Human Origins

by cofty 56 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "Fact is that the dating does not date the prints directly but the unknown date of the prints depend on interpretation." - Fisherman

  That is wrong. The date of the prints is known to an acceptable level of error, the same level of error that is given to all radiometrically dated strata.

  As I said above, the prints were not made before these sediments were laid down, they were made afterwards (that much is obvious I hope). They also had to have been made before the surface where the prints are now recorded was buried so deep that no footprints could reach them (that also should be obvious). That gives you the relative time frame for these prints being made. The absolute time frame is given by radiometric dating methods. The relative time frame is less than the margin of error for this type of testing so therefore whatever time frame the date testing gives is accurate for the purpose of understanding these imprints.

  This is simple extrapolation of available evidence. The only question of relevance for this particular find is whether they are what they appear to be i.e. human footprints.
  
• 

  Fisherman

  Radiometric dating is solid science.

  Cofty, To quote one of the greatest posters on this Forum, Marvin Shilmer: "Try Reading!" My post that you refer to on this thread does not challenge the date, or dating method.
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  My above post only posted today, I could not make changes to my remark which in fact does not address the subject matter.

  I am not wrong to say that the footprint dating is not directly measured but requires belief and dependence on other variables. The earth is billions of years old and it is not uncommon to find substrate millions of years old. The extrapolations used or the logic and reasons used to conclude that the prints are circa the same date as the substrate might be valid and the prints could be that old based upon the logic. But how do you know for a fact without a measurement. We know for a fact the date of the substrate based on the dating method but not of the prints. If you can prove the date of the prints, I will believe it.
• 

  cofty

  No you won't.
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  Fisherman -

  Can you think of a way that these prints could have been made before these sedimentary layers were deposited?

  Can you think of a way that these prints could have been left in solid rock?

  No you can not.

  Therefore these prints were made sometime after the sediments being deposited and before they were buried under subsequent layers.

  Therefore if the deposition rate is such that this will occur within the margin of error for the particular dating method we can date the prints by testing the rocks.
  

  You are wrong because we can date these prints within a margin of error by testing the rocks.

  You are basically asking for nothing to be tested (i.e. the lack of rock that makes the footprint visible) and that is very similar to the creationist who demands the names of all transitional species from the beginnings of time to now before they will accept evolution.
  
• 

  Ruby456

  Fisherman Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The scientific method is basically based on a system of doubt, scepticism and falsification. It is basically a self correcting system and knowledge is held provisionally. So in a sense you are quit right. Scientists are suspicious of religious type absolute certainty. Basically in time u will come to let yourself be at ease with this style of inquiry.

  The fossil record is full of controversy and competing theories but what they do have in common is that scientists reach a consensus about the timing of certain events. These footprints are an anomaly if they are attributed to humans but they may have been made by some kind of other creature or a climatic event happened later that separated the area from Africa and makes it more explicable with other evidence from Africa and the earlier date may suggest that hominid experimentation occurred earlier...bottom line is that it is still subject to investigation and doubt

  for example see this

  https://phys.org/news/2017-08-fossil-footprints-theories-human-evolution.html
  

  During the time when the Trachilos footprints were made, a period known as the late Miocene, the Sahara Desert did not exist; savannah-like environments extended from North Africa up around the eastern Mediterranean. Furthermore, Crete had not yet detached from the Greek mainland. It is thus not difficult to see how early hominins could have ranged across south-east Europe and well as Africa, and left their footprints on a Mediterranean shore that would one day form part of the island of Crete.
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  What shall..

  Again, you could be right if your explanations are correct. Take a millions of years old substrate and put footprints on it later on and that's it. You don't know for a fact when the footprints were put on the substrate. It is a conclusion not a direct measurement.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Take a millions of years old substrate and put footprints on it later on and that's it - no.

  A substrate that's millions of years old would be fossilised. It would have a hard surface and be hard underneath the top layer. Footprints from a 50-80kg hominid could not leave a nice footprint-type shape like they could in soft mud.

  It's not just the substrate that's fossilised - the footprints are, too.

  Thus, the footprints are approximately the same age as the substrate.
  
• 

  dubstepped

  @ Fisherman - Conclusions does not equal fact.

  Do you or do you not hold on to the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses? Are you applying the same scrutiny to your beliefs? Do you apply it to the Bible itself? Are these conclusions based on very flawed books and theology that is demonstrably false the reason that you reject the science indicated here?

  You have an ability to be quite reasonable when it fits your conclusions, for example the lawsuits against Watchtower at times or the copyright issues, but when reasonable conclusions conflict with your beliefs (which are often unreasonable conclusions based on error prone WT teachings) suddenly you feel that conclusions are false while defending your own conclusions as fact.

  I think that's why you're so frustrating. You have the ability to get outside of the structure provided to you by Watchtower but we all see you revert back to the brainwashing when it is threatened. You are so close to being free but it's like even after 14 years of playing this game on here you just can't let go and accept, if nothing else, more reasonable conclusions while holding fast to very unreasonable ones rooted in a book that begins with talking snakes, magic trees, and a global flood that would have necessitated rapid evolution to create all of the varieties of those "kinds" that we're on the boat that has never been found. Let go of that stuff and open up that brain of yours that clearly has something to offer and you'll find a whole new paradigm that you can run with of exploration and growth instead of stagnation.
• 

  stuckinarut2

  Well said dubstepped!