Re: Did Lucy have human-like feet?

A. Pagano (apagano@fast.net)
Sat, 06 Jul 1996 22:24:13 -0700

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Xerxes2144: "XERXES' FAMOUS RIGHT HAND ON DISPLAY AT NEW WEBSITE"
Previous message: Stephen Barnard: "Re: This used to be on disease and immunity"

The following is posted on behalf of David Buckna <dabuckna@awinc.com>:

On 27 Jun 1996 christw@lexis-nexis.com (Christopher C. Wood) wrote:

>|> Why, then, does the Lucy reconstruction and the St. Louis statue of
>|> Lucy have human-like feet? Consider the following:
>
>[ 3.5 million year old footprints remarkably similar to those of
> modern man ]
>
>|> Is it not much more reasonable to conclude that the K-Ar dating
>|> method used to determine the age of the Laetoli strata is in
>|> serious error,
>
>No. What evidence do you have that K-Ar dating method is in serious
>error? Can you point to other efforts to assign an age to the strata
>that suggests a different age? Otherwise, you are simply ignoring
>evidence that disagrees with your preconceived bias.
>
>Chris

Radiometric dating methods assume:

a) that no decay product was present initially, or that initial quantities
can be accurately estimated
b) that the decay system was closed through the years, and
c) that the decay rate was constant over time

What conditions could invalidate these assumptions?

In the article,"The Dating Gap" Marvin L. Lubenow writes:

<http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-244.htm>

*"It is impossible to give an evolutionary sequence to the human fossils
because *there is a coverage gap involving the dating methods which
evolutionists *believe are the most reliable radiocarbon and
potassium-argon (K-Ar). This gap *is from about 40,000 ya (years ago) to
about 200,000 ya on the evolutionist's *time scale. It covers roughly the
period known as the Middle Stone Age (MSA). *This coverage gap lies beyond
what is considered the effective range for *radiocarbon and prior to what
is considered the effective range for *potassium-argon. This problem period
may be even larger because: (1) some *dating authorities believe that the
effective range for K-Ar doesn't begin *until about 400,000 ya, and (2)
many of the older fossils are found at sites *that lack the volcanic rocks
necessary for K-Ar dating and hence cannot be *dated by this method at all.

*Although young-earth creationists challenge the legitimacy of all of the
dates *obtained by the long-term radiometric