Are these really the oldest footprints?


You have to love ‘scientists’ who work in Evolution.

BBC reports the oldest fossilized human footprints.

The washed out foot prints in the Paluxy River Bottom have caused controversy for decades. And ironically, some looked better than those shown in the BBC article.

Personally, I think this article and find is intriguing. But, I remain skeptical.

How about you? Do you think these are the oldest footprints?



About Wayne

First, I blogged on blogger, then Myspace - soon I was consistently ranked. Next, I quit. Then the blogging addiction came back .... Comments are appreciated. Not nice comments are edited. You can follow me at the top right.
This entry was posted in Blogging, News, Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Are these really the oldest footprints?

  1. tildeb says:

    The oldest footprints found (so far) in Northern Europe. Try comprehending what you read before you form an opinion about it, Wayne. You seem to have particular difficulty with this concept. Again, you use scare quotes inappropriately and think this find is somehow a critique of evolution. It isn’t. At all.

    • Wayne says:

      I asked a question.

      And that scared you?


      • tildeb says:

        Wayne, scare quotes are equated with the phrase ‘so-called’. It has nothing to do with fear.

        It’s almost like you have no access to the internet to find this stuff out for yourself but feel ‘comfortable’ enough with your ‘knowledge base’ to assume your ‘comprehension skills’ to extract meaning from the written word is ‘sufficient’. Wrong prefix, Wayne. Demonstrably, it’s deficient.

      • Wayne says:


        I merely asked if these were the oldest footprints?

        You have gone off on some wild goose chase about phraseology …. Please make a point or a question.

        Thank you.


      • tildeb says:

        Right. The article states clearly that these are the oldest found so far in northern Europe so I repeated in my comment. But not satisfied with clarity, you also obfuscate this ridiculous notion that it somehow alter evolution. The fact that you put those who work in the biological sciences (where evolution is a foundational pillar… for outstanding reasons) in scare quotes also deserved comment because it is inherently dishonest: you imply these folk are so-called scientists as if they weren’t. They are. Again, it is your misunderstanding of evolution that continues to derail your cognitive functioning. You see conspiratorial demons where only the shadows cast by your own ignorance are.

      • Wayne says:

        Thank you for bringing my attention to the ‘new’ meaning of quotation marks.

        I still use quotation marks for their traditional (& ‘grammatical’) reason – to show emphasis when necessary, introduce a new word that might not be known to my readers, or bring in a word in a ‘so-called’ manner. The latter meaning this word is in ‘vogue’ [emphasis added].

        So, this was never about a lack of skills, comprehension, or my epistemology; rather this was about your need to confuse the subject. Obfuscation is merely obfuscation.

        Thank you for teaching me a ‘new-age’ meaning for something I already use in a different manner.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s