&#39;s the good catch? That dating methods
> don&#39;t work?
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; That tea leaf readin is gettin better all the time.
> You&#39;ll find every
> > > trick
> > > &gt; &gt; in
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; the book and more will be thrown at you here, and they
> will soon get
> > > quite
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; uncivil, to put it mildly, if you persist.
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; Glenn:
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; ...way to peg the irony meter, claiming that other posters
> will get
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; uncivil...
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; That is ironic, since I have not professed to be Mr. Civility.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; ...good thing...
> > > &gt;
> > > .............................Why......... is
> > > ..............that.....................................
> >
> > Why, because then you'd look like a hypocritical douche.
> >
> Don't we all?
I don't know about "we"; I know I do.
Mitchell
> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d7659d1b-c7b9-4b92...@googlegroups.com...
> > On Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:05:02 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> > > &quot;Slow Vehicle&quot; &lt;oneslow...@gmail.com&gt; wrote in message
> > > news:27bd9df2-03da-4995...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...
> > > &gt; On Jul 26, 3:25 pm, &quot;Glenn&quot;
> &lt;glennshel...@invalid.invalid&gt; wrote:
> > > &gt; &gt; &quot;Slow Vehicle&quot; &lt;oneslowvehi...@gmail.com&gt; wrote in
> message
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt;
> news:3edae340-f5e5-4531...@l6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...&gt; On
> > > Jul 26, 11:15 am, &quot;Glenn&quot; &lt;glennshel...@invalid.invalid&gt;
> wrote:
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;Nivalian&quot; &lt;rhed...@gmail.com&gt; wrote in
> message
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt;news:5626d35a-e484-4498...@googlegroups.com...&gt; On
> > > Thursday,
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; July 26, 2012 12:39:36 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; On Jul 26, 11:27 am, Tom McDonald
> &amp;lt;kilt...@gmail.com&amp;gt; wrote:
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; I also notice that you have become a
> born-again believer in
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; radiometric dating in this case. Good
> for you! Now apply that
> > > to
> > > &gt; &gt; other
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; radiometric observations and you too
> may become less ignorant.
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Good catch!
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Chris
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; What&#39;s the good catch? That dating methods
> don&#39;t work?
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; That tea leaf readin is gettin better all the time.
> You&#39;ll find every
> > > trick
> > > &gt; &gt; in
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; the book and more will be thrown at you here, and they
> will soon get
> > > quite
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; uncivil, to put it mildly, if you persist.
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; Glenn:
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; ...way to peg the irony meter, claiming that other posters
> will get
> > > &gt; &gt; &gt; uncivil...
> > > &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; That is ironic, since I have not professed to be Mr. Civility.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; ...good thing...
> > > &gt;
> > > .............................Why......... is
> > > ..............that.....................................
> >
> > Why, because then you'd look like a hypocritical douche.
> >
> Don't we all?
I don't know about "we"; I know I do.
Mitchell
Glenn
Jul 26, 2012, 8:29:14 PM7/26/12
to
news:f2fdf8d4-d69b-4b0b...@g5g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
I'm devestated to hear that.
Boikat
Jul 26, 2012, 8:56:13 PM7/26/12
to
No doubt.
Boikat
Nivalian
Jul 26, 2012, 9:11:58 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 8:09:10 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
> On Jul 26, 6:52 pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 26, 2012 5:31:58 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> >
> > > This says that new dating methods have increased the confidence of the
> > > ages involved. The prints were not able to be dated directly, so they
> > > used the standard method of testing strata above, and below.
> >
> > > &gt; - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
> > > &gt; - Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Grün at the Australian National University, Canberra.
> > > &gt; - Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
> > > &gt; - Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
> > > &gt; - Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
> > > &gt; Two things you should remember, 1) the dating methods and 2) the undisputed footprints.
> >
> > > Ok, the dating methods used were disclosed, and the conclusions were
> > > offered. So far standard scientific work.
> >
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; Here’s another article about the footprints:
> > > &gt;http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080606-ancient-footpr...
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; In that article they go on to say for the dependable dating methods…
> > > &gt; Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
> > > &gt; &quot;You can&#39;t date just one layer,&quot; she said. &quot;You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense.&quot;
> > > &gt; The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez&#39;s team found.
> > > &gt; The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
> > > &gt; And here are excerpts about the human footprints…
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez&#39;s team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; &quot;Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints,&quot; she said.
> > > &gt; &quot;We know there were adults and children,&quot; she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
> >
> > > What exactly here is your objection to evolution? The dates are are
> > > consistent with what is known about modern humans, and different dating
> > > techniques. It suggests that humans may have inhabited the Americas
> > > earlier than thought.
> >
> > > &gt; You see the evidence didn’t jive with the evolutionary worldview.
> >
> > > I don&#39;t see any evidence in any of those articles you listed that don&#39;t
> > > &quot;jive&quot; (by the way, the word you are looking for is &quot;jibe&quot;) with the
> > > theory of evolution. The Mexico foot prints were most likely made by
> > > anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) while the Kenya footprints were
> > > most likely made by H. erectus about a million years earlier. What is
> > > the problem?
> >
> > > &gt; Therefore, the evidence will change. Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:
> > > &gt;http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-foo...
> >
> > > This is an example of scientists disagreeing over a particular matter.
> >
> > No, no, no...these are numerous dates that were rejected by the so-called reliable dating methods because it didn't fit certain paradigm.
> >
> > Why were the dates rejected?
> Otherwise we can't tell what is what.
>
It's in the original post. Click on the usatoday link.
> Also, you haven't shown that dates were rejected 'because it didn't
> fit certain paradigm' (sic). Some dates appear to have been rejected
> On Jul 26, 6:52 pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 26, 2012 5:31:58 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> >
> > > This says that new dating methods have increased the confidence of the
> > > ages involved. The prints were not able to be dated directly, so they
> > > used the standard method of testing strata above, and below.
> >
> > > &gt; - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
> > > &gt; - Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Grün at the Australian National University, Canberra.
> > > &gt; - Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
> > > &gt; - Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
> > > &gt; - Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
> > > &gt; Two things you should remember, 1) the dating methods and 2) the undisputed footprints.
> >
> > > Ok, the dating methods used were disclosed, and the conclusions were
> > > offered. So far standard scientific work.
> >
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; Here’s another article about the footprints:
> > > &gt;http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080606-ancient-footpr...
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; In that article they go on to say for the dependable dating methods…
> > > &gt; Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
> > > &gt; &quot;You can&#39;t date just one layer,&quot; she said. &quot;You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense.&quot;
> > > &gt; The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez&#39;s team found.
> > > &gt; The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
> > > &gt; And here are excerpts about the human footprints…
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez&#39;s team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; &quot;Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints,&quot; she said.
> > > &gt; &quot;We know there were adults and children,&quot; she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
> >
> > > What exactly here is your objection to evolution? The dates are are
> > > consistent with what is known about modern humans, and different dating
> > > techniques. It suggests that humans may have inhabited the Americas
> > > earlier than thought.
> >
> > > &gt; You see the evidence didn’t jive with the evolutionary worldview.
> >
> > > I don&#39;t see any evidence in any of those articles you listed that don&#39;t
> > > &quot;jive&quot; (by the way, the word you are looking for is &quot;jibe&quot;) with the
> > > theory of evolution. The Mexico foot prints were most likely made by
> > > anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) while the Kenya footprints were
> > > most likely made by H. erectus about a million years earlier. What is
> > > the problem?
> >
> > > &gt; Therefore, the evidence will change. Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:
> > > &gt;http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-foo...
> >
> > > This is an example of scientists disagreeing over a particular matter.
> >
> > No, no, no...these are numerous dates that were rejected by the so-called reliable dating methods because it didn't fit certain paradigm.
> >
> > Why were the dates rejected?
>
> Please specify the dates that were rejected, and link to where we can
> read about them. As I wrote, the valley is very complex geologically,
> and we need to be sure we're talking about the same site and levels.
> Please specify the dates that were rejected, and link to where we can
> read about them. As I wrote, the valley is very complex geologically,
> Otherwise we can't tell what is what.
