stone age Footprints:earliest Evidence of Humans in North America

Stone Age footprints are earliest evidence of humans in North America

"Americas, dating to 21,000 and 23,000 years ago — several thousand years earlier than scientists once believed. "

https://login.inbcu.com/login/login...SAML20/idp/SSO.ping&spentity=nbcndRockcmsProd

Fascinating!!........Each such discovery is such an exciting find.

 

Will look for another source.........and post it if find one.

 

Oldest human footprints in North America
found in New Mexico
https://www.yahoo.com/news/oldest-human-footprints-north-america-225106590.html


Support Kelp Highway Hypothesis
Solutrean Hypothesis too
Ice Free Corridor was for very much later migrations.

Oh and don't forget the Polynesians.
They brought chickens to S. America.
And taro to East Africa


Moi

​

 

I am one of those that believes that there were multiple "waves" or "groups" that came to the Americas from both Europe and Asia. But most largely died off as they remained isolated in small bands. It was not until the later larger migrations that humans truly became a fixture on the continents.

 

Radiocarbon dating and other methods are very inaccurate, especially with recent history. They are probably only 6,000 years oldish and more like 4,500 years old after the worldwide flood.

 

Radiocarbon dating has been recalibrated using dendrology, i.e. tree rings, and is very accurate for recent times.

 

No, there are many problems with tree rings. Watch the video and stop guessing. You could use urology and be as accurate

 

There is not enough h2o to flood planet earth.

 

there was never a flood that covered the globe. That is ridiculous. There has never been that much water. The flood from the Bible, which was taken from the flood story of the Sumerians, did nothing but change the shape of the Persian gulf. Apocalyptic to those cities in the section that went underwater for sure, but it didn’t do anything like put continents underwater.

as to carbon-14 dating, it is very accurate until you start approaching 30,000 years old, to within a few decades.

 

Like I said, you know what you know until you don't know what you don't know. Carbon - 14 is not accurate at any age young or old. The conditions in which the materials being tested effect the results and cause wide ranges of errors in dating. Carbon daters don't take these things into considerations. As far as the Flood, all you can do is study that which you were never there for. And, you do it from a standpoint of today.

The problem with carbon dating is the daters don't take into consideration the conditions the materials they date have gone through. It's never a steady half-life. And, there have been objects believed to be thousands of years old end up being a couple of hundred years old or less and vice a versa. That includes those things within 30,000 years old, if you believe that.
As far as the flood, there is plenty of evidence that old earth science cannot explain with their models. But, young earth science can. I take it you still haven't watched the video. True scientists are not closeminded. Those who claim scientific knowledge that refuse to look at all possibilities are not true scientists. They are closeminded.

 

what video are you talking about?
And do yourself a favor and look more into carbon dating rather than try to shoehorn everything into your religious beliefs. I just attended a course recently about ancient man and his migrations at my university. The humans in North America from around 13,000 years ago is already common knowledge. I see no reason why they couldn’t have come from 20,000+ years ago. Can you give me a reason besides “the Bible says so” that this did not happen??

 

I don't see why they didn't come from 4,000 years ago as well. The common knowledge is common amongst the old earth ideologists. But, inaccurate...
Check out this scientific studies...

 

Holy crap, I made it to 7:10 and was ready to gouge my eyes out from the crap they were saying about the sediments and the grand canyon. This is about as scientific as a Dr. Seuss book. I'll keep watching for kicks.

lol..."...and then the continents were probably uplifted, and the ark landed..."

They just said the grand canyon was made in weeks. lol....wtf.

 

So they actually dated seeds and not footprints.
I wondered how they could date footprints.

 

Keep watching and you will learn much more. The sediments in the Grand Canyon are exactly as he states. The more you study this, your eyes will be open with the tree of knowledge.

 

There is so much more to know about dating seeds. See the article explains they found seeds. Footprints can't be dated due to there being no way to do that.
Seeds located were dated. Question I have is who walks in the desert with seeds dripping?

https://www.labmate-online.com/news...king-news/how-accurate-is-carbon-dating/30144

Unfortunately, the believed amount of carbon present at the time of expiration is exactly that: a belief, an assumption, an estimate. It is very difficult for scientists to know how much carbon would have originally been present; one of the ways in which they have tried to overcome this difficulty was through using carbon equilibrium.

Equilibrium is the name given to the point when the rate of carbon production and carbon decay are equal. By measuring the rate of production and of decay (both eminently quantifiable), scientists were able to estimate that carbon in the atmosphere would go from zero to equilibrium in 30,000 – 50,000 years. Since the universe is estimated to be millions of years old, it was assumed that this equilibrium had already been reached.

However, in the 1960s, the growth rate was found to be significantly higher than the decay rate; almost a third in fact. This indicated that equilibrium had not in fact been reached, throwing off scientists’ assumptions about carbon dating. They attempted to account for this by setting 1950 as a standard year for the ratio of C-12 to C-14, and measuring subsequent findings against that.

Has it Worked?
In short, the answer is… sometimes. Sometimes carbon dating will agree with other evolutionary methods of age estimation, which is great. Other times, the findings will differ slightly, at which point scientists apply so-called ‘correction tables’ to amend the results and eliminate discrepancies.

Most concerning, though, is when the carbon dating directly opposes or contradicts other estimates. At this point, the carbon dating data is simply disregarded. It has been summed up most succinctly in the words of American neuroscience Professor Bruce Brew:

“If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date, we just drop it.”

 

Some more information: "The present narrative for Grand Canyon’s formation is insufficient. Most of today’s secular scientists assume the Colorado River slowly carved Grand Canyon over a period of six million years. But today’s flow rates simply don’t have the power to push the 1,000 cubic miles of rocks and debris all the way out to the Pacific Ocean. Even after millions of years, we should see a lot more talus and debris. Talus refers to rock piles that lean against the cliff walls where they fell. The canyon’s base looks like it was swept clean. Only catastrophic water flow and water volume many times greater than what flows there today could sculpt badlands topography and wide gaps in the canyon." ICR.org.

Logic and reasoning certainly can help. Explain this oh secular god?

 

Look, I believe in god, and in Jesus. I believe a lot of things that man has no explanation for. But I also believe in science. I believe that the spiritual is just science that we are not advanced enough to explain yet, and it is quite possible that many if not most things cannot be understood in our present forms.

But there are some things that we CAN understand, and science is our way of understanding them. There are natural laws and systems in place that keep everything functioning around us, and these rules were designed by god in some way, either through the creator directly, or by some localized sub-logos. Science is how we have observed and figured out this wonderful universe he has created for us. There is nothing "evil" about science.

The genesis story is simply not true. It was man's early attempts at putting the world around him in order, along with some stories about a great flood that occured. I'm sure god had a good laugh as the genesis story was first written, and probably cheered as scientists began to figure out the scientific truths of everything. I think he would be very disappointed if we went on believing in the nonsense in Genesis.

Like I said earlier, there was a great flood in ancient times. Many different cultures have stories about a flood. But they were not floods that covered all the land (obviously, since people besides Noah and the gang survived). They were enough to alter some coastlines, swallow up some cities for a time, but they were not taking down whole continents.

The first human did not live 6,000 years ago. Obviously, since we have archaeological evidence of humans all over the place well before that.

 

When discussing groups coming from Asia, bear in mind humans will die unless they eat food.
An all meat diet is not best. And moving from Asia to America means they lacked seeds or other stuff to start crops plus the primitives needed shelter. This when you are modern, is very difficult. How has gone out into the Wilderness carrying seeds to plant crops so he can eat plant life? And how hard was it for primitives to hunt? Also they had to travel in extreme conditions of cold.
I am not saying it is not possible, but primitives had it a lot harder than we do and we do not carry seeds nor weapons on trips.
Sure a few do, but in the main you do not go camping to kill game.

Claims are made primitives killed Mastodons. Oh yeah? Well I won't say not possible but others want to discuss floods. I do not. I want to stick to science.

 

“If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date, we just drop it.”[/QUOTE]

Yep! That's our education process today. When the going gets tough, they get going and hide.

 

The colorado river's water levels have been dropping for decades, thanks to hydroelectric power and farmers using the water. Also, the dynamics of rivers change constantly, even year to year, let alone 6 million years.

Here is a nice simple article from the national park service that can hopefully clear things up for you. If that's not enough, there are countless geology books I'm sure you can find about it.

 

I think they actually had it pretty good. I took a couple classes on ancient man, and it was pretty amazing the energy dynamics the hunter-gatherer's had. They had a much better energy return on investment than we do today, and would actually not need to spend a whole lot of time or effort locating food. They also had a much wider variety of nutrients than when humans began settling down into cities. Humans began to shrink in stature from lack of nutrients when they began forming cities. Their diets became limited to the foods they could grow, and little else most of the time.

Of course, the downside of being a hunter gatherer is that you live at the whims of nature. If there are disasters like floods, droughts, etc, your life can get crappy fast as food suddenly becomes very scarce.

 

Creationists would say that without a literal Adam and Eve, there is no purpose or reason for Christ. If there is no fall, then there is no reason for an atonement because there is no transgression or sin. The infamous Jeffrey Dahlmer wrote that because there was no Adam, there was no sin. So, there was no problem with killing to eat another human being. Before his death, he wrote that he had come to know God and did as much repentance as he could for his sins and crimes. Had he known that Adam was a real person, he would not have rationalized his evil. The purpose of Creation Science is to show the need for Christ by proving Genesis true. Why condemn them for this. Take there interpretations and prove them wrong. There are scientists and atheists that debate them all the time. The debates can be seen on TV on certain channels. Faith cannot be based on science. Science is nowhere close to finding out 99% of the truth about the Universe.

 

Yep! That's our education process today. When the going gets tough, they get going and hide.[/QUOTE]

Lol, says the one looking at genesis for answers on how the earth was formed.