10-26-2013, 03:36 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
|
Account Disabled
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,235
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Larehip
And you can find a million creationist websites claiming this proves the earth is only thousands of years old and a million more science websites swearing up and down that this "bad archaeology."
|
You mean like this one?
Quote:
|
There are the usual problems: whilst there are undoubted resemblances between the shape of the print and that of a shoe sole, part of the imprint is missing. Furthermore, if the imprint really is of a shoe worn by a (presumably air-breathing) human, we have to explain the presence of trilobites, a marine creature. This would have to be not the footprint of a shoe-wearing being walking along a shallow stream, but of one walking on the seabed. Worse, there is no trace of pressure exerted by the supposed wearer of the shoe upon the trilobite (despite the alleged compaction of the sand grains) and the supposed heel is formed by a crack that runs across the whole slab, continuing beyond the ‘footprint’. Similar patterns have been found throughout the Wheeler formation, while concentric oval shapes of varying colour, sometimes with a stepped profile, are what were interpreted by Burdick and Bitter as in situ footprints or sandal prints.
|
The Antelope Springs
These seem like reasonable objections to me.
|
|
|