Let's look at this one more time. There are important lessons to be learned.
YEers will often make the claim that scientists ignore or cover up data that contradits their theories. In this case, you see the claim being made that the ONLY reason that these were rejected as footprints is because they were too old. Let's review some of the quotes on this thread.
The following is EXACTLY what I have claimed here on Baptist Board and other places for years: not only do presuppositions determine conclusions, but the evolutionists' challenge to 'find evidence' to support creation has no meaning at all because every time evidence is found it is discounted for one reason or another.
Footprints found in volcanic ash in Mexico were declared human UNTIL the dating placed them far too early, evolution-wise, to be human in their time frame. Therefore, despite the fact that they are human, they are NOT human.
The data, refused or 'reinterpreted' by dedicated evolutionists, supports that. This article shows that those who know better PREFER the lie to the truth, just as Romans 1 states.
However those who have looked at the data, studied, and still proclaim evolution are preferring the lie...
Why do I doubt sincerely that the original scientists who found the footprints would have made that kind of mistake? They were ACCEPTED as ancient human prints UNTIL the dating showed they 'couldn't' be. Now, of course, they are not human footprints at all....
Did you actually read the article? This appears in the very first paragraph: "A dating study puts the age of the volcanic ash in which the indentations were found at 1.3 million years, which casts fatal doubt on the theory that they are footprints."
Other explanations weren't needed until the footprints failed to meet the evolutionists' necessary time frame. Since it didn't meet the time frame, any alternate explanation will do... even if it is one that was not preferred based on just the evidence as discovered.
But real science doesn't just arbitrarily discard the direct implications of the evidence when it disagrees with unproven assumptions.
As Helen pointed out, this is how "evidence" for YEC gets covered up. Regardless of what the actual truth on this particular find is, the methods of evolutionists concerning evidence that points to a young earth are more than apparent. If something looks as if it contradicts evolutionary assumptions... then there must be another explanation. The data cannot be allowed to "speak" for itself.
At this point there should be no doubt of the YE opinion on this topic. They continue to assert that nonconforming data is routinely thrown out just becuase it does not conform. And they are fiercely defending their assertions here that this is another case of data being ignored only because it does not conform.
And with that, this example provides a powerful lesson on the misrepresentations that must be made to make these asertion. This case provides an excellent example of how such things are generally not as they are presented by YEers when examined.
Before we get to the new study, let's look at what paleoanthropologist Tim White had to say about the original paper proclaiming the footprints. He is a professor of integrative biology at UC Berkeley'
"The evidence (the British team) has provided in their arguments that these are footprints is not sufficient to convince me they are footprints," said White, who did not contribute to the new work that Renne's group is reporting in Nature.
So here is at least one person who is an expert and who doubted the findings based on nothing more than the original paper.
But let's keep digging. Remember that the claim is that the ONLY reason that the footprints were dismissed was because they dated wrong. We have just seen one expert who doubted the footprints because he thought that the original paper made a weak case. I think everyone will concede that Renne doubts the dating. So let's move on.
But let's see another reason that was advanced.
Many rocks retain evidence of their orientation at the moment they cool in the form of iron oxide grains magnetized in a direction parallel to the Earth's magnetic field at the time of cooling. Because the Earth's field has repeatedly flipped throughout the planet's history, it is possible to date rock based on its magnetic polarity.
Feinberg found that the rock grains in the volcanic ash had polarity opposite to the Earth's polarity today. Since the last magnetic pole reversal was 790,000 years ago, the rock must be at least that age. Because the Earth's magnetic polarity changes, on average, every 250,000 years, the argon/argon date is consistent with a time between 1.07 and 1.77 million years ago when the Earth's polarity was opposite to that of today.
Moreover, Feinberg found that each individual grain in the rock is magnetized in the same direction, meaning that the rock has not been broken up and reformed since it was deposited. This makes extremely unlikely the possibility that the original ash had been weathered into sand that early humans walked through before the sand was welded into rock again.
"Imagine two-millimeter-wide BBs cemented together where they're touching," Feinberg said. "The paleomagnetic data tell us that these things did not move around at all since they were deposited. They haven't been eroded and redeposited anywhere else. They fell while they were still hot, which raises the question of the validity of the footprints. If they were hot, why would anybody be walking on them?"
Did you catch that? The magnetic fields in all of the grains ara aligned with the poles, opposite of today's polarity. If the depressions had been formed by footprints, the action of making the prints would have disturbed the grains and led to a more random orientation. This is strike two against the assertion that is being made.
Let's go for three. This time an observation from Renne, the head of the team that did the dating.
Today, trucks headed toward the quarry routinely drive across the xalnene tuff in which the alleged footprints are found, and the rock itself is pockmarked with many depressions in addition to the alleged footprints.
"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, Renne said.
So, they are unlikely to be footprints because they are randomly scattered. If a human, or humans, had walked through, you would expect to find a line of footprints. We don't.
So, here we have another example of the usual pattern. We see strong charges that scientists are a dishonest bunch, ignoring evidence, picking and choosing their data and dismissing data merely because it disagrees with preconceived ideas.
The reality is that the scientific method is once again shown to work. This is a great example of the process in action. Claims were made. Claims were tested independently. Claims were found to be wanting. The claims were rejected for a number of logical and factual reasons. The idea that it was ONLY because of faulty dating has been shown to be false.
While it was the YEers claiming that science was making a mistake, the mistake is actually found to be in the YE claims once they are closely examined. A false charge was manufactured by selective reporting and by misrepresenting the full story.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/uoc--a4h112805.php
