Evolution News: Humanlike Footprints in Crete Dated to 6 Million Years Ago!

by Disillusioned JW 16 Replies latest social current

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    I find it astonishing that humanlike feet could have existed that long ago. I wonder if some non-human upright ape might have had that kind of feet that long ago. See https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/humanlike-footprints-in-crete-dated-to-6-million-years-muddle-archaeologists-1.10301706 and https://scitechdaily.com/oldest-footprints-of-pre-humans-identified-in-crete-six-million-years-old/ .

  • neat blue dog
    neat blue dog

    I find it astonishing that they can date a footprint to 6 million years with a straight face. Trust the science!

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    The above mentioned science articles made a reference to .... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170523083548.htm is a science article about two fossils of Graecopithecus freybergi. The article is called "7.2-million-year-old pre-human remains found in the Balkans: New hypothesis about the origin of humankind suggests oldest hominin lived in Europe". That article is from the year 2017 and a summary of it says the following.

    "Scientists analyzing 7.2 million-year-old fossils uncovered in modern-day Greece and Bulgaria suggest a new hypothesis about the origins of humankind, placing it in the Eastern Mediterranean and not -- as customarily assumed -- in Africa, and earlier than currently accepted. The researchers conclude that Graecopithecus freybergi represents the first pre-humans to exist following the split from the last chimpanzee-human common ancestor."

  • pistolpete
    pistolpete
    neat blue dog

    I find it astonishing that they can date a footprint to 6 million years with a straight face. Trust the science!

    I agree NBD.

    Trust in science---climate change, 3 booster shots, Al Gore,etc.

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Correction: In my prior post where I said .... I have meant to replace it with the words "Graecopithecus freybergi".

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Another interesting find. The authors of the recent research have done due diligence in dating and identifying the prints however acknowledge that other conclusions are yet possible. This is how science works, More evidence regarding this particular finding will come with time until a consensus through a preponderance of evidence is achieved. Even then, new evidence will shape that consensus if justified.

  • DATA-DOG
    DATA-DOG

    They call that shitty find a “Footprint” but won’t accept casts of “Bigfoot” tracks a week old??

    DD 🤔

  • waton
    waton

    how about the fossilized footprints in the New Mexico sediment? ? https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/fossil-footprints-challenge-theory-when-people-first-arrived-americas

    3 times older than the 7000 year wt's A&E story, no wonder 1975 was wrong, without welcoming these new world wanderers.

  • Simon
    Simon

    "New research suggests researchers would like to get their names in the big publications and even onto the front-page of the news and, well, saying you found some footprints doesn't cut-it so you have to make them old, no, whatever you're imaging is not old enough, way older, like a bazillion years? Oh, too old and unbelievable? Yeah, I guess younger than the earth itself. How about a few million? You're sure no-one can check? OK, roll the presses ..."

    Margin of error +/- 6 million years

    Think of all the things that scientists can't really tell us for certain, today, when things are measured.

    It's all guesswork, but there's no one to check, 'cause no one was there. Heck, it doesn't even look like a footprint - hello, McFly, did no one notice that it isn't even an actual footprint?

    Anyway, outlandish claims get them free headlines and more funding ...

  • pistolpete
    pistolpete
    DATA-DOG

    They call that shitty find a “Footprint” but won’t accept casts of “Bigfoot” tracks a week old??

    That's because a great number of "Humans" are more prone to believe "Anything" that happened THOUSANDS---no---MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO, or events that happened invisibly----since they can't be verified.

    Think 1914 Jesus was "Invisibly crowned as King in the Heavens"

    In 1919 GOD picked the Watchtower to be his home base on earth.

    2000 years ago the "Virgin" Mary got pregnant without having sex.

    and -----A carpenter was able to walk on water.

    6 MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO---Some dude left his footprint and we still have it.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit