Human footprints at Laetoli
Now before anyone accuses me of repeating opinions that are only held by naive uninformed creationists let me quote Tim White, an evolutionist, who wrote, "They are like human footprints. If one were left on a California beach today,and a four-year-old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. [D, Johanson and M. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Simon & Shuster, New York, 1981]" .
The fossil footprints were discovered by Mary Leakey, also a legendary figure in the hunt for fossil ape-man, and dated to 3.7 million years. Dr Louise Robbins, an expert on fossil footprints, was asked by Mary Leakey to examine the Laetoli footprints. She described the trail's footprints as that of a completely modern human.
Now this discovery puts the evolutionists in a logical bind. Either
(1) their opinion concerning the date of ape to human evolution is totally untenable or
(2) the dating of the strata where the footprints were found is totally wrong or
(3) the current theory of evolution is falsified.
This is a bad hair day for the evolutionists because none of these options is palatable.
If the date of the transition from ape to human is totally misconstrued then all the alleged fossil ancestors of humans (Australopithecus et al, including Lucy) discovered over the last 150 years must be discarded as not relevant to evolutionary theory. Ouch!
Or, if the date of the stratum with the fossil footprints really belongs to the date of modern humans then it is only 100,000 years ago and not 3.7 million years old. This would push back ape to human evolution to strata earlier than Australopithecus, where there are few ape fossils. Also, this embarrasses geologists as their dates for this stratum have been stretched 37 fold. And what about the agreement of radioactive isotope dating that is now only 3% accurate? Ouch!
Or, if the theory of evolution has been falsified they will have to join the creationists. Now which of these logical consequences do you think the evolutionists chose? None of the above! However did you guess? The position arrived at by the evolutionary community is that the footprints are not human because evolutionary theory does not allow it.
Well, then, what are they? They are footprints of Australopithecus Afarensis aka Lucy an upright-walking ape. How do they know Lucy walked upright? When Lucy was found the knee bone was so crushed and fragmented it was impossible to reconstruct. Fortunately, another knee-bone was found 2.5 kilometers away and 70 meters deeper in the stratum. It was decidedly human so its owner walked upright. Johanson decided it could only belong to Lucy. But wait, why would the knee bone not belong to the humans who made the Laetoli footprints? Evolutionary theory does not allow it.
So the evolutionists can now claim that, although the footprints look just like human ones and the knee looks just like a human one, there is no evidence of humans living 3.7 million years ago. They further claim that this is pure objective science arrived at by impartially examination of the evidence. Creationism is just a belief system - nothing more and so Creationists have no scientific basis for claiming that man existed at that time. But this is true only when when evolutionary theory is used to forbid the possibility that man co-existed with Lucy!
Logically, the evidence can be explained two ways: Theory A, which says that the footprints belong to an ape or Theory B, which says that the footprints belong to a human. Real science looks at the consequences of the theories to understand what might differentiate the two. We might find a foot of Australopithecus that fits in the Laetoli footprints. Then Theory A is likely. No fossil foot of Australopithecus has ever fit into the tracks. Or you might look for human skeletal remains. If they exist then Theory B is likely. But when the evidence supporting Theory B was found, the evolutionists did not conclude that it was more likely. Instead they concluded that Theory A was true and consequently no evidence supported Theory B.
This is irrational. Many times in science two or more theories have reasonable explanations for the evidence. Evidence is evidence. No theorist can claim ownership of the evidence for his theory like some lotto prize and deny the legitimate use of it to other theories. It is illogical to argue that once a theory explains the evidence no other theory can provide a different explanation. When the interpretation of one theory forbids alternate theories it is not science.
Now you see why the claims that evolution is science and creation is religion are non-sense. It is a game played with loaded dice. No alternative theories are allowed. In religion we call this doctrine. Evolutionists have become priests and their theories have become doctrine. They have formed a religion called Darwinism, that explains everything without God. The italicized statements above are illustrations of this. Darwinism is a belief system opposed to creationism by its nature. So who decided evolutionary theory owned all the scientific evidence leaving none for Creationists?