>
It's in the original post. Click on the usatoday link.
> Also, you haven't shown that dates were rejected 'because it didn't
> fit certain paradigm' (sic). Some dates appear to have been rejected
> for reasons other than paradigmatic sins.
Click on the usatoday link about falsifying the footprints.
Slow Vehicle
Jul 26, 2012, 9:41:41 PM7/26/12
to
On Jul 26, 7:11 pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 8:09:10 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 6:52 pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 26, 2012 5:31:58 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > >
> > > > This says that new dating methods have increased the confidence of the
> > > > ages involved. The prints were not able to be dated directly, so they
> > > > used the standard method of testing strata above, and below.
> > >
> > > > &gt; - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
> > > > &gt; - Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 8:09:10 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 6:52 pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 26, 2012 5:31:58 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > >
> > > > This says that new dating methods have increased the confidence of the
> > > > ages involved. The prints were not able to be dated directly, so they
> > > > used the standard method of testing strata above, and below.
> > >
> > > > &gt; - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
McPaper?
Have you read the original papers?
Tom McDonald
Jul 26, 2012, 9:44:16 PM7/26/12
to
On Jul 26, 8:11�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 8:09:10 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 6:52 pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 26, 2012 5:31:58 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > >
> > > > This says that new dating methods have increased the confidence of the
> > > > ages involved. The prints were not able to be dated directly, so they
> > > > used the standard method of testing strata above, and below.
> > >
> > > > &gt; - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
> > > > &gt; - Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 8:09:10 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 6:52 pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 26, 2012 5:31:58 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > >
> > > > This says that new dating methods have increased the confidence of the
> > > > ages involved. The prints were not able to be dated directly, so they
> > > > used the standard method of testing strata above, and below.
> > >
> > > > &gt; - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
science web sites.
You can do that, can't you?
Nivalian
Jul 26, 2012, 10:09:46 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:41:41 PM UTC-4, Slow Vehicle wrote:
.
> >
> > Click on the usatoday link about falsifying the footprints.
.
> >
> > Click on the usatoday link about falsifying the footprints.
>
> Do you understand the difference between a scholarly source and the
> McPaper?
> Have you read the original papers?
Do the dates change miraculously when the dates come from a scholarly source? They took multiply tests and verified each one. Are the dates only reliable when it fits to a paradigm and refutes those pesky creationists?
> Do you understand the difference between a scholarly source and the
> McPaper?
> Have you read the original papers?
Nivalian
Jul 26, 2012, 10:13:00 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:44:16 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> Give us some scientific articles, not something from newspapers or pop
> science web sites.
>
> You can do that, can't you?
>
> Give us some scientific articles, not something from newspapers or pop
> science web sites.
>
I would but they took the website down that was dedicated to these footprints. But it doesn't matter. Are you saying that these dates are wrong although they've been verified? Did they lie?
Slow Vehicle
Jul 26, 2012, 10:15:22 PM7/26/12
to
other responses? Do you understand the process through which one of
the original authors withdrew her original hypothesis?
And, is this what you call "evidence"?
Richard Norman
Jul 26, 2012, 10:22:51 PM7/26/12
to
One paper
Human footprints in Central Mexico older than 40,000 years
Quaternary Science Reviews 25 (2006) 201�222
says 40 thousand years and does use carbon dating as one of the
techniques along with optically stimulated luminescence. The samples
were too young to produce argon dates, the details being fully
discussed.
Another paper
Age constraints on alleged �footprints�
preserved in the Xalnene Tuff near Puebla, Mexico
Geology, March 2009; v. 37; no. 3; p. 267�270;
says 1.3 million years using argon.
I was originally misled by Nivalian's citation of a Kenyan footprint
some 1.5 million years old in his original post.
Tom McDonald
Jul 26, 2012, 10:20:29 PM7/26/12
to
Would you trust a newspaper article about a technical biblical issue
over one by a theologian who studied that issue in depth for his whole
career? Would you trust a newspaper writer who wrote about the Epistle
of Mark? That's the equivalent of what you are asking us to accept
when you want to avoid real scientific work.
As I have noted, and you have ignored, the 14C dates were from things
that were appropriate to date using 14C, and the Ar-Ar dates were from
things that were appropriate to date using Ar-Ar. That is why I have
asked you for the actual scientific sources, as they specify exactly
what was dated, how they were dated, what the error bars were, and a
discussion of what the work means.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Jul 26, 2012, 10:46:18 PM7/26/12
to
On Friday, July 27, 2012 3:20:29 AM UTC+1, Tom McDonald wrote:
> Would you trust a newspaper article about a technical biblical issue
> over one by a theologian who studied that issue in depth for his whole
> career? Would you trust a newspaper writer who wrote about the Epistle
> of Mark? That's the equivalent of what you are asking us to accept
> when you want to avoid real scientific work.
>
> As I have noted, and you have ignored, the 14C dates were from things
> that were appropriate to date using 14C, and the Ar-Ar dates were from
> things that were appropriate to date using Ar-Ar. That is why I have
> asked you for the actual scientific sources, as they specify exactly
> what was dated, how they were dated, what the error bars were, and a
> discussion of what the work means.
I have a gravel driveway that's about twenty years old (the gravel itself
> Would you trust a newspaper article about a technical biblical issue
> over one by a theologian who studied that issue in depth for his whole
> career? Would you trust a newspaper writer who wrote about the Epistle
> of Mark? That's the equivalent of what you are asking us to accept
> when you want to avoid real scientific work.
>
> As I have noted, and you have ignored, the 14C dates were from things
> that were appropriate to date using 14C, and the Ar-Ar dates were from
> things that were appropriate to date using Ar-Ar. That is why I have
> asked you for the actual scientific sources, as they specify exactly
> what was dated, how they were dated, what the error bars were, and a
> discussion of what the work means.
presumably is older), and I left tire tracks in it just last week. How's
that for a dating paradox!
Nivalian
Jul 26, 2012, 10:40:06 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:15:22 PM UTC-4, Slow Vehicle wrote:
> On Jul 26, 8:09�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:41:41 PM UTC-4, Slow Vehicle wrote:
> >
> > .
> >
> > > Do you understand the difference between a scholarly source and the
> > > McPaper?
> > > Have you read the original papers?
> >
> > Do the dates change miraculously when the dates come from a scholarly source? �They took multiply tests and verified each one. �Are the dates only reliable when it fits to a paradigm and refutes those pesky creationists?
Yes. I'll quote again...
To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
"Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
"We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
The footprints were mapped and scanned using laser technology and have been reproduced at the University of Bournemouth using rapid proto-typing technology, allowing excellent visualization. This technology has been used to produce physical models of the footprints with sub-millimetre precision.
Dunbar is impressed, though, by the digital laser imaging system used in scanning the footprints.
That method, he said by email, is a "very sophisticated way � to help see features that are sometimes not detectable to the human eye."
The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
� pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
� where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
� the fact that they have deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical �figure of eight� contours
� they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens .
> On Jul 26, 8:09�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:41:41 PM UTC-4, Slow Vehicle wrote:
> >
> > .
> >
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; Click on the usatoday link about falsifying the footprints.
> > > &gt;
> >
> > > Do you understand the difference between a scholarly source and the
> > > McPaper?
> > > Have you read the original papers?
> >
> > Do the dates change miraculously when the dates come from a scholarly source? �They took multiply tests and verified each one. �Are the dates only reliable when it fits to a paradigm and refutes those pesky creationists?
>
> No, but journalists are paid to sell papers. have you ead any of the
> other responses? Do you understand the process through which one of
> the original authors withdrew her original hypothesis?
> And, is this what you call "evidence"?
> No, but journalists are paid to sell papers. have you ead any of the
> other responses? Do you understand the process through which one of
> the original authors withdrew her original hypothesis?
Yes. I'll quote again...
To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
"Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
"We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
The footprints were mapped and scanned using laser technology and have been reproduced at the University of Bournemouth using rapid proto-typing technology, allowing excellent visualization. This technology has been used to produce physical models of the footprints with sub-millimetre precision.
