Voetsporen van mensen wijzen op jonge aarde

De evolutieleer beweert dat de mens een paar miljoen jaar bestaat, en dus relatief jong is dus in de evolutionistische tijdsschaal. Volgens de theorie leefden de mensen pas vanaf de late Tertiaire periode.

Opgravingen bewijzen echter het tegenovergestelde. Er zijn tal van voorbeelden van menselijke voetstappen die in 'oudere' aardlagen zijn gevonden.

Er kunnen hiervoor twee verklaringen zijn:

1) De mens bestaat al veel langer. Deze verklaring zorgt echter wel voor enkele problemen binnen de evolutietheorie

2) De geologische tijdschaal en indeling van aardlagen is onjuist (deze vind ik het aannemelijkst)

Hieronder een aantal van die voorbeelden (via Word en Paint gemaakt):

Vooral de letters van de laatste bladzijde zijn erg klein, dus ik heb niet alles gelezen.


Over de Laetoli voetafdrukken:

Citaat :

How similar the Laetoli footprints look to australopithecine feet is a matter of debate. Tuttle (1990) thought that they were too humanlike for Australopithecus afarensis and may have belonged to another species of australopithecine or to an early Homo species. Other anthropologists think they are significantly different from Homo and could be A. afarensis (reviewed by Foley 2004). Creationists tend to cite only Tuttle because he best supports their view.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC052.html

Citaat :

Although creationists want to see the Laetoli footprints as evidence that humans existed much earlier than evolutionists or paleoanthropologists admit, most scientists see the footprints as evidence supporting the theory that a hominid of that time was fully bipedal.

there is no evidence of human culture from that time period. The artefacts that have been found do not indicate a human level of intelligence or of society.
Furthermore, the fossilised hominid skeletons from that time period, which include skulls, are clearly not human. The only hominids known to have lived at that time are Australopithecus afarensis, found in Ethiopia, and Australopithecus africanus, found in southern Africa.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A944336

De afdrukken bij de Paluxy rivier:

Citaat :

Paluxy River: it has been widely claimed by creationists that fossil human footprints have been found alongside dinosaur footprints at the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas. Parker (1982), for example, claimed that they "are much more obviously human" than the Laetoli footprints. Scientists showed that many of them were indistinct or infilled dinosaur prints. Some other supposed footprints are either erosional features or, in a few cases (such as the Burdick footprint shown at right (Whitcomb and Morris 1961)), carvings. In 1984 the dinosaurian origin of many of the "better" prints was dramatically confirmed when Glen Kuban and Ron Hastings found color markings which preserved the outline of three-toed dinosaur feet. Although there have been some insinuations that these markings could be artificial stains, core samples show that they were caused by an infilling of secondary sediment into the prints. This evidence has caused most creationists to abandon the Paluxy footprints, although claims about them continue to circulate. For further details read Kuban (1996), or Strahler (1987). (See also Kuban's web site on the Paluxy River controversy at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html.)

Citaat :

There is no evidence whatsoever for human footprints co-existing with dinosaurs anywhere along the Paluxy River, as both the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research now admit.

Burdick's original tale was that he had found human footprints actually overlapping those of dinosaurs, and this was the story that Morris and Whitcomb repeated in the first edition of their book "The Genesis Flood". Later, however, Burdick admitted that no such overlapping prints existed, and Morris and Whitcomb were forced to revise this portion of their text in the third edition. (cited in Numbers, 1992, pp. 202-203) (As shown above, Morris nevertheless repeated this debunked claim in 1974, in his book "Scientific Creationism".)
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/paluxy.htm

Citaat :

Afdrukken van Meister:

The specimen does contain several real trilobites, but the "print" itself is questionable on several accounts. Upon closer inspection the overall shape is seen to consist of a spall pattern in a concretion-like slab, similar to others in the area. There is no evidence that it was ever part of a striding sequence, nor evidence that it was ever on an exposed bedding plane. The "print" is very shallow and shows no sign of pressure deformation nor foot movement at its margin. The supposed "heel" demarcation is actually a crack that runs across the entire slab, beyond the boundary of the supposed print. The slight relief difference at this point is due to slight movement along the crack line (Conrad, 1981; Stokes, 1986).
Similar spall patterns are abundant in the Wheeler formation, as are slabs showing concentric oval shapes of varying color, sometimes with stair-step like relief. Several other of these oblong features have also been interpreted as possible human prints (Cook, 1970), but are even less convincing than the Meister specimen (Conrad, 1981). None occur in striding trails or otherwise meet the scientific criteria by which genuine human prints are reliably identified. The geochemical processes such as solution penetrations, spalling, and weathering which form such features in fissile rocks of the Wheeler formation was discussed in considerable detail by Stokes (1986).
Several such "pseudo-prints" from Antelope Springs were sent to me in the early 1980's by creationist biologist Ernest Booth. One showed both an ovoid spall pattern similar to the Meister print, and another a color-distinct ovoid pattern without topographic relief. Booth expressed dismay that his fellow creationists had not explained that such superficially print-like features were abundant at the site, and were products of geological phenomena and not real prints (Booth, 1982).
Some creationists have noted that the find was "confirmed" by "Dr. Cook." However, Dr. Cook was a metallurgist with little paleontological experience or knowledge. In his own report on the find Cook states, "...I am by no means an authority on fossils and footprints." He adds that the print seems to "speak for itself". However, upon close inspection, what the evidence says does not support Cook's conclusions.
In short, the trilobites in the specimen are real enough, but the "print" itself is dubious. After mainstream rebuttals of this find were published in the 1980's (Conrad, 1981; Stokes, 1986; Strahler, 1987), most creationists quietly and wisely ceased promoting this specimen. However, a few individuals continue to advocate it as an out-of-order fossil.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html#paluxy

Hier worden nog meer voetafdrukken behandeld.