Ancient Australian Footprints

[Minimalist]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060727/ ... naustralia

About 20,000 years ago, humans trekked along the margins of a shallow lake in Australia, leaving behind records of their passage in the soft, wet sand.

[Beagle]

Nice article Min. We know also that at the time these footprints were made, man had already been in Australia for 30,000 years.

[marduk]

shouldn't that be 20,000 years

[Minimalist]

shouldn't that be 20,000 years

No, because for the first 10,000 years he was there he flew on the wings god gave him because god really did want man to fly.

[Beagle]

Strangely enough Marduk, the earliest evidence of man in Australia is dated to 50Kya - and those people had to cross 50 miles of open water to get there.

We had quite a discussion in another thread once. Maybe someone remembers where it's at so you can read it for yourself.

[Minimalist]

This one?

http://archaeologica.boardbot.com/viewt ... highlight=

[Beagle]

http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/AusOrigins.html

Archaeological site Years BP Dating method
Malakunanja II 50,000 Thermoluminescence
Upper Swan 39,500±2300-1800 14C on charcoal
Mandu Mandu Creek 34200±1050 14C on charcoal
Sandy Creek 31,900 +700/­600 14C on charcoal
Lake Mungo 31,100±2250-1750 14C on shell
ORS7 30850±480 14C on charcoal
Nunamira Cave 30420±690 14C on charcoal
Bone Cave 29000±520 14C on charcoal
Human skeletal material Years BP Dating method
Lake Mungo I 24700±1270 14C on bone collagen
Coobool Creek 65 14300±1000 U/Th on bone
Kow Swamp 5 and 9 13000±280, 9590±130 14C on shell, 14C bone apatite
Keilor 12000±100 14C on bone collagen
Nacurrie I 11440±160 AMS on bone collagen
Roonka 89 6910±450 14C on bone collagen






Literature Cited

A little more on this - the earliest date for C14 dating is about 40,000ya
with the thermoluminescence dating being at 50+ kya.

[Guest]

The researchers believe the prints were made over a series of weeks or months about 20,000 years ago when the site was exposed. Males and females, ranging from children to adults, are represented, and many of them seem to be doing different things.

the only thing missing is how did they come to this conclusion andhow werethey able to date these footprints??

Quite a few people seem to be running and heading the same way," Cupper told LiveScience. "Some of the little children were walking slower. This may suggest that there were several events represented."

that is kind of a big leap given thereisno supporting evidence to warrant such thinking.

[tj]

The researchers believe the prints were made over a series of weeks or months about 20,000 years ago when the site was exposed. Males and females, ranging from children to adults, are represented, and many of them seem to be doing different things.

the only thing missing is how did they come to this conclusion andhow werethey able to date these footprints??

If you do a little searching for the geology of the Willandra Lakes system you will have your answer. However, given your irrational refusal to accept the results of geology, it would probably be a waste of your time.

Quite a few people seem to be running and heading the same way," Cupper told LiveScience. "Some of the little children were walking slower. This may suggest that there were several events represented."

that is kind of a big leap given thereisno supporting evidence to warrant such thinking.

Go run in wet sand some time and examine the marks you leave carefully. Then walk in the same wet sands and examine those tracks too.

[Guest]

Go run in wet sand some time and examine the marks you leave carefully. Then walk in the same wet sands and examine those tracks too

that still doesn't prove such conjecture. you leave out too many possibilities. it is a leap to a conclusion or theory which is misleading in all manner of speaking.

[tj]

Side-stepping the little geology problem you've got there?

<edit>
You're engaged in a straw man by misrepresenting the original article by the way. Not that you care about logical fallacy of course ..
</edit>

[Guest]

Side-stepping the little geology problem you've got there?

no, i am looking atthe article andthey made claims without providing any proof as to how they came to such conclusions. all it is is here are footprints and here is our conclusion. no process of thinking to prove why they came to such outlandish results.

secular researchers leave out the obvious when they are trying to prove their belief.

[marduk]

secular researchers leave out the obvious when they are trying to prove their belief.

whereas religious researchers leave out the evidence

[tj]

Side-stepping the little geology problem you've got there?

no, i am looking atthe article andthey made claims without providing any proof as to how they came to such conclusions. all it is is here are footprints and here is our conclusion. no process of thinking to prove why they came to such outlandish results.

It's an article clearly taken from a science site. I suppose that they figure their audience is capable of doing a little research on their own and doesn't need to be spoon-fed elementary science.

secular researchers leave out the obvious when they are trying to prove their belief.

Not everybody needs the obvious explained to them. Some, apparently, do.

[stan]

Arch, exactly why do you think the reports on the footprints are outlandish?
They seem quite reasonable to me.
When people are running, their footprints are further apart.
If they are heavier, their footprints go deeper.
If they are children, their footprints are smaller.
If they are going in different directions, their feet point
in different directions.