Dunbar is impressed, though, by the digital laser imaging system used in scanning the footprints.
That method, he said by email, is a "very sophisticated way � to help see features that are sometimes not detectable to the human eye."
The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
� pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
� where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
� the fact that they have deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical �figure of eight� contours
� they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens .
Mark Isaak
Jul 26, 2012, 10:57:32 PM7/26/12
to
On 7/26/12 10:06 AM, Nivalian wrote:
>
>
> Read again because I think you forgot some parts...
>
> [snip quotes]
I have noticed that when people repeatedly quote a story, it generally
indicates that they do not understand it well enough to put it in their
own words.
For example, how is the mammoth tooth in any way relevant to the tracks?
> Again, read the following...
>
> In December of 2005, a team led by geochronologist Paul Renne of
> the University of California, Berkeley, reported in Naturethat the
> trackway ash layer dated to 1.3 million years ago, according to
> analysis of radioactive Argon elements in the rock. If the ash
> dated to 1.3 million years, that meant the footprints in it couldn't
> have been made by modern humans, who have only been around for about
> 200,000 years, tops, as indicated by bones and tools.
I personally have made footprints in a sedimentary later that was about
100 million years old. That does not mean I am 100 million years old.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:50:22 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
>>
>> Then you have failed at the crux of the topic. Dating methods do work;
>> your cherry-picking and argument by assertion do not.
>>
>> Then you have failed at the crux of the topic. Dating methods do work;
>
>
> Read again because I think you forgot some parts...
>
> [snip quotes]
I have noticed that when people repeatedly quote a story, it generally
indicates that they do not understand it well enough to put it in their
own words.
For example, how is the mammoth tooth in any way relevant to the tracks?
> Again, read the following...
>
> In December of 2005, a team led by geochronologist Paul Renne of
> the University of California, Berkeley, reported in Naturethat the
> trackway ash layer dated to 1.3 million years ago, according to
> analysis of radioactive Argon elements in the rock. If the ash
> dated to 1.3 million years, that meant the footprints in it couldn't
> have been made by modern humans, who have only been around for about
> 200,000 years, tops, as indicated by bones and tools.
I personally have made footprints in a sedimentary later that was about
100 million years old. That does not mean I am 100 million years old.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Desertphile
Jul 26, 2012, 11:03:16 PM7/26/12
to
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 07:43:54 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian
<rhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Case 1 Mexican Footprints: Why Evolution is NOT Science But a Worldview
In the same sense that gravity is a world view.
--
Reality is *NOT* a liberal conspiracy!
<rhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Case 1 Mexican Footprints: Why Evolution is NOT Science But a Worldview
In the same sense that gravity is a world view.
--
Reality is *NOT* a liberal conspiracy!
John Stockwell
Jul 26, 2012, 11:11:52 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 8:40:06 PM UTC-6, Nivalian wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:15:22 PM UTC-4, Slow Vehicle wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 8:09�pm, Nivalian &lt;rhed...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:15:22 PM UTC-4, Slow Vehicle wrote:
> > &gt; On Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:41:41 PM UTC-4, Slow Vehicle wrote:
> > &gt;
> > &gt; .
> > &gt;
> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; Click on the usatoday link about falsifying the footprints.
> > &gt;
> > &gt; &gt; Do you understand the difference between a scholarly source and the
> > &gt; &gt; McPaper?
> > &gt; &gt; Have you read the original papers?
> > &gt;
> > &gt; Do the dates change miraculously when the dates come from a scholarly source? �They took multiply tests and verified each one. �Are the dates only reliable when it fits to a paradigm and refutes those pesky creationists?
> >
> > No, but journalists are paid to sell papers. have you ead any of the
> > other responses? Do you understand the process through which one of
> > the original authors withdrew her original hypothesis?
> > And, is this what you call &quot;evidence&quot;?
>
> Yes. I'll quote again...
>
> To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
>
> "Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
>
> "We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
>
> The footprints were mapped and scanned using laser technology and have been reproduced at the University of Bournemouth using rapid proto-typing technology, allowing excellent visualization. This technology has been used to produce physical models of the footprints with sub-millimetre precision.
>
> Dunbar is impressed, though, by the digital laser imaging system used in scanning the footprints.
>
> That method, he said by email, is a "very sophisticated way � to help see features that are sometimes not detectable to the human eye."
> The footprints were mapped and scanned using laser technology and have been reproduced at the University of Bournemouth using rapid proto-typing technology, allowing excellent visualization. This technology has been used to produce physical models of the footprints with sub-millimetre precision.
>
> Dunbar is impressed, though, by the digital laser imaging system used in scanning the footprints.
>
>
> The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
> � pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
> The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
> � where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
> � the fact that they have deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical �figure of eight� contours
> � they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens .
The alleged tracks were far from "indisputably human".
If you read this later paper by the Gonzales team, they developed
better statistical analysis techniques, and did themselves repudiate their
own claim that these were human tracks.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110000909
Sarita Amy Morse, Matthew R. Bennett, Silvia Gonzalez, David Huddart (2010) Techniques for verifying human footprints: reappraisal of pre-Clovis footprints in Central Mexico Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 29, Issues 19-20, September 2010, Pages 2571-2578
"Abstract
Verification of human footprints within the geological record provides critical evidence of presence as well as information on the biomechanics of the individuals who made those prints. Consequently, the correct identification of human footprints is important, but is something for which critical and objective criteria do not exist. The current paper attempts to address this issue by presenting a new statistically based approach to the verification of human footprints. The importance of this is illustrated by the recent controversy surrounding a series of marks identified as human prints in the Valsequillo Basin in Central Mexico dated originally to 40 000 years ago. The dating of these marks remains highly controversial with some teams placing their age at 1.3 million years old. Irrespective of this debate the crucial question that must be addressed is whether or not they represent evidence of human presence. Using an objective statistically based methodology developed here, these controversial marks are re-
examined and found to be of questionable origin, as they are inconsistent with a suite of other, known human and hominin prints. Consequently, we argue that they should be removed as evidence in the ongoing controversy surrounding the colonization of the Americas."
In short, Sylvia Gonzales, and her group disputed their earlier own findings.
What came out of this was better science in the problem of quantitatively
evaluating track identifications.
-John
-John
Nivalian
Jul 26, 2012, 10:46:50 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:20:29 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
> On Jul 26, 9:09�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:41:41 PM UTC-4, Slow Vehicle wrote:
> >
> > .
> >
> > Do the dates change miraculously when the dates come from a scholarly source? �They took multiply tests and verified each one. �Are the dates only reliable when it fits to a paradigm and refutes those pesky creationists?
>
> You really, really don't get it, do you?
> On Jul 26, 9:09�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:41:41 PM UTC-4, Slow Vehicle wrote:
> >
> > .
> >
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; Click on the usatoday link about falsifying the footprints.
> >
> > > Do you understand the difference between a scholarly source and the
> > > McPaper?
> > > Have you read the original papers?
> >
> > > Do you understand the difference between a scholarly source and the
> > > McPaper?
> >
> > Do the dates change miraculously when the dates come from a scholarly source? �They took multiply tests and verified each one. �Are the dates only reliable when it fits to a paradigm and refutes those pesky creationists?
>
> You really, really don't get it, do you?
>
> Would you trust a newspaper article about a technical biblical issue
> over one by a theologian who studied that issue in depth for his whole
> career? Would you trust a newspaper writer who wrote about the Epistle
> of Mark? That's the equivalent of what you are asking us to accept
> Would you trust a newspaper article about a technical biblical issue
> over one by a theologian who studied that issue in depth for his whole
> career? Would you trust a newspaper writer who wrote about the Epistle
> when you want to avoid real scientific work.
>
> As I have noted, and you have ignored, the 14C dates were from things
> that were appropriate to date using 14C, and the Ar-Ar dates were from
> things that were appropriate to date using Ar-Ar. That is why I have
> asked you for the actual scientific sources, as they specify exactly
> what was dated, how they were dated, what the error bars were, and a
> discussion of what the work means.
And I said repeatedly that the site was taken downn and doesn't exist. That website had all the details you want. Don't blame me.
>
> As I have noted, and you have ignored, the 14C dates were from things
> that were appropriate to date using 14C, and the Ar-Ar dates were from
> things that were appropriate to date using Ar-Ar. That is why I have
> asked you for the actual scientific sources, as they specify exactly
> what was dated, how they were dated, what the error bars were, and a
> discussion of what the work means.
Free Lunch
Jul 26, 2012, 9:42:59 PM7/26/12
to
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:52:53 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Thursday, July 26, 2012 5:31:58 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>
>> This says that new dating methods have increased the confidence of the
>> ages involved. The prints were not able to be dated directly, so they
>> used the standard method of testing strata above, and below.
>>
>>
>>
>> > - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
>> > - Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr�n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
>Why were the dates rejected?
I am not certain. Most likely it is because the carbon-14 dating was
mistaken in some way. Scientists tell each other what they have done so
people can check their work. I wouldn't expect any meaningful carbon-14
results from something that is 1.3 million years old. Normally a test of
a bad sample would not show up with such high levels (short time frame),
but you seem to forget that both numbers are about evidence that shows
that you are wrong about Young Earth Creationism using evidence.
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Thursday, July 26, 2012 5:31:58 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>
>> This says that new dating methods have increased the confidence of the
>> ages involved. The prints were not able to be dated directly, so they
>> used the standard method of testing strata above, and below.
>>
>>
>>
>> > - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
>>> Therefore, the evidence will change. Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:
>>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-footprints_N.htm
>>
>> This is an example of scientists disagreeing over a particular matter.
>
>
>No, no, no...these are numerous dates that were rejected by the so-called
>reliable dating methods because it didn't fit certain paradigm.
Wrong.
>>
>> This is an example of scientists disagreeing over a particular matter.
>
>
>No, no, no...these are numerous dates that were rejected by the so-called
>reliable dating methods because it didn't fit certain paradigm.
>Why were the dates rejected?
mistaken in some way. Scientists tell each other what they have done so
people can check their work. I wouldn't expect any meaningful carbon-14
results from something that is 1.3 million years old. Normally a test of
a bad sample would not show up with such high levels (short time frame),
but you seem to forget that both numbers are about evidence that shows
that you are wrong about Young Earth Creationism using evidence.
Nivalian
Jul 26, 2012, 10:45:02 PM7/26/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:22:51 PM UTC-4, Richard Norman wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:41:41 -0700 (PDT), Slow Vehicle
> <oneslow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:41:41 -0700 (PDT), Slow Vehicle
>
> >On Jul 26, 7:11�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 8:09:10 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
> >> > On Jul 26, 6:52 pm, Nivalian &lt;rhed...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> >> > &gt; On Thursday, July 26, 2012 5:31:58 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> >> > &gt;
> >> > &gt; &gt; This says that new dating methods have increased the confidence of the
> >> > &gt; &gt; ages involved. The prints were not able to be dated directly, so they
> >> > &gt; &gt; used the standard method of testing strata above, and below.
> >> > &gt;
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; - Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; - Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; - Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; - Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; Two things you should remember, 1) the dating methods and 2) the undisputed footprints.
> >> > &gt;
> >> > &gt; &gt; Ok, the dating methods used were disclosed, and the conclusions were
> >> > &gt; &gt; offered. So far standard scientific work.
> >> > &gt;
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; Here s another article about the footprints:
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080606-ancient-footpr...
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; In that article they go on to say for the dependable dating methods
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;quot;You can&amp;#39;t date just one layer,&amp;quot; she said. &amp;quot;You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense.&amp;quot;
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez&amp;#39;s team found.
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; And here are excerpts about the human footprints
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez&amp;#39;s team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;quot;Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints,&amp;quot; she said.
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;quot;We know there were adults and children,&amp;quot; she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
> >> > &gt;
> >> > &gt; &gt; What exactly here is your objection to evolution? The dates are are
> >> > &gt; &gt; consistent with what is known about modern humans, and different dating
> >> > &gt; &gt; techniques. It suggests that humans may have inhabited the Americas
> >> > &gt; &gt; earlier than thought.
> >> > &gt;
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; You see the evidence didn t jive with the evolutionary worldview.
> >> > &gt;
> >> > &gt; &gt; I don&amp;#39;t see any evidence in any of those articles you listed that don&amp;#39;t
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;quot;jive&amp;quot; (by the way, the word you are looking for is &amp;quot;jibe&amp;quot;) with the
> >> > &gt; &gt; theory of evolution. The Mexico foot prints were most likely made by
> >> > &gt; &gt; anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) while the Kenya footprints were
> >> > &gt; &gt; most likely made by H. erectus about a million years earlier. What is
> >> > &gt; &gt; the problem?
> >> > &gt;
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; Therefore, the evidence will change. Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:
> >> > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-foo...
> >> > &gt;
> >> > &gt; &gt; This is an example of scientists disagreeing over a particular matter.
> >> > &gt;
> >> > &gt; No, no, no...these are numerous dates that were rejected by the so-called reliable dating methods because it didn&#39;t fit certain paradigm.
> >> > &gt;
> >> > &gt; Why were the dates rejected?
> >>
> >> > Please specify the dates that were rejected, and link to where we can
> >> > read about them. As I wrote, the valley is very complex geologically,
> >> > and we need to be sure we&#39;re talking about the same site and levels.
> >> > Otherwise we can&#39;t tell what is what.
> >>
> >> It's in the original post. �Click on the usatoday link.
> >>
> >> > Also, you haven&#39;t shown that dates were rejected &#39;because it didn&#39;t
> >> > fit certain paradigm&#39; (sic). Some dates appear to have been rejected
> >> > for reasons other than paradigmatic sins.
> >>
> >> Click on the usatoday link about falsifying the footprints.
> >
> >Do you understand the difference between a scholarly source and the
> >McPaper?
> >Have you read the original papers?
>
> I have read the original papers.
>
> One paper
> Human footprints in Central Mexico older than 40,000 years
> Quaternary Science Reviews 25 (2006) 201�222
> says 40 thousand years and does use carbon dating as one of the
> techniques along with optically stimulated luminescence. The samples
> were too young to produce argon dates, the details being fully
> discussed.
>
> Another paper
> Age constraints on alleged �footprints�
> preserved in the Xalnene Tuff near Puebla, Mexico
> Geology, March 2009; v. 37; no. 3; p. 267�270;
> says 1.3 million years using argon.
>
> I was originally misled by Nivalian's citation of a Kenyan footprint
> I have read the original papers.
>
> One paper
> Human footprints in Central Mexico older than 40,000 years
> Quaternary Science Reviews 25 (2006) 201�222
> says 40 thousand years and does use carbon dating as one of the
> techniques along with optically stimulated luminescence. The samples
> were too young to produce argon dates, the details being fully
> discussed.
>
> Another paper
> Age constraints on alleged �footprints�
> preserved in the Xalnene Tuff near Puebla, Mexico
> Geology, March 2009; v. 37; no. 3; p. 267�270;
> says 1.3 million years using argon.
>
> some 1.5 million years old in his original post.
That one link was a mistake. But I don't know how that mislead you because it was secondary anyway. I did not quote from it and I said if you wanted more info here was the another link.
Tom McDonald
Jul 27, 2012, 12:18:14 AM7/27/12
to
On Jul 26, 9:46嚙緘m, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:20:29 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:20:29 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 9:09嚙緘m, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:41:41 PM UTC-4, Slow Vehicle wrote:
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> > > > &gt;
> > > > &gt; Click on the usatoday link about falsifying the footprints.
> > >
> > > > Do you understand the difference between a scholarly source and the
> > > > McPaper?
> > > > Have you read the original papers?
> > >
> > > Do the dates change miraculously when the dates come from a scholarly source? 嚙確hey took multiply tests and verified each one. 嚙璀re the dates only reliable when it fits to a paradigm and refutes those pesky creationists?
> > > On Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:41:41 PM UTC-4, Slow Vehicle wrote:
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> > > > &gt;
> > > > &gt; Click on the usatoday link about falsifying the footprints.
> > >
> > > > Do you understand the difference between a scholarly source and the
> > > > McPaper?
> > > > Have you read the original papers?
> > >
>
> > You really, really don't get it, do you?
>
> > Would you trust a newspaper article about a technical biblical issue
> > over one by a theologian who studied that issue in depth for his whole
> > career? Would you trust a newspaper writer who wrote about the Epistle
> > of Mark? That's the equivalent of what you are asking us to accept
> > when you want to avoid real scientific work.
>
> > As I have noted, and you have ignored, the 14C dates were from things
> > that were appropriate to date using 14C, and the Ar-Ar dates were from
> > things that were appropriate to date using Ar-Ar. That is why I have
> > asked you for the actual scientific sources, as they specify exactly
> > what was dated, how they were dated, what the error bars were, and a
> > discussion of what the work means.
>
> And I said repeatedly that the site was taken downn and doesn't exist. 嚙確hat website had all the details you want. 嚙瘩on't blame me.
> > You really, really don't get it, do you?
>
> > Would you trust a newspaper article about a technical biblical issue
> > over one by a theologian who studied that issue in depth for his whole
> > career? Would you trust a newspaper writer who wrote about the Epistle
> > of Mark? That's the equivalent of what you are asking us to accept
> > when you want to avoid real scientific work.
>
> > As I have noted, and you have ignored, the 14C dates were from things
> > that were appropriate to date using 14C, and the Ar-Ar dates were from
> > things that were appropriate to date using Ar-Ar. That is why I have
> > asked you for the actual scientific sources, as they specify exactly
> > what was dated, how they were dated, what the error bars were, and a
> > discussion of what the work means.
>
So the evidence does not exist. Typical.
BTW, in the Old Testament, children who disrespected their parents
were to be stoned; in the New Testament, Jesus says to hate your
parents.
Which testament lied?
Tom McDonald
Jul 27, 2012, 12:19:55 AM7/27/12
to
On Jul 26, 9:45�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:22:51 PM UTC-4, Richard Norman wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:41:41 -0700 (PDT), Slow Vehicle
> > <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:22:51 PM UTC-4, Richard Norman wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:41:41 -0700 (PDT), Slow Vehicle
> > >>
> > >> > Also, you haven&#39;t shown that dates were rejected &#39;because it didn&#39;t
> > >> > fit certain paradigm&#39; (sic). Some dates appear to have been rejected
> > >> > for reasons other than paradigmatic sins.
> > >>
> > >> Click on the usatoday link about falsifying the footprints.
> > >
> > >Do you understand the difference between a scholarly source and the
> > >McPaper?
> > >Have you read the original papers?
>
> > I have read the original papers.
>
> > One paper
> > � �Human footprints in Central Mexico older than 40,000 years
> > >> > Also, you haven&#39;t shown that dates were rejected &#39;because it didn&#39;t
> > >> > fit certain paradigm&#39; (sic). Some dates appear to have been rejected
> > >> > for reasons other than paradigmatic sins.
> > >>
> > >> Click on the usatoday link about falsifying the footprints.
> > >
> > >Do you understand the difference between a scholarly source and the
> > >McPaper?
> > >Have you read the original papers?
>
> > I have read the original papers.
>
> > One paper
> > � �Quaternary Science Reviews 25 (2006) 201�222
> > says 40 thousand years and does use carbon dating as one of the
> > techniques along with optically stimulated luminescence. �The samples
> > were too young to produce argon dates, the details being fully
> > discussed.
>
> > Another paper
> > � �Age constraints on alleged �footprints�
> > discussed.
>
> > Another paper
> > � � preserved in the Xalnene Tuff near Puebla, Mexico
> > � �Geology, March 2009; v. 37; no. 3; p. 267�270;
> > says 1.3 million years using argon.
>
> > I was originally misled by Nivalian's citation of a Kenyan footprint
> > some 1.5 million years old in his original post.
>
> That one link was a mistake. �But I don't know how that mislead you because it was secondary anyway. �I did not quote from it and I said if you wanted more info here was the another link.
>
> > I was originally misled by Nivalian's citation of a Kenyan footprint
> > some 1.5 million years old in his original post.
>
Address Richard's point. He refers to original scientific sources, the
kind I've repeatedly asked you to provide. Now that he has done your
work for you, please give us your analysis of the papers.
You can do that, right?
Friar Broccoli
Jul 27, 2012, 2:00:08 AM7/27/12
to
>>Have you read the original papers?
>
>I have read the original papers.
>>One paper
> Human footprints in Central Mexico older than 40,000 years
> Quaternary Science Reviews 25 (2006) 201�222
>says 40 thousand years and does use carbon dating as one of the
>techniques along with optically stimulated luminescence. The samples
>were too young to produce argon dates, the details being fully
>discussed.
>
>Another paper
> Age constraints on alleged �footprints�
> preserved in the Xalnene Tuff near Puebla, Mexico
> Geology, March 2009; v. 37; no. 3; p. 267�270;
>says 1.3 million years using argon.
>
>I was originally misled by Nivalian's citation of a Kenyan footprint
>some 1.5 million years old in his original post.
>
From spot reading I have the impression that an underlying layer of ash
is 1.3 million years old with a covering layer that is 40,000 years old.
Assuming that is correct - Does this look like one of those typical
situations where a layer (of 1.3 million years) is put down, then
covered by more sediments, and then later those covering sediments are
eroded away, and then finally "new" (40,000 year old) sediments are
deposited on the older (1.3 million year) layer?
Also, I have so far been unable to figure out why Nivalian thinks any of
this causes a problem for radiometric/radioactive dating. Do you have
any idea?
--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
Mark Isaak
Jul 27, 2012, 3:41:05 AM7/27/12
to
On 7/26/12 11:46 AM, Glenn wrote:
>>
> [...] Apparently dating methods do not always "work", since they are
> continually "improved", can be less than "thoroughly tested" and do not always
> arrive at the same result. Apparently to you they "work" when "methods" are
> "thorougly tested", and that argument by assertion is supported by...what. Other
> dating methods that arrive at the same result? And those other methods "work"?
Bathroom weight scales are continually "improved", can be less than
"thoroughly tested" and do not always arrive at the same result. Would
you say that the usual methods for weighing oneself "work"? I would.
The various dating methods work as well.
>>
> [...] Apparently dating methods do not always "work", since they are
> continually "improved", can be less than "thoroughly tested" and do not always
> arrive at the same result. Apparently to you they "work" when "methods" are
> "thorougly tested", and that argument by assertion is supported by...what. Other
> dating methods that arrive at the same result? And those other methods "work"?
Bathroom weight scales are continually "improved", can be less than
"thoroughly tested" and do not always arrive at the same result. Would
you say that the usual methods for weighing oneself "work"? I would.
The various dating methods work as well.
Mark Isaak
Jul 27, 2012, 4:40:07 AM7/27/12
to
On 7/26/12 1:32 PM, Nivalian wrote:
> [...]
> John - I wish their website was still up and running so you could
> see it for yourself, but it's now shut down.
Has it occurred to you that maybe the people who took it down had a
*reason* for taking it down?
> Anyway, so you believe after testing and verifying the footprints
> by laser scanning, producing 3-d model images, and determining
> heights of the parents and children are nothing but markings?
Dunno; I have not seen the actual data. I do know that plenty of
claimed human footprints in the past have turned out not to be human
footprints, though usually it is creationists making the original claim.
> The multiple dating methods used and have been verified over and
> over are ALL wrong now because of reasons I don't know.
> Help me out here.
All measurements are subject to error -- and not just inaccuracies due
to the inherent limitations of the measuring device, but huge,
orders-of-magnitude mistakes. This is true whether the measurement is
done by radiometric dating, calendar dating, thermometer, seismometer,
speedometer, census, geiger counter, coin counter, tidal gauge, air
pressure gauge, ship's log, or yardstick.
In construction, there is a motto: "Measure twice, cut once." The motto
is useful because measurement errors happen regularly, and this with one
of the easiest-to-use measuring device of all time. But even with these
problems in measuring, construction workers still manage to measure
things successfully. Now you have noticed some sort of error with a
more difficult measurement, and you want to invalidate the entire method
because someone has the gall to "measure twice"? Get real! Are you at
least going to be consistent and throw out your rulers and measuring
tapes too?
> [...]
> John - I wish their website was still up and running so you could
> see it for yourself, but it's now shut down.
Has it occurred to you that maybe the people who took it down had a
*reason* for taking it down?
> Anyway, so you believe after testing and verifying the footprints
> by laser scanning, producing 3-d model images, and determining
> heights of the parents and children are nothing but markings?
Dunno; I have not seen the actual data. I do know that plenty of
claimed human footprints in the past have turned out not to be human
footprints, though usually it is creationists making the original claim.
> The multiple dating methods used and have been verified over and
> over are ALL wrong now because of reasons I don't know.
> Help me out here.
All measurements are subject to error -- and not just inaccuracies due
to the inherent limitations of the measuring device, but huge,
orders-of-magnitude mistakes. This is true whether the measurement is
done by radiometric dating, calendar dating, thermometer, seismometer,
speedometer, census, geiger counter, coin counter, tidal gauge, air
pressure gauge, ship's log, or yardstick.
In construction, there is a motto: "Measure twice, cut once." The motto
is useful because measurement errors happen regularly, and this with one
of the easiest-to-use measuring device of all time. But even with these
problems in measuring, construction workers still manage to measure
things successfully. Now you have noticed some sort of error with a
more difficult measurement, and you want to invalidate the entire method
because someone has the gall to "measure twice"? Get real! Are you at
least going to be consistent and throw out your rulers and measuring
tapes too?
Ron O
Jul 27, 2012, 7:27:10 AM7/27/12
to
On Jul 26, 9:43�am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don�t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn�t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it �sheds new light�.
>
> One example (and yes there are much, much more), I�ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
>
> Here�s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_200...
> Here are some excerpts from that article:
> �The discovery of human footprints in the Valsequillo Basin of Central Mexico challenges this model, providing new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.�
>
> �Most early human occupation sites in the Americas date to the latest Pleistocene or Ice Age, between
> 10,000 and 12,500 years ago. The existence of 40,000 year old human footprints in Mexico means that the �Clovis First� model of human occupation can no longer be accepted as the first evidence of human presence in the Americas.�
>
> �By laser scanning the footprints, Professor Matthew Bennett and Dr Xavier Velay from the University of Bournemouth, were able to create 3-d images and models of the footprints. The actual footprints remain in situ in the Mexican quarry. The 3-d models allowed the researchers to categorise the footprints according to their size and shape. Approx. 60% of the prints are human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children�s because of their size. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry and it is estimated that the adult humans were between 117 and 190 cm tall.�
>
> Now pay close attention to this excerpt�
>
> �The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
> 1) pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
> 2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
> 3) the fact that they have deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical �figure of eight� contours
> 4) they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens�
>
> Also, just as important, read this closely as well�
>
> � Previous attempts to date the basin�s sediments and animal bones have had variable and controversial results, with finds dated from around 9,000 to 35,000 to even 200,000 to 600,000 years ago.�
> There have been significant advances in dating techniques since the controversial excavations at the Valsequillo Basin during the 1960s. Dr Gonzalez and her team used the following techniques to date the human footprints and the sediments above and below these trace fossils:
>
> In that article they go on to say for the dependable dating methods�
> The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
>
> To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
>
> "Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
> "We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
>
> They are many articles and pictures on the net so feel free to search for more. �I just wish that one website was up and running because it had great pictures showing the left-right stride and all of the dating methods.
>
> Here�s another article with more information:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141102.htm
>
> Okay, the point is of this story is that the footprints are out of place. �At really out of place if you want to accept the other different dates dating in the millions. �And remember what I told you about paying close attention to the footprints and the dating because the story isn�t over. �Now you are about to witness science at work�
>
> After reading everything above, that has all now changed. �The evidence about the dating methods, the footprints etc are no more. �You see the evidence didn�t jive with the evolutionary worldview. �Therefore, the evidence will change. �Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-foo...
So what is your argument? Science is in the business of learning new
things. It isn't set in stone, but so what? What does it mean in
terms of what you believe? Do we know nothing? Just look at this
example. It may not be valid dating. Their own dating seems to range
from 9,000 to 40,000 and they want to use the older date. If it turns
out that there are 40,000 year old human foot prints in America, so
what? Modern humans have existed for around 80,000 years. Modern
Humans may have gotten to Australia by around 40,000 years ago, so it
could be possible for them to get to the Americas. Homo erectus and
other populations of Homo existed outside of Africa for over half a
million years. We could find these types of bipedal foot prints and
they could be made by a bipedal hominid that was hundreds of thousands
of years older than these tracks and it would do nothing to deny what
we already know about human evolution.
What is your explanation? If the new dating is accurate all it means
is that modern humans or some other bipedal species (that were already
known to have existed) made it to the Americas a few thousand years
before most of the other evidence that we have found. So what? How
does your model account for the new data?
I told you to try to learn about what you were going to come up with
and look what you ended up doing. Nothing. Just look at what you put
up. By what we already know isn't this just a "So What?"
Ron Okimoto
> We haven't found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that it's a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the wrong sequence. �Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don�t question it. �They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or affirms it and change the theory so it fits the evidence. �In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. �The Theory of Evolution works the other way around making it a worldview. �You cannot falsify a worldview. �If a worldview makes a prediction and doesn�t turn out the way it should, then that worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it �sheds new light�.
>
> One example (and yes there are much, much more), I�ll begin with the Mexican footprints. �I used this example before but unfortunately the website created by a team of scientists that vehemently supported these footprints with scientific data, is now gone.
>
> Here�s an article in 2005 about the Mexican footprints:http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/kojan/page3/files/Gonzales_footprints_200...
> Here are some excerpts from that article:
> �The discovery of human footprints in the Valsequillo Basin of Central Mexico challenges this model, providing new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago.�
>
> �Most early human occupation sites in the Americas date to the latest Pleistocene or Ice Age, between
> 10,000 and 12,500 years ago. The existence of 40,000 year old human footprints in Mexico means that the �Clovis First� model of human occupation can no longer be accepted as the first evidence of human presence in the Americas.�
>
> �By laser scanning the footprints, Professor Matthew Bennett and Dr Xavier Velay from the University of Bournemouth, were able to create 3-d images and models of the footprints. The actual footprints remain in situ in the Mexican quarry. The 3-d models allowed the researchers to categorise the footprints according to their size and shape. Approx. 60% of the prints are human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children�s because of their size. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry and it is estimated that the adult humans were between 117 and 190 cm tall.�
>
> Now pay close attention to this excerpt�
>
> �The footprints are indisputably human because they have some unique characteristics, including:
> 1) pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
> 2) where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
> 3) the fact that they have deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical �figure of eight� contours
> 4) they fall within the size range for modern Homo sapiens�
>
> Also, just as important, read this closely as well�
>
> � Previous attempts to date the basin�s sediments and animal bones have had variable and controversial results, with finds dated from around 9,000 to 35,000 to even 200,000 to 600,000 years ago.�
> There have been significant advances in dating techniques since the controversial excavations at the Valsequillo Basin during the 1960s. Dr Gonzalez and her team used the following techniques to date the human footprints and the sediments above and below these trace fossils:
>
> - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
> - Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) on a mammoth molar found at the Barranca Caulapan in the Valsequillo Basin by Professor Rainer Gr�n at the Australian National University, Canberra.
> - Accelerator Mass Spectrometer radiocarbon dating (AMS) was carried out on mollusc shells and organic balls at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) by Dr.Tom Higham and Dr.Chris Bronk Ramsey.
> - Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating (OSL) on sediments and the Xalnene Ash by Dr.Jean-Luc Schwenninger at the Oxford Luminescence Laboratory.
> - Argon-Argon dating on the Xalnene Ash and overlying lava was carried out by Dr Simon Kelley, Open University.
> - Uranium series dating on animal bones from the Valsequillo Gravels by Dr. Alistair Pike at Bristol University
> Two things you should remember, 1) the dating methods and 2) the undisputed footprints.
>
> Here�s another article about the footprints:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080606-ancient-footpr...
>
>
> In that article they go on to say for the dependable dating methods�
> Just to be sure, her team also used carbon-14 dating to determine the ages of shells in the sediments above and below the ash layer.
> "You can't date just one layer," she said. "You have to makes sure the whole stratigraphy makes sense."
> The sediments immediately below the ash were between 70,000 and 100,000 years old, Gonzalez's team found.
> The sediments immediately above the ash ranged from 9,000 to 40,000 years old. The dates of all three layers therefore suggest the footprints were made about 40,000 years ago, she said.
> And here are excerpts about the human footprints�
>
> To make sure the footprints were indeed human, Gonzalez's team made 3-D images with a laser scanner, then compared them to human footprints made by volunteers marching up and down a beach in the United Kingdom.
>
> "Now we are quite happy to give the word that these are indeed [human] footprints," she said.
> "We know there were adults and children," she added, adding that looking at the prints was touching.
>
> They are many articles and pictures on the net so feel free to search for more. �I just wish that one website was up and running because it had great pictures showing the left-right stride and all of the dating methods.
>
> Here�s another article with more information:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141102.htm
>
> Okay, the point is of this story is that the footprints are out of place. �At really out of place if you want to accept the other different dates dating in the millions. �And remember what I told you about paying close attention to the footprints and the dating because the story isn�t over. �Now you are about to witness science at work�
>
> After reading everything above, that has all now changed. �The evidence about the dating methods, the footprints etc are no more. �You see the evidence didn�t jive with the evolutionary worldview. �Therefore, the evidence will change. �Now below is the link of how science falsifies the human footprints:http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-05-16-foo...
So what is your argument? Science is in the business of learning new
things. It isn't set in stone, but so what? What does it mean in
terms of what you believe? Do we know nothing? Just look at this
example. It may not be valid dating. Their own dating seems to range
from 9,000 to 40,000 and they want to use the older date. If it turns
out that there are 40,000 year old human foot prints in America, so
what? Modern humans have existed for around 80,000 years. Modern
Humans may have gotten to Australia by around 40,000 years ago, so it
could be possible for them to get to the Americas. Homo erectus and
other populations of Homo existed outside of Africa for over half a
million years. We could find these types of bipedal foot prints and
they could be made by a bipedal hominid that was hundreds of thousands
of years older than these tracks and it would do nothing to deny what
we already know about human evolution.
What is your explanation? If the new dating is accurate all it means
is that modern humans or some other bipedal species (that were already
known to have existed) made it to the Americas a few thousand years
before most of the other evidence that we have found. So what? How
does your model account for the new data?
I told you to try to learn about what you were going to come up with
and look what you ended up doing. Nothing. Just look at what you put
up. By what we already know isn't this just a "So What?"
Ron Okimoto
Richard Norman
Jul 27, 2012, 7:39:30 AM7/27/12
to
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:46:50 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Please understand how science works. Web sites do not contain the
fundamental data of science. Published papers in peer reviewed
journals constitute the primary literature of science. The papers
outlining the details of the first publication with the evidence that
the footprints were human with dates of around 40,000 years is still
quite available.
wrote:
fundamental data of science. Published papers in peer reviewed
journals constitute the primary literature of science. The papers
outlining the details of the first publication with the evidence that
the footprints were human with dates of around 40,000 years is still
quite available.
Free Lunch
Jul 27, 2012, 7:58:08 AM7/27/12
to
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:13:00 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
wrote in talk.origins:
Was the website from scientists?
Scientists know that they make mistakes all the time. That is why they
have a system of clear description of their actions and reviews of their
work by peers.
Can you tell me why creationists never do scientific research about
this? Why don't they have peer review of their scientific research?
wrote in talk.origins:
Scientists know that they make mistakes all the time. That is why they
have a system of clear description of their actions and reviews of their
work by peers.
Can you tell me why creationists never do scientific research about
this? Why don't they have peer review of their scientific research?
Mephistopheles
Jul 27, 2012, 11:11:43 AM7/27/12
to
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:18:34 AM UTC-7, Nashton wrote:
> On 07-26-12 12:44 PM, Mephistopheles wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:43:54 AM UTC-7, Nivalian wrote:
> We haven&#39;t found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that
>
> it&#39;s a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the
> wrong sequence.
>
>
> question it. They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or
> affirms it
>
> and change the theory so it fits the evidence. In science, you are to
> gather the
>
> evidence/data and come up with a good theory. The Theory of Evolution
> works the
>
> other way around making it a worldview. You cannot falsify a worldview.
> If a
>
> worldview makes a prediction and doesn�t turn out the way it should,
> then that
>
> worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it �sheds new
> light�.
>
> <snip claptrap>
>
> Congratulations! You just described how science works.
>
> Dammit Nivy, I had high hopes for you. As a long-time lurker here,
> I've been
>
> getting rather bored with the current crop of creationists. I had
> hoped you
>
> might bring something new and interesting to the table. Instead you
> bring the
>
> same old claptrap we've heard a thousand times. Come on Nivy, step up
> your game.
>
> Entertain us. You don't happen to have multiple wives, do you? Any
> dealings
>
> with various mafias? That's the kinda stuff I wanna hear. He may have been c
>
> ompletely off his nut, but I miss Vowel Boy.
>
> M
>
> *************************************
>
> Excellent example of the quality of arguments for evolution and the ilk
> of the people that support it.
> Just another bozo, with a faint understanding of anything scientific,
> gets to be a bully.
>
>
> Awwww
I feel honored that one of my rare posts attracted your attention. Your argument is so compelling I have renounced my subscription to the Theory of Evolution. I will now subscribe the theory that a giant wiener dog in the sky created everything. Thank you for lifting the blinders from my eyes.
And BTW, thanks for proving my point.
M
> On 07-26-12 12:44 PM, Mephistopheles wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:43:54 AM UTC-7, Nivalian wrote:
> We haven&#39;t found any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, but we all know that
>
> it&#39;s a phrase that simply means a fossil out of order or in the
> wrong sequence.
>
> Now since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact,
> they don�t
>
> question it. They will use whatever evidence that either contradicts or
> affirms it
>
> and change the theory so it fits the evidence. In science, you are to
> gather the
>
> evidence/data and come up with a good theory. The Theory of Evolution
> works the
>
> other way around making it a worldview. You cannot falsify a worldview.
> If a
>
> worldview makes a prediction and doesn�t turn out the way it should,
> then that
>
> worldview adapts to the new evidence and proclaim that it �sheds new
> light�.
>
> <snip claptrap>
>
> Congratulations! You just described how science works.
>
> Dammit Nivy, I had high hopes for you. As a long-time lurker here,
> I've been
>
> getting rather bored with the current crop of creationists. I had
> hoped you
>
> might bring something new and interesting to the table. Instead you
> bring the
>
> same old claptrap we've heard a thousand times. Come on Nivy, step up
> your game.
>
> Entertain us. You don't happen to have multiple wives, do you? Any
> dealings
>
> with various mafias? That's the kinda stuff I wanna hear. He may have been c
>
> ompletely off his nut, but I miss Vowel Boy.
>
> M
>
> *************************************
>
> Excellent example of the quality of arguments for evolution and the ilk
> of the people that support it.
> Just another bozo, with a faint understanding of anything scientific,
> gets to be a bully.
>
>
> Awwww
I feel honored that one of my rare posts attracted your attention. Your argument is so compelling I have renounced my subscription to the Theory of Evolution. I will now subscribe the theory that a giant wiener dog in the sky created everything. Thank you for lifting the blinders from my eyes.
And BTW, thanks for proving my point.
M
Jim T.
Jul 27, 2012, 11:39:53 AM7/27/12
to
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:46:50 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Have you checked if it's on http://archive.org/ ?
wrote:
Paul J Gans
Jul 27, 2012, 12:41:36 PM7/27/12
to
Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>On 7/26/12 10:06 AM, Nivalian wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:50:22 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
>>>
>>> Then you have failed at the crux of the topic. Dating methods do work;
>>> your cherry-picking and argument by assertion do not.
>>
>>
>> Read again because I think you forgot some parts...
>>
>> [snip quotes]
>I have noticed that when people repeatedly quote a story, it generally
>indicates that they do not understand it well enough to put it in their
>own words.
>For example, how is the mammoth tooth in any way relevant to the tracks?
>> Again, read the following...
>>
>> In December of 2005, a team led by geochronologist Paul Renne of
>> the University of California, Berkeley, reported in Naturethat the
>> trackway ash layer dated to 1.3 million years ago, according to
>> analysis of radioactive Argon elements in the rock. If the ash
>> dated to 1.3 million years, that meant the footprints in it couldn't
>> have been made by modern humans, who have only been around for about
>> 200,000 years, tops, as indicated by bones and tools.
>I personally have made footprints in a sedimentary later that was about
>100 million years old. That does not mean I am 100 million years old.
I dunno, Mark. This group will age you fast.
>On 7/26/12 10:06 AM, Nivalian wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:50:22 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
>>>
>>> Then you have failed at the crux of the topic. Dating methods do work;
>>> your cherry-picking and argument by assertion do not.
>>
>>
>> Read again because I think you forgot some parts...
>>
>> [snip quotes]
>I have noticed that when people repeatedly quote a story, it generally
>indicates that they do not understand it well enough to put it in their
>own words.
>For example, how is the mammoth tooth in any way relevant to the tracks?
>> Again, read the following...
>>
>> In December of 2005, a team led by geochronologist Paul Renne of
>> the University of California, Berkeley, reported in Naturethat the
>> trackway ash layer dated to 1.3 million years ago, according to
>> analysis of radioactive Argon elements in the rock. If the ash
>> dated to 1.3 million years, that meant the footprints in it couldn't
>> have been made by modern humans, who have only been around for about
>> 200,000 years, tops, as indicated by bones and tools.
>I personally have made footprints in a sedimentary later that was about
>100 million years old. That does not mean I am 100 million years old.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Walter Bushell
Jul 27, 2012, 1:46:33 PM7/27/12
to
In article <juugc0$nd9$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
under 100 million years.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >I personally have made footprints in a sedimentary later that was about
> >100 million years old. That does not mean I am 100 million years old.
>
> I dunno, Mark. This group will age you fast.
These youngsters. Remember the rule around here, "Don't believe anyone
> >I personally have made footprints in a sedimentary later that was about
> >100 million years old. That does not mean I am 100 million years old.
>
> I dunno, Mark. This group will age you fast.
under 100 million years.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Ymir
Jul 27, 2012, 2:45:44 PM7/27/12
to
In article <288e621e-e8ad-4da7...@googlegroups.com>,
Raw numbers most likely don't change, but the levels of confidence which
the authors express in those numbers are frequently neglected or
exaggerated, possible sources of error discussed by the authors
frequently are omitted, claims about 'possible human footprints' may get
changed to 'human footprints' in a secondary source which then
subsequently changes to 'indisputable human footprints' in a tertiary
source, etc.
Also, none of the dating methods you mention directly measure *when* the
footprints were made, and the authors are well aware of this fact --
they date other factors which *may* provide clues as to when those
prints were made. The original paper will undoubtably provide details on
just how strongly that *may* is to be construed.
Even popular sources dedicated to *science* (e.g. American Scientist
etc.) often get these details wrong when reporting on science news. I
certainly wouldn't trust a fluff paper like USA Today to get things like
this right. If you want to make an argument based on scientific
discoveries, *always* consult the original paper.
Most importantly though, perhaps you can return to an issue which has
been raised numerous times here but which you haven't really addressed:
Let's assume that the impressions in question really *are* human
footprints. Let's say then that they are *indisputably* dated at 5,000
years old, or 40,000 years old, or 100,000 years old, or just 5 years
old -- how would *any* of those numbers impact on whether evolutionary
theory is correct? Evolutionary theory makes no claims about when human
beings first arrived in the Americas, and any evidence which suggested a
much earlier (or much later) arrival of humans into the Americas would
be entirely irrelevant to the theory. (Of course, if you can present
unequivocal evidence for the arrival of H. sapiens in what is now
mexico, say, 50 million years ago, then we'd definitely have something
to talk about).
Andr�
the authors express in those numbers are frequently neglected or
exaggerated, possible sources of error discussed by the authors
frequently are omitted, claims about 'possible human footprints' may get
changed to 'human footprints' in a secondary source which then
subsequently changes to 'indisputable human footprints' in a tertiary
source, etc.
Also, none of the dating methods you mention directly measure *when* the
footprints were made, and the authors are well aware of this fact --
they date other factors which *may* provide clues as to when those
prints were made. The original paper will undoubtably provide details on
just how strongly that *may* is to be construed.
Even popular sources dedicated to *science* (e.g. American Scientist
etc.) often get these details wrong when reporting on science news. I
certainly wouldn't trust a fluff paper like USA Today to get things like
this right. If you want to make an argument based on scientific
discoveries, *always* consult the original paper.
Most importantly though, perhaps you can return to an issue which has
been raised numerous times here but which you haven't really addressed:
Let's assume that the impressions in question really *are* human
footprints. Let's say then that they are *indisputably* dated at 5,000
years old, or 40,000 years old, or 100,000 years old, or just 5 years
old -- how would *any* of those numbers impact on whether evolutionary
theory is correct? Evolutionary theory makes no claims about when human
beings first arrived in the Americas, and any evidence which suggested a
much earlier (or much later) arrival of humans into the Americas would
be entirely irrelevant to the theory. (Of course, if you can present
unequivocal evidence for the arrival of H. sapiens in what is now
mexico, say, 50 million years ago, then we'd definitely have something
to talk about).
Andr�
Dana Tweedy
Jul 27, 2012, 3:28:47 PM7/27/12
to
created anything, it was to pee on it.
DJT
Mark Isaak
Jul 27, 2012, 3:33:34 PM7/27/12
to
On 7/26/12 7:09 PM, Nivalian wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:41:41 PM UTC-4, Slow Vehicle wrote:
>
>>> Click on the usatoday link about falsifying the footprints.
>>
>> Do you understand the difference between a scholarly source and the
>> McPaper? Have you read the original papers?
>
> Do the dates change miraculously when the dates come from a
> scholarly source? They took multiply tests and verified each one.
> Are the dates only reliable when it fits to a paradigm and refutes
> those pesky creationists?
Have you thrown out all your clocks, thermometers, tape measures,
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:41:41 PM UTC-4, Slow Vehicle wrote:
>
>>> Click on the usatoday link about falsifying the footprints.
>>
>> Do you understand the difference between a scholarly source and the
>> McPaper? Have you read the original papers?
>
> Do the dates change miraculously when the dates come from a
> scholarly source? They took multiply tests and verified each one.
> Are the dates only reliable when it fits to a paradigm and refutes
> those pesky creationists?
scales, and other measuring devices that can give wrong results
sometimes? Let me know when you do, and then I will know your complaint
is sincere.
Tom McDonald
Jul 27, 2012, 3:37:13 PM7/27/12
to
On Jul 27, 2:28�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/27/12 9:11 AM, Mephistopheles wrote:
<snip>
> On 7/27/12 9:11 AM, Mephistopheles wrote:
> > I feel honored that one of my rare posts attracted your attention. Your argument is so compelling I have renounced my subscription to the Theory of Evolution. I will now subscribe the theory that a giant wiener dog in the sky created everything.
>
> As an owner of two Dachshunds, I have to protest. � If a wiener dog
> created anything, it was to pee on it.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages