googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word: Human “Ancestors” had Modern Footprints

Friday, February 27, 2009

Human “Ancestors” had Modern Footprints

I’ve talked before about how evolutionists are continuously challenged with evidence that upsets their theory. Of course, because of their bias, the data is reinterpreted in such a way that it can be accommodated into the theory. That is, the theory is used to interpret the data – then the data is used as evidence for the theory. We ordinarily call this, circular reasoning.

Here’s a recent example. In a Reuters’ article, it was reported that very modern looking footprints were found that have been dated [according to evolutionary methods] to be 1.5 million years old. From the article:
“Footprints found in Kenya that resemble those left in wet sand by beach goers today show that 1.5 million years ago a human ancestor walked like we do with anatomically modern feet…” [emphasis added].
The article goes on to say:
“"It was kind of creepy excavating these things to see all of a sudden something that looks so dramatically like something that you yourself could have made 20 minutes earlier in some kind of wet sediment just next to the site," archaeologist David Braun of the University of Cape Town in South Africa, one of the researchers, said in a telephone interview.

"These could quite easily have been made on the beach today," Braun added.”
[emphasis added]
The problem with interpreting this information is that, according to evolutionary scientists, modern human is only around 200,000 years old. Yet here is evidence that someone with modern human feet was walking around [supposedly] more than 1 million years earlier.

The human footprint is very distinct. It is quite different from any ape’s – not to mention the upright, bipedal gate of humans versus ape. These tracks are definitely human (unless they later change their mind and say the tracks were made by cows). So, there are at least 3 conclusions we can draw:

1) Modern humans lived 1.5 million years ago. Sorry, but this conclusion isn’t allowed because recent ancestry of humans is too well ensconced.

2) The tracks aren’t really 1.5 million years old and they were left by modern humans much more recently. This conclusion isn’t allowed either because evolutionary theory hinges on its dating methods. To question one is to admit others are suspect.

3) The tracks – no matter how humanlike they appear – were made by some human ancestor. Bingo! They already “know” when and where humans evolved. These tracks can’t change that. Thus they decide (quoting the article), “The remains of the footprints found in sedimentary rock near Ileret in northern Kenya most likely were left by a human ancestor called Homo erectus, also known as Homo ergaster.”

The article concludes:
"The species Homo erectus had a smaller brain than modern people but had generally similar body proportions -- longer legs and shorter arms -- to Homo sapiens. Their remains have been found in Tanzania, Ethiopia, Kenya and South Africa, with dates consistent with the newly reported footprints.

But no remains of their feet have been found from that time period, Braun said.”
Never mind that we really don’t know what Homo erectus feet looked like. Never mind that these tracks appear identical to modern human tracks. According to their theory, no modern humans were around so the tracks MUST belong to Homo erectus. The theory interprets the data so the data fits the theory. It’s the tail wagging the dog.

How about the creationist interpretation? These tracks were made by a modern human, the modern human lived contemporaneously with Homo erectus, and the tracks aren’t really 1.5 million years old. Doesn’t that theory explain this evidence just as well?

No comments: