Skip to comments.
Report Examines Ancient Mexican Footprints
Yahoo (AP) ^
| Wed Nov 30, 8:34 PM ET
| JENN WIANT
Posted on 12/01/2005 5:32:22 AM PST by The_Victor
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
To: The_Victor
I am more interested in the modern ones found at our borders.
2
posted on
12/01/2005 5:35:18 AM PST
by
satchmodog9
( Seventy million spent on the lefts Christmas present and all they got was a Scooter)
To: The_Victor
"...Footprints discovered in Mexico are either more than 1 million years older than other evidence of humans in the Western Hemisphere or not footprints at all,...">Pardon me while I hold my enthusiasm in reserve...
3
posted on
12/01/2005 5:36:21 AM PST
by
Khurkris
("Hell, I was there"...Elmer Keith.)
To: The_Victor
Repost of 3 yesterday
"Search" is your friend.
4
posted on
12/01/2005 5:37:41 AM PST
by
xcamel
(a system poltergeist stole it.)
To: The_Victor
5
posted on
12/01/2005 5:40:44 AM PST
by
The_Victor
(If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
To: xcamel
I saw the postings from yesterday, this is a new article.
6
posted on
12/01/2005 5:41:44 AM PST
by
The_Victor
(If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
To: The_Victor
7
posted on
12/01/2005 5:42:54 AM PST
by
The_Victor
(If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
To: All
8
posted on
12/01/2005 5:45:22 AM PST
by
The_Victor
(If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
To: The_Victor
Which way were they headed?
9
posted on
12/01/2005 5:47:49 AM PST
by
Dallas59
(“You love life, while we love death"( Al-Qaeda & Democratic Party)
To: xcamel
Repost of 3 yesterdayWould you post links to the other two previous articles? My searches on the above title and any subset of words in that title are still only turning up one hit.
10
posted on
12/01/2005 5:59:25 AM PST
by
The_Victor
(If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
To: The_Victor
2 were pulled as dupes.
The interesting story is the dating war between the two teams studying the "prints"
11
posted on
12/01/2005 6:05:04 AM PST
by
xcamel
(a system poltergeist stole it.)
To: The_Victor
12
posted on
12/01/2005 6:22:24 AM PST
by
Jeff F
To: The_Victor
One million years, 200,000 years in Barstow, CA, 40,000 years in Mexico or 11,500 years for Clovis. Somebody really must rethink the presence of man in North America.
Comment #14 Removed by Moderator
To: The_Victor
So a footprint is a footprint if it agrees with their theory and not a footprint if it... well you know.
Idiot scientists... NOT!
15
posted on
12/01/2005 4:35:35 PM PST
by
Jo Nuvark
(Those who bless Israel will be blessed, those who curse Israel will be cursed. Gen 12:3)
To: DaveLoneRanger
I don't know if I want any creation vs. evolution pings. Some people on this list assume you're a kook just for asking a provocative, but honest question.
If these are footprints, it seems we have another option. That these rock layers are not as old as they are said to be. *Gasp*
Judging by the pictures, I'm not convinced the "footprints" are real.
16
posted on
12/01/2005 4:42:43 PM PST
by
The_Victor
(If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
To: The_Victor
"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."I'm sure glad that there are ONLY two possibilities!!!!!!!
17
posted on
12/01/2005 5:06:58 PM PST
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: The_Victor
Sixty to one says that Darwinists without inspection will "find" that they are not footprints. /sarc
18
posted on
12/01/2005 6:27:08 PM PST
by
AndrewC
(Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
To: AndrewC
Check the pics in post 5 and 7. Call me skeptical, but unless they are in a walking pattern, I don't think they are footprints.
19
posted on
12/01/2005 8:07:18 PM PST
by
The_Victor
(If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
To: The_Victor
Call me skeptical, but unless they are in a walking pattern, I don't think they are footprints.Does this help?
If they are footprints and 1.3 million years old, what biped was it?
20
posted on
12/01/2005 9:53:32 PM PST
by
AndrewC
(Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
