Creation Science Rebuttals

Institute for Creation Research

Europe's Oldest Human Footprints--Dated in Error?

ICR News, 7 March 2014

First Published 7 March 2014

In a web article dated 7 March 2014, the Institute for Creation Research reported on a new discovery of fossil footprints in England, that reportedly date to around 800,000 years old.¹The article is by Brian Thomas, and is called "Europe's Oldest Human Footprints--Dated in Error? Of course, if authentic, this would be a major problem for young earth creationists.

Given the title of the article, one would expect the author to present some type of scientific evidence to discredit the old date of these footprints. Let's look at some of the statements the author uses:

"Without a time machine or a date stamp on some coin or other artifact directly associated with the tracks, deciding on an age requires some assumptions."

This is a typical YEC mud-slinging statement. Of course there were no coins or date stamps on anything, as these were made by more primitive hominids. This is what I would term a "chuckle statement." YEC's often use humor (at the scientist's expense)...something I have witnessed often in YEC speeches.

How do researchers know they have the correct age assigned to the prints' "geological position" or to the "nearby fossils?"

They know because they have done their research. As I have read in other reports on this topic, the research team consisted of geologists and paleontologists, and are experts on the geologic rocks in question. Next, the author proceeds to attack some of the tools the geologist might use to date the rocks.

These articles reference the "Geologic Time Scale," a chart that pins year ranges to names like "Pleistocene." Secular scientists almost never assign an age to a rock or fossil without referencing some version of this chart. Maybe one reason why so few geologists question the chart's contents is because it is taught to them as established fact during school.

Should we trust it simply because so many geologists trust it?

Over the years, thousands of geologists have contributed to the fine-tuning of the geologic time scale. It is taught to geologists because time and again, it has proven to be a reliable tool. It is trusted because geologic and fossil evidence supports the time scale...time and time again. Again, the author presents no real evidence against the footprints...merely mud-slinging upon the scientists involved in the actual study. Thomas continues...

There must be a more scientific means to validate the age of the footprints than merely citing them as Early Pleistocene then matching the label to the corresponding dates on a chart.

There is...the rocks in question have been extensively studied for many years. Many scientific studies validate the age of the footprints. The scientists involved don't just pick a number (800,000) out of thin air. It's like Thomas is insinuating that the authors put a geologic time scale on the wall, blindfolded one scientist, and had him "pin the tail" on the proverbial donkey (geologic time scale). He portrays the scientists a doing nothing more than "guessing" at the age for the footprints.

Thomas states that the footprint-bearing rocks were claimed by the scientists to be formed during an interglacial period. He states,

The entire concept of interglacials assumes vast time without proving it—a circular argument. Although the Genesis Flood did cause the single post-Flood Ice Age, multiple glacial/interglacial cycles never actually happened. But even if they had occurred, can we really know when they occurred?

The proof is there, but YEC's have typically found a way to dismiss it, because it contradicts their single ice age theory. There actually are Glaciologists, who study glaciers, past and present, and they have had a great deal of success in identifying interglacial periods. Interglacials are identified by their paleontology. Ice cores and ocean sediment cores can be correlated with the fossil evidence. There is also astronomical evidence, as there is a correlation between glacials and interglacials, and the cyclic changes in the earth's orbit. No, scientists are not just "making this stuff up." They actually do research that proves interglacials existed. What is the YEC response to all this evidence? It comes from Thomas' statement above -- "multiple glacial/interglacial cycles never actually happened". They simply ignore the evidence because it contradicts YEC theory.

Thomas addresses the earth's orbit cycle, and claims, "these small changes are far too weak to cause continent-covering ice ages." He does not provide any evidence of this, other than his reference, which is "Astronomical tuning of the Aptian Stage from Italian reference sections," a research article from 2010. The Aptian Stage occurred from 125 million years ago, to 112 million years ago. Granted, I don't have access to the entire study that he referenced, but I do have access to climatology data for the Cretaceous. This was during the Cretaceous period, when earth's climate was relatively warm compared to today, an average of 4°C higher than today (global warming alarmists today are worried about the harm less than 1° would do!). Given the warmth of the Cretaceous, when dinosaurs ruled the earth, I would not expect these small orbit cycle changes to cause an ice age...and we don't see any ice age evidence in the Aptian. (Hint: If you want to study what causes ice ages...study a period that actually had ice ages!)

Near the end, Thomas states,

Of course we will find vast eons in sediments if we initially assign vast eons to their layered patterns!

This insinuates that circular reasoning is being used. Is the age a geologist assigns to a rock based on circular reasoning?

What a YEC sees: A geologist looks at a rock, says its really old, then dates the rock based on radiometric or biostratigraphic evidence...the conclusion...it's 65 million of years old. To the YEC, that was circular, because the geologist started with an "old" rock, and it proved to be old.

What a geologist sees: To the geologist, when we say a rock is old, we don't know how old, until we test it. After he performs the tests, then he can make an estimate of its age.

That is not circular...its responding to the scientific evidence. The YEC thinks its circular, based on a simplistic approach, whereas in reality the geologist is performing a scientific analysis of the rock before proclaiming its age. Just because we know that a rock has "some amount of age", does not mean that justifies calling this circular reasoning. (YEC is completely based on circular reasoning. The reasoner begins with a young earth, and then proceeds to prove it.)

Conclusion

Having reached the end of the article, I never came across any evidence to contradict the age of the footprints in question. He tried to cast doubt upon the method geologists use to date the footprints, without addressing the evidence directly. Yes, geologists use the geologic time scale...yes, geologists use biostratigraphy. But the author did not question the scientific evidence...he only questioned the methods used, which are tried and true methods that are rock solid.

One thing is sure...through a multitude of words, the young earth author has probably succeeded in casting doubt upon the age (in the minds of YEC readers).

¹ Brian Thomas, Europe's Oldest Human Footprints--Dated in Error?, ICR website.

If you are not a Christian, and you have been holding out on making a decision for Christ because the Church always preached a message that was contrary to what you saw in the scientific world, then rest assured that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you can believe in Christ and receive salvation, while still believing in an old earth. Click here for more.

Are you a Christian who believes in young earth creationism? Now that we have shown the many difficulties of the young earth creation science model in this and many other articles, how does this impact your Christian life? If you are a young-earth creationism believer, click here.

More Institute for Creation Research Rebuttals

Leave a comment about this article on our Facebook page.

Did you know that you can be a Christian, and believe that the earth is billions of years old? You can even believe in evolution and be a Christian. There is no conflict between science and the Bible...all one needs is a proper understanding how to merge science and the Bible. To learn more about old earth creationism, see Old Earth Belief, or check out the article Can You Be A Christian and Believe in an Old Earth?

Feel free to check out more of this website. Our goal is to provide rebuttals to the bad science behind young earth creationism, and honor God by properly presenting His creation.