Footprints in America over 20,000 years old

[BearBiologist]

A number of years ago some archaeologist I think down in Central America was digging up a Mastadon type critter and discovered a spear point in it..... they did carbon dating on the bones and it was over 20,000 years old. then they researched the spear point and it's design and the closet they could find during that time period was in Normady.... In other words some French dude killed that critter in Central America 20,000 years ago. One of the interesting items in this program was they mentioned that when doing DNA research on Native Americans there was always an 'X' factor that did not match up with the historians preconceived ideas of the Bearing sea crossing 12,000 years ago... guess what the 'X' factor is?

Also, there has been a dig on an ancient village on the Savana river for a while that is also estimated to be over 20,000 years old....

I think it was New Mexico.

 

[KIR]

Kinda shoots down the Biblical dates proposed by Fundamentalists!

"Biblical literalist chronology is the attempt to correlate the historical dates used in the Bible with the chronology of actual events, typically starting with creation in Genesis 1:1.[1] Some of the better-known calculations include Archbishop James Ussher, who placed it in 4004 BC, Isaac Newton in 4000 BC (both off the Masoretic Hebrew Bible), Martin Luther in 3961 BC, the traditional Hebrew calendar date of 3760 BC, and lastly the dates based on the Septuagint, of roughly 4650 BC.["

Traditionally, Moses wrote the Book of Genesis, but research has shown that it was written around the 6th or 5th BC, roughly a hundred years after Moses lived and way after the origins of mankind coming from a female named "Lucy"...

Political Religion/Religious Politics, one and the same...the ability to control men's minds and therefore their actions = SLAVES!

 

[Johnny-Baseball]

I view biblical descriptions of the creation and early history of man as having been written to be comprehended by their 1000 BC audience. That audience's knowledge was so limited that they believed the earth was flat, was the center of the universe, etc. That audience had no factual knowledge of astronomy, geology, biology, the molecule, the atom, human circulatory system - each of which is among the essential building blocks for our current understandings.

Considering the extreme limitations of that 1000 BC audience's knowledge, any biblical description of creation that incorporated 2125 knowledge COULD NOT, and therefore would not have been understood. Indeed, even the knowledge that humans possessed about these subjects as of 1850 would have been woefully inadequate to comprehend what we now, only 200 years later, know to be facts. And I venture to guess that humans' knowledge 100 years from now - in 2250 - may likewise be beyond humans' current comprehension. [Our extremely limited knowledge about UFOs and the likelihood that intelligent life exists on other planets/galaxies is but one example.]

The more we discover, the more obvious it is that our knowledge remains extremely limited. And the more likely it is that we humans may never know.

In my view none of the biblical descriptions sway my belief that our universe, our solar system, our earth and the many plants and animals who lived/live on it were NOT accidentally created. Indeed, the main lessons I've gleaned from the bible (and I suspect the primary motive for the bible to have been written in the first place) are that (1) human nature has remained essentially unchanged from inception until today, and (2) biblical admonitions about the need for moral discipline are as relevant today as they were way back when.

 

[Huskerguy72]

Man is desperate to find his beginnings. All we read and the "scientific" discoveries are all at odds with each other when you compare them in time. The mere dating of rocks and things is a guess at best. Just take the beginning of life on this ball and try to explain how life came from nothing? Something had to exist, man cannot make something out of nothing. We are to believe we started with a single cell and continually moved forward to the point we are now which is completely unbelievable to ME. First this assumes something, a single cell, became something, a living breathing human with an amazingly complex body of DNA and cell structure - all by complete accident of course. Does anyone question how the single cells developed when the first ones died? The thought is we learned to walk, breath air and grow body parts - great, Darwin supposes this is how it all happened but when that cell dies it doesn't get to pass on the information it learned by adaption. Further, if there were all of these in between "humans" you know, the single cells and humans we are now, where are the prototypes along the way that developed, died and kept getting better. Every single pre man theory has been debunked.

We also know that we all share a common DNA, that is especially startling news to those of us who believe in a Master Creator, but now someone has to explain how that can happen from nothing. We used to have the big bank theory but not any more, ice ages and climate changes have always been present we are told but yet we have no clear evidence. Why are the tops of mountains sand stone? Could a giant flood have caused that? Naw, it allows for more theories and research dollars if we can all speculate, without evidence, where we originated from. It also devalues life itself.

Just my opinion and thoughts. So far we live in a free country where you can believe what you want, no matter how crazy it may sound to others.

 

[yakimatiger]

The Columbia Gorge was created by a series of floods. On a 55-year cycle. (I live in a vast area of "glacial erratics" and "flood erratics" called the "Channeled Scablands".)

"The Channeled Scablands are a relatively barren and soil-free region of interconnected relict and dry flood channels, coulees and cataracts eroded into Palouse loess and the typically flat-lying basalt flows that remain after cataclysmic floods within the southeastern part of Washington state. The Channeled Scablands were scoured by more than 40 cataclysmic floods during the Last Glacial Maximum and innumerable older cataclysmic floods over the last two million years. These floods were periodically unleashed whenever a large glacial lake broke through its ice dam and swept across eastern Washington and down the Columbia River Plateau during the Pleistocene epoch. The last of the cataclysmic floods occurred between 18,200 and 14,000 years ago."

Palouse Falls?

 

[BearBiologist]

Palouse Falls?

I think Dry Falls. Not my pic and it wasn't labelled.

This one is Dry Falls.

When I worked for Department of the Interior, I coordinated with Defense (DOD) on a Natural Resource Plan for Yakima Training Center. When they gave me a tour, we stopped and visited with the staff archaeologist at a site. The entire "beach" (about 3 feet by 100 yards) was made up of chert flakes from knapping. The DOD biologist said "I've never found an arrowhead all the years I've worked here". An intern reached down and pulled a spear/atlatl point out from under his foot. It was a reject and had been thrown away. We also found what I felt was a human humerus and two grinding stones: one a pestle shaped like a stick grenade and the other like a lens.

A bat biologist there told me that, during sonar sampling, they found five species of bats that weren't supposed to use the Columbia River as a "flyway" at night (Each species has a different frequency).

 

[RSIno1]

The ice may have melted in weeks instead of years, they think it might have been from a large meteorite that landed off the Yucatan peninsula in Mexico.

But that like large volcanic eruptions it threw a lot of debris in the air that filtered out sunlight and caused a cooling period.

The dinosaur-killing asteroid that struck Mexico's northern Yucatán peninsula 66 million years ago sent an extraordinary amount of sulphur aerosols into the Earth's upper layers, according to a new study, effectively "blott[ing] out the Sun" and causing global cooling for years to come.

Dinosaur-killing asteroid ‘caused much worse global cooling than previously thought’

Asteroid impact may have injected sulphur-bearing gases into the atmosphere, ‘magnifying’ cooling effects

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Jayhawkhuntclub]

Ever hear of the stories where the lab dates rocks at, let's say, 20,000,000 years old. But they actually formed in the 1980s? Yes, rocks, even fossils don't need millions of years to form. Scientists have created fossils in a lab in 1 day using extreme pressure.

 

[Jeepnik]

All of the science founded solely on supposition. If the initial supposition is correct your theories "might" be correct. If it's wrong everything that follows is wrong.

Consider that the earth being flat was based on a false supposition. So the fact that ships went to sea and never returned because they sailed off the edge was considered fact.

Be very interesting to see what "science" makes of man's effect on the climate was in say 1000 years.

 

[vito]

Ever hear of the stories where the lab dates rocks at, let's say, 20,000,000 years old. But they actually formed in the 1980s? Yes, rocks, even fossils don't need millions of years to form. Scientists have created fossils in a lab in 1 day using extreme pressure.

Sources for your statements?

For those who say that earlier versions of humans did not exist, I suggest you do a bit of reading beyond the Bible. We know of numerous early species that pre-date the current homo sapiens species that we belong to. The evidence is pretty clear that we are the result of evolution much as the other living creatures on our Earth, and not some unique species created whole in our current form despite what some would like to believe. And while the Bible, Old and New Testament, contain a great deal of wisdom distilled from human experience, it is still mostly a "folk tale" much like the oral histories of other cultures, but with the advantage of having a written language to be expressed in. I can accept such concepts as Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden, or the Great Flood and Noah's Ark, or God striking the immoral residents of Sodom and Gomorrah, as useful ways of trying to explain our past and human nature despite the general ignorance of the time when the authors existed. BUt not that these stories are literally true.

Our Founding Fathers were incredibly capable and intelligent and many of them were what they would call Deists. Some called their religious belief tied to the "the great clockmaker" concept. They believed in the existence of a Greater Being as the creator of the universe, and of life, but one who set things in motion and then retreated from an active role. The phrase "clockmaker" was used since clocks were about the most complex of mechanisms known at the time. These individuals saw our world as incredibly complex and did not accept that all of what they saw around them as a result of pure chance, but as the products of intelligent design. But their beliefs, which I share, do not include a Being, called God or whatever you choose to call Him, as one involved in day to day human affairs or our lives. It seems almost insulting the Creator of the Universe to think he is involved in what happens to each of us or even of all of us as a species.

But each of us are free to believe whatever it is we want to believe.

 

[BearBiologist]

I view biblical descriptions of the creation and early history of man as having been written to be comprehended by their 1000 BC audience. That audience's knowledge was so limited that they believed the earth was flat, was the center of the universe, etc. That audience had no factual knowledge of astronomy, geology, biology, the molecule, the atom, human circulatory system - each of which is among the essential building blocks for our current understandings.

Considering the extreme limitations of that 1000 BC audience's knowledge, any biblical description of creation that incorporated 2125 knowledge COULD NOT, and therefore would not have been understood. Indeed, even the knowledge that humans possessed about these subjects as of 1850 would have been woefully inadequate to comprehend what we now, only 200 years later, know to be facts. And I venture to guess that humans' knowledge 100 years from now - in 2250 - may likewise be beyond humans' current comprehension. [Our extremely limited knowledge about UFOs and the likelihood that intelligent life exists on other planets/galaxies is but one example.]

The more we discover, the more obvious it is that our knowledge remains extremely limited. And the more likely it is that we humans may never know.

In my view none of the biblical descriptions sway my belief that our universe, our solar system, our earth and the many plants and animals who lived/live on it were NOT accidentally created. Indeed, the main lessons I've gleaned from the bible (and I suspect the primary motive for the bible to have been written in the first place) are that (1) human nature has remained essentially unchanged from inception until today, and (2) biblical admonitions about the need for moral discipline are as relevant today as they were way back when.

The biblical injunctions against adultery obviously were to (1) prevent inbreeding and (2) prevent discord in small nomadic tribes. The injunction against killing (actually, the word is "murder") prevents bloodshed within the tribe. Do not eat pork (Because of trichinosis), etc., etc.

As a Freemason, I have studied (not in GREAT depth but somewhat) the major religions and the main messages do seem timeless!

 

[BearBiologist]

Sources for your statements?

For those who say that earlier versions of humans did not exist, I suggest you do a bit of reading beyond the Bible. We know of numerous early species that pre-date the current homo sapiens species that we belong to. The evidence is pretty clear that we are the result of evolution much as the other living creatures on our Earth, and not some unique species created whole in our current form despite what some would like to believe. And while the Bible, Old and New Testament, contain a great deal of wisdom distilled from human experience, it is still mostly a "folk tale" much like the oral histories of other cultures, but with the advantage of having a written language to be expressed in. I can accept such concepts as Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden, or the Great Flood and Noah's Ark, or God striking the immoral residents of Sodom and Gomorrah, as useful ways of trying to explain our past and human nature despite the general ignorance of the time when the authors existed. BUt not that these stories are literally true.

Our Founding Fathers were incredibly capable and intelligent and many of them were what they would call Deists. Some called their religious belief tied to the "the great clockmaker" concept. They believed in the existence of a Greater Being as the creator of the universe, and of life, but one who set things in motion and then retreated from an active role. The phrase "clockmaker" was used since clocks were about the most complex of mechanisms known at the time. These individuals saw our world as incredibly complex and did not accept that all of what they saw around them as a result of pure chance, but as the products of intelligent design. But their beliefs, which I share, do not include a Being, called God or whatever you choose to call Him, as one involved in day to day human affairs or our lives. It seems almost insulting the Creator of the Universe to think he is involved in what happens to each of us or even of all of us as a species.

But each of us are free to believe whatever it is we want to believe.

As a grad student in Biology, I was faced with the dilemma of reconciling faith with belief in science. I remember that an early Botany professor put it as: The Theory of Evolution is the greatest argument for a Supreme Being, because to create a self-healing, adapting system is less likely to have developed than just "poof=there is a giraffe". On a Biology Students campout, I found most biologists agreed with me that the Creation was figurative, and that Evolution was simply the Creator's method.

I like to post on Facebook the discovery of new species. Many are genetic "splits" but many are new discoveries. There are, literally thousands each year, many of which are megafauna or megaflora (non-microscopic species).

 

[Johnny-Baseball]

...Be very interesting to see what "science" makes of man's effect on the climate was in say 1000 years.

I agree.

That said, I make a distinction between the Flat Earth theorists of olden times versus today's theorists - for example, Climate Changers. Those who expounded the Flat Earth theory lacked much (if any) evidence to the contrary, and scant evidence with which to postulate an alternative theory. So, the ancients' Flat Earth theory can be viewed as honestly-derived but wrong, and its' proponents (with the benefit of hindsight) as being dumb and/or ignorant.

Today's Climate Change proponants, being neither dumb nor ignorant, are forced to carefully pick and choose which evidentiary support to flaunt, and which to conceal, ignore and/or discard.

Of course, Climate Changers' use of cherry-picked evidence only serves to bolster their detractors' assertion that "Climate Change" is only a ruse - based on demonstrably false or intentionally misleading premises - to accomplish an undisclosed, more sinister agenda (e.g. World Economic Forum agenda).

Mark Twain famously wrote, there are three types of falsehoods: lies, damn lies and statistics. And Gen. MacArthur observed when describing President Franklin Roosevelt, "He was a man who would never tell the truth when a lie would serve just as well." So we find ourselves, again, confronted by those who lie by choice and preference. Twain tied a bow on this when he observed, "History may not repeat itself, but it often rhymes."

Liars gonna lie. Some learn how at home, but most learn in law school and then refine their craft in public service.

 

[XP100]

The foot prints were McConnel's and Pelosi's when they were headed to the Hall of Congress for the first time.

 

[KIR]

I wonder if many of those scientists got their info from watching the Adam Driver movie '65'???

 

[eveled]

Interesting that there seems to be clear evidence, but the evidence is debunked by science. But the ones doing the debunking are the ones with the most to loose. So they are biased.

This has all the elements of the perfect conspiracy theory.

 

[TINCANBANDIT is back]

I agree.

That said, I make a distinction between the Flat Earth theorists of olden times versus today's theorists - for example, Climate Changers. Those who expounded the Flat Earth theory lacked much (if any) evidence to the contrary, and scant evidence with which to postulate an alternative theory. So, the ancients' Flat Earth theory can be viewed as honestly-derived but wrong, and its' proponents (with the benefit of hindsight) as being dumb and/or ignorant.

Today's Climate Change proponants, being neither dumb nor ignorant, are forced to carefully pick and choose which evidentiary support to flaunt, and which to conceal, ignore and/or discard.

Of course, Climate Changers' use of cherry-picked evidence only serves to bolster their detractors' assertion that "Climate Change" is only a ruse - based on demonstrably false or intentionally misleading premises - to accomplish an undisclosed, more sinister agenda (e.g. World Economic Forum agenda).

Mark Twain famously wrote, there are three types of falsehoods: lies, damn lies and statistics. And Gen. MacArthur observed when describing President Franklin Roosevelt, "He was a man who would never tell the truth when a lie would serve just as well." So we find ourselves, again, confronted by those who lie by choice and preference. Twain tied a bow on this when he observed, "History may not repeat itself, but it often rhymes."

Liars gonna lie. Some learn how at home, but most learn in law school and then refine their craft in public service.

Very well put, I tell people all the time to look up the definition of the scientific method, when your theory has been proven wrong (as in the case with Anthropogenic Global Warming) you must start over with a new hypothesis. Instead, they simply changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change, which is a meaningless term.

Anyone looking for the truth should visit Tony Heller's website https://realclimatescience.com/#gsc.tab=0

He shows how the cherry pick data, ignore other data, and come to conclusions and predictions that have consistently been proven false.
Every emergency the left has come up with has always resulted in more regulations, higher taxes and put more power over your life in the hands of elitists.

 

[Mike J]

I tend to believe that man, (including scientists), is not as smart as he thinks he is & does not know as much as he thinks he does. I don't even believe carbon dating is necessarily accurate. Science is manipulated to get the masses to agree to things that are not in their best interest. Theories are taught as fact to discourage people from believing in God.

 

[JackBull]

I do find it fascinating how closely scientific creation parallels the Biblical version.

 

[arfmel]

The folks who left those tracks had messed up feet.