Alleged 40,000-Year-Old Human Footprints In Mexico Much, Much Older Than Thought

Eureka Alert/UC-Berkeley ^ | 11-30-2005 | Robert Sanders

[wildbill]

"They're scattered all over, with no more than two or three in a straight line," which would be expected if someone had walked through the ash,"

Oooh...Ahhh...oooh..ouch...oohshi....ahhh...oooh.

[Mike Darancette]

Wow, out of Mexico and it's still going on.

[RightWhale]

If the universe is collapsing rather than expanding

Pragmatists agree that is just as bad as the expanding universe.

[jennyp]

"You're really only left with two possibilities," Renne said. "One is that they are really old hominids - shockingly old - or they're not footprints."

...or maybe a third possibility - that there was a flaw or error in the testing. Scientists must always include that possibility.

Sure, but they cited two separate lines of evidence that it couldn't be 40,000 years old: Argon-argon dating, and the paleomagnetic signature.

And as they mention, argon/argon "reliably dates rock as young as 2,000 years or as old as 4 billion years", while the initial 40,000 year old figure came from carbon-14 dating of a different layer above the "footprints".

I'm disappointed that they didn't mention any evidence regarding the footprints themselves, especially since "the British team claims to have found 250 footprints - mostly human, but also dog, cat and cloven-hoofed animal prints." Surely with such a variety of prints, they should be able to decide if at least some of them are legitimate. (But I guess that's not that team's specialty, so they left that up to someone else to examine.)

Another question: Does volcanic ash really have to be hot in order for a footprint to get impressed in it? How long does it take for ash to solidify? I'd expect the ash to take a footprint long after it's cooled down enough to walk on, especially if it was a shallow layer of ash.

[jennyp]

Genuine-scientific-controversy BUMP.

[RightWhale]

Any two would be in a straight line. Three, though, that means these hominids were broken-field running.

[Slicksadick]

[Slicksadick]

[Surtur]

quote These scientists, led by geologist Silvia Gonzalez of Liverpool's John Moores University, dated the volcanic rock at 40,000 years old. They hypothesized that early hunters walked across ash freshly deposited near a lake by volcanoes that are still active in the area around Puebla, Mexico. The so-called footprints, subsequently covered by more ash and inundated by lake waters, eventually turned to rock.

But Paul Renne, director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center and an adjunct professor of earth and planetary science at UC Berkeley, and his colleagues in Mexico and at Texas A&M University report in the Dec. 1 issue of Nature a new age for the rock: about 1.3 million years.

WOW, the accuracy of scientific dating of materials is astounding. Imagine if your car's engine tolerances was between 4mm and 130mm. Scientific precision...I think not.

[balch3]

Wrong again Darwinists.

[Centurion2000]

Looks like a damn good set of footprints to me. Of course these guys were a bit sloth toed based on the prints.

[sit-rep]

they did not burn their feet?

[CJ Wolf]

But North would be South back then.

[blam]

"Does volcanic ash really have to be hot in order for a footprint to get impressed in it? How long does it take for ash to solidify? I'd expect the ash to take a footprint long after it's cooled down enough to walk on, especially if it was a shallow layer of ash."

I'm not an expert but, I expect it does not have to be hot. In fact, it would probably be better if it were a little damp.

[blam]

Are these the prints from Mexico mentioned in this article.

[jennyp]

The British team claiming 40,000 years has a good website. Here's the Research page with links to pages on the footprints themselves, and the various dating methods they used. They used several it turns out. They make an excellent case that the ash is at least 38,000 years old, IMO. Also, on their homepage, they have a response to this new study.

[jennyp]

Those aren't the Puebla footprints, are they? The footprints shown on the British group's webpage look much more ambiguous than these.

[jennyp]

Are these the prints from Mexico mentioned in this article.

LOL, GMTA. I don't think they are.

[reelfoot]

Any taco wrappers found nearby?

[Petruchio]

Question:

If the magnetic field flips every 250,000 years . . .

. . . How can the last flip be 790,000 years ago?