Another shoe that doesn’t fit

In my last post, I wrote about the curious tactic of evolutionists assigning modern human footprints to supposed human ancestors.  The old saying is, "If the shoe fits, wear it!" Sometimes, though, human footprints are found in rocks that just don't quite fit with evolutionary understanding. In the cases I cited before, human footprints were forced to fit the shoes of Homo erectus and Australopithecus afarensis. I had another example that I could have used in that post but I had already written long enough and I felt it might be too long if I included another example.  Yet this example is so much more outrageous, I couldn’t just let it go without talking about it.  I'm going to do that now. Prepare to be amused.

Back in 2005, in a NBC News article, British scientists claimed to have discovered 40,000 year old human footprints in Mexico.  This was a problem with popular theories at the time that said humans arrived in the Americas only about 13,500 years ago.  Of course, since every evolutionist views evidence with the lens of “millions of years,” a 30,000 year error certainly isn’t enough to cause any of them to question the theory itself.

The footprints had been made by someone walking in volcanic ash.  When water levels rose, the ash hardened like concrete and preserved the trail.  There were some 269 footprints total, made by humans and animals.  But the real controversy started when someone had the bright idea to date the volcanic ash.  From a Live Science article, we read this:

Using palaeomagnetic analysis—a technique that looks at the Earth's magnetic field during past geologic time—and a radioactive dating technique called argon-argon, the team concludes the ash is actually 1.3 million years old. [italics in original]

Uh oh!  Evolutionists could deal with a 30,000 mistake in their deep-time story telling.  Now we’re talking about 1.3 million years!  Like Desi Arnaz used to say to Lucille Ball, “You got some ‘splainin to do.”  

In this post, I’ve included 2 photos from the two articles.  The Live Science article has a photo that resembles a footprint left in sand.  Visible are the heel, toes, and arch of the foot.  I’m not sure how long the stick is, that was placed next to the print for scale but I’m going to assume the print is the same size of a typical human’s foot.  It looks just like any footprint you might find on a sandy beach or a muddy field.

The NBC photo has someone with a bare foot standing next to one of the fossil prints.  You can see for yourself that the footprint is about the same size as the model, with the heel and toes clearly visible.  But you don’t have to believe me - look at the photos for yourself.  Am I lying?  Am I exaggerating the resemblance of the fossil prints to human feet?  I think not.

The problems this finding causes for evolution are myriad.  Nevermind the 40,000 years ago estimate anymore because you can’t have people who lived 40,000 ago leave footprints in rocks that are 1.3 million years old.  I see two ways to resolve this:

1. People were walking around in Central America 1.3 million years ago.  Now, this isn’t really an option because modern humans weren’t even supposed to exist that long ago.  It would have had to have been some human ancestor - but even these were still supposed to be in Africa.  There’s really no way to make human (or even hominid ancestor) prints in 1.3 million year old rock fit the evolutionary model.

2. The dating method is wrong and the rocks aren’t really 1.3 million years old.  This is the option I would go with, seeing that I’m a young earth creationist.  I believe the rocks can’t be more than ~6,000 years old.  But evolutionists can’t really agree to this option either.  They are vested in their dating methods and you can’t really disregard this finding without calling their other dates into question.

What a pickle for evolutionists.  What could they possibly do to resolve this?  Do you remember when I said you’d be amused?  Well get ready because here it comes.  I’m being serious.  You’re not going to believe it.  Are you ready?  OK, here goes:

These are really cow prints!!

I told you that you wouldn’t believe it.  Let me quote from the Live Science article:

After visiting the site, Renne believes the markings are not really human footprints at all, but rather impressions left by machines or animals that have passed through the quarry in recent times. ¶"You have to remember this is a public area," Renne said in a telephone interview. "Vehicles drive across it, you can see tire tracks on the surface. There are cows and other animals grazing nearby." [bold added]

I kid you not, folks, I cannot make this stuff up. This is what passes for “science” when it comes to building evolutionary theories.  Sometimes, evolutionists brag, claiming that their theory is supported by several different scientific disciplines. In this case, though, the dates they assign to the evolution of modern humans, the dates they assign to human ancestors, the “Out of Africa” dates, the dates assigned to the Ice Ages, the methods they use to assign dates to rocks, just don’t quite jibe, do they?  In fact, they don’t agree at all.  

Are evolutionists never embarrassed to have to resort to explanations like this? I thought it was funny when they claimed human footprints were left by Australopithicenes.  To say that human footprints were made by cows… well that’s downright hysterical!