I tried using Google translate on your post Fishy but they said they don't do gibberish.
The conclusions are based on facts; or to put it another way the facts make the conclusion.
I really don't understand what your problem is with this.
The conclusions are based on fact
So what, most fallacious conclusions are. Fact is that the dating does not date the prints directly but the unknown date of the prints depend on interpretation.
Radiometric dating is solid science.
Fishy - What books or articles that present the scientific evidence for radiometric dating have you studied?
I predict ...
1 - The honest answer is none.
2 - You will lie, obfuscate or ignore the question.
Frankly, I'll trust "fallacious" conclusions based on facts more than "true" conclusions based on ideology any day of the week.
I was at this Smithsonian museum last month and saw the Human Origins exhibit. There's no denying that the skulls staring back at me were hundreds of thousands of years older than the Biblical Adam.
Having said that, from my own studies and research I am of the opinion that human development may have been interfered with at some point in the distant past but these are my own beliefs and have nothing to do with the scriptures.
I favour the thesis that culture took over driving modern human evolution and that both ecology and society played their part in the exponential expansion of humans during the neolithic period (scholars agree about this). Without culture I don't think they would have succeeded scholars agree about this). I think creation stories (a part of culture) have a part to play in this particularly when we think in terms of convergent and divergent evolution (culture and science scholars agree about this too). I think that creation stories favour convergent evolution more than divergent evolution although the start of creation may be seen as a kind of divergent evolution because they say that the start occurred from a single point of creativity. Perhaps I am talking rubbish but I think the ancients were more intelligent than we give them credit for (the last two sentences are where I am at the moment in my research so if you disagree then feel free to call down evil on me provided there is evidence). My own evidence is based on the ancient artifacts and texts that have been preserved all over the world.
edit: I think the theory that you link to Cofty has legs and needs to be considered alongside other theories that say that the out of Africa model is the only one worth considering. In fact the out of Africa model can take many different shapes when considered alongside the out of Eurasia model for our common ancestor. debate suggests that there are four models that need to be set alongside each other and kept in the air. Another important one being the multiregional one that was popular not too long ago and that is subject to debate and modification nowadays.
Fisherman : Fact is that the dating does not date the prints directly but the unknown date of the prints depend on interpretation.
There is some doubt that the footprints referred to are hominin. In the article in Proceedings of the Geologists' Association it states :
The interpretation of these footprints is potentially controversial. The print morphology suggests that the trackmaker was a basal member of the clade Hominini, but as Crete is some distance outside the known geographical range of pre-Pleistocene hominins we must also entertain the possibility that they represent a hitherto unknown late Miocene primate that convergently evolved human-like foot anatomy.
However, there doesn't seem to be any question about the dating. The article in ScienceDaily states :
The Trachilos footprints are securely dated using a combination of foraminifera (marine microfossils) from over- and underlying beds, plus the fact that they lie just below a very distinctive sedimentary rock formed when the Mediterranean sea briefly dried out, 5.6 millon years ago.
It is elementary that anything lying beneath sedimentary rock is older than the rock unless geological folding has occurred.