Started By
Message

re: Human-like footprints found in Crete are older than feet

Posted on 9/2/17 at 12:02 am to
Posted by The Pirate King
Pangu
Member since May 2014
69722 posts
Posted on 9/2/17 at 12:02 am to
I think this says more about the inaccuracies of their dating methods than anything.
Posted by gatorhater08
Baton Rouge
Member since Apr 2011
2511 posts
Posted on 9/2/17 at 12:05 am to
quote:

You ever made a footprint in a rock?


No, but

This post was edited on 9/2/17 at 12:06 am
Posted by RightHook
Member since Dec 2013
5560 posts
Posted on 9/2/17 at 12:36 am to
well...someone did...
Posted by tigersbh
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2005
13398 posts
Posted on 9/2/17 at 12:39 am to
quote:

Commonly accepted timelines regarding developments of civilization and human beings are BS Both are a great deal older than modern science espouses.


Not AS old. Our methods of dating are not accurate, the further you go back.
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
29134 posts
Posted on 9/2/17 at 12:45 am to
quote:

well...someone did...

The footprints were made in sand/silt/clay or something similarly soft that later became rock. That's how you know that a footprint in a rock is at least as old as the rock.
Posted by tigersbh
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2005
13398 posts
Posted on 9/2/17 at 12:45 am to
quote:

Well, the Bible does specifically refer to some Old Testament figures being in Heaven, and it does so in red letters, so there you go...


People in the OT looked FORWARD to their savior, we look BACK to ours. We can/could all be saved.
Posted by mikeboss550
Member since Apr 2013
10997 posts
Posted on 9/2/17 at 1:29 am to
Which one of you frickers have a space time machine and did this shite
Posted by RightHook
Member since Dec 2013
5560 posts
Posted on 9/2/17 at 1:31 am to
so it just does the age of the rock and not the sand/silt/clay it came from? srs question.
Posted by Grim
Member since Dec 2013
12489 posts
Posted on 9/2/17 at 1:36 am to
quote:

That's why I have a problem with EVOLUTION

Found the retard
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
29134 posts
Posted on 9/2/17 at 1:42 am to
quote:

so it just does the age of the rock and not the sand/silt/clay it came from? srs question.

The material forms sedimentary rocks, which I think can be carbon dated, but that's only good for about 50k years. To date sedimentary rocks older than that, you find igneous rocks that were formed around the same time (found in the same layer), which can be K-Ar dated back billions of years.

Posted by SamuelClemens
Earth
Member since Feb 2015
11727 posts
Posted on 9/2/17 at 1:49 am to
Aliens dude, aliens. They were here breeding the humanoids and current man was the pick of the litter.
Posted by TJGator1215
FL/TN
Member since Sep 2011
14174 posts
Posted on 9/2/17 at 3:48 am to
Evolution is a crock of shite. It's another modern man made religion.
Posted by ItNeverRains
Offugeaux
Member since Oct 2007
28166 posts
Posted on 9/2/17 at 5:11 am to
This is all a simulation. Every now and then we find traces of bad code.
Posted by Mo Jeaux
Member since Aug 2008
64587 posts
Posted on 9/2/17 at 5:39 am to
quote:

Evolution is a crock of shite. It's another modern man made religion.


Another idiot.
Posted by tilco
Spanish Fort, AL
Member since Nov 2013
14628 posts
Posted on 9/2/17 at 6:00 am to
quote:

HUMAN-like footprints have been found stamped into an ancient sea shore fossilised beneath the Mediterranean island of Crete. They shouldn’t be there. Testing puts the rock’s age at 5.7 million years.


GODS WE WERE STRONG THEN!!!!
Posted by mindbreaker
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2011
7925 posts
Posted on 9/2/17 at 6:00 am to
quote:

Evolution is a crock of shite. It's another modern man made religion.


#1) Evidence, studies, and proof of evolution


#2) Evidence, studies, and proof of God



The fact most people go with #2 is what confuses me
Posted by mdomingue
Lafayette, LA
Member since Nov 2010
48652 posts
Posted on 9/2/17 at 6:52 am to
quote:

This stuff always makes me call into question how accurate the carbon-dating is.


The dates in question are derived from the age of the sedimentary layer the footprints were found in, not radio carbon dating. This would be too old for carbon dating.

Here is a good article on carbon dating
https://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Nuclear/cardat.html

From the article

quote:

The low activity of the carbon-14 limits age determinations to the order of 50,000 years by counting techniques. That can be extended to perhaps 100,000 years by accelerator techniques for counting the carbon-14 concentration


Posted by CelticDog
Member since Apr 2015
42867 posts
Posted on 9/2/17 at 6:54 am to
Sand blasted.
Not water.
Posted by CalcuttaTigah
Member since Jul 2009
1030 posts
Posted on 9/2/17 at 7:03 am to
Dan Brown, that you?
Posted by CelticDog
Member since Apr 2015
42867 posts
Posted on 9/2/17 at 7:09 am to
Look at print A, purported to be the ancient human print (single instance).

Its not a human print. Deep push into area 2 inches from toes. No human has that pad.
Instead in humans either the foot is flat where the A pad is or there is an arch, the opposite of the A pattern shape.
People who really mistake that A pattern for a human pattern cant tell an orange from an apple.

One instance of this A pattern is random. If it were like your foot or mine might make, we would still be dealing with the fact of one instance. The example provided would not fool a 8th grade class.
We could collect the best bogosity in one thread. Photos purporting to show city under water in bermuda triangle. My current favorite, one re pyramids, dude teases for next thrilling installment, claims light could not penetrate into the inner sanctum room. Omg.

Story is click bait. Not one person at "Aussie trash news r us" thinks that is a human print.
This post was edited on 9/2/17 at 8:37 am
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 6Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram