googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word: More Discordant Dates for Evolution

Sunday, June 29, 2008

More Discordant Dates for Evolution

In my last blog, I highlighted a fossilized dino ulna that threw a wrench into some of the dates assigned by evolutionary theories. I didn’t mean that to be some magic bullet aimed at destroying evolution in one swoop. Rather, it was an example of the many discordant dates that evolutionists face. It’s by no means the only example.

Another amusing example comes to us from It started off as a somewhat minor annoyance reported in July, 2005 (Footprints in Mexico Create Scientific Stir). From that article:
British scientists claimed on Tuesday to have unearthed 40,000 year-old human footprints in central Mexico, challenging previous studies that put the arrival of the first humans in the Americas at about 13,500 years ago.
Missing the correct date of an event that happened only 13-40K years ago makes me somewhat skeptical that scientists could accurately date something that happened (supposedly) 500,000,000 years ago – but never mind that now. What were scientists going to do about this “challenge”? Though the headline described this as a “stir” the scientists seemed to be somewhat cavalier about what damage this could do to their theory:
"We think there were several migration waves into the Americas at different times by different human groups.''
Like the imagined land bridge in my last blog, they simply assumed there were waves of immigrants at different times. I think the ‘scientific” term for this method of ironing out disagreeing data is the “fudge factor.” But in this case, the data was not going to go away that easily.

In a follow up story in November, 2005 (Controversial Footprints: Earliest Man or Modern Machine?), the “stir” had become a full blown “controversy.” It seems someone had the bright idea of dating the volcanic ash the footprints had been made in. The results put a whole new kink in their theory:
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].
Now that would not do at all. This is absolutely contrary to all previously believed ages assigned to modern man. In the same article, it’s pointed out that:
“Humans are not thought to have even been around 1.3 million years ago. According to most scientific estimates, modern humans didn't begin appearing in Africa until about 200,000 years ago.”
Wow, that’s queer. But the quote continues:
If the markings really are footprints, then it would mean one of two things: either humans appeared much earlier than previously thought or the footprints were made by an early ancestor of humans like homo erectus.
NO NO NO!! This cannot be! This put humans or the ancestors of humans at the wrong place at the wrong time. Scientists investigating the find had to resolve this issue in such a way as to protect their precious, “concordance of dates.” What would they do?

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."

Whew! That was a close one. The dozens of footprints from the site had been misidentified all along; they must have been made by cows or machines. //RKBentley chuckles// The seeming harmony of different dating methods is saved again. This time they simply ignored the aberrant data.
I kid you not, folks, I cannot make this stuff up. This is what passes for “science” when it comes to evolutionary dating. So, if you ever hear an evolutionist trying to convince you that the earth is old, and he offers the seeming agreement of several different dating methods as evidence, remember that there are also examples where the data doesn’t agree at all. Remember too that this is how they treat the data that doesn’t fit.

Further reading:


NP said...

I read about more recent developments a short while ago:

The original group has come back with new data showing that the age of the rocks are about 40,000 years old and that these are indeed human footprints. But in this case, carbon dating is not as reliable as argon-argon dating, although this is the first time I've heard of "optically stimulated luminescence".

But I think it is still debatable whether these are indeed hominid - or even human - footprints. This wouldn't be the first time that features have been mistaken for human footprints (e.g. Paluxy tracks). Unfortunately, since this area is a quarry, the "footprints" themselves will not be around for much longer.

Of course, if it turns out that these are indeed human footprints, and if further data can corroborate either Renne's dates or that of the British group, then it would either push back human origins to a million years ago, and effectively more than double the amount of time that humans have been on earth, or support an earlier migration into the Americas.

"We think there were several migration waves into the Americas at different times by different human groups.''Like the imagined land bridge in my last blog, they simply assumed there were waves of immigrants at different times

I wouldn't call it an assumption, but rather a hypothesis. Of course, it would need to be corroborated with further evidence e.g. archaeological evidence - which is lacking thus far. Nonetheless, I should point out that this is not a hypothesis that the British scientists formulated based on their
interpretations, but one that is shared by others. To be sure, the question of when and how humans migrated into the Americas (or out?) is an open question. The archaeological evidence (or lack of) suggests a late migration into the Americas, although there is scanty evidence that indicates that humans may have populated the region much earlier than previously thought. Whether these Mexican footprints can be added to the list is still an open question, and I look forward to seeing how this unfolds. By the way, this is not strictly an evolutionary problem - even if you believe in magic and believe humans all descended from a few members on an ark during a global flood, the problem of human migration is still applicable.

MDowd said...

So, you are attacking "evolutionists" for not finding this footprint sooner? For not knowing about this footprint during their original studies which placed the migration earlier?

That's really smart dude (rolleyes). That's like attacking people who invented the vaccine to smallpox and eradicated it for not doing so years before we knew what a bacteria or virus was and back when it was believed by superstitious christians (the equivalent of todays YECs) that illness was caused by evil spirits.

Get real dude.

RKBentley said...


Thanks for visiting my blog. I think you've misunderstood my point. My point is about the DISCORDANT dates (hence the title of the blog). The footprints are supposed to belong to modern man who migrated here 13-40K years about. But the ash in which the footprints were made dates to 1.3 MILLION years ago. So, did modern man evolve in Mexico 1.3 million years ago or is the dating of the ash incorrect? They can't both be true.

But the scientists who investigated the site weren't willing to admit either possibility. Instead, they claimed the footprints aren't footprints at all but where made by machines or cows that visited the area recently.

Hopefully, that clears it up a little for you. Thanks again for visiting.

God Bless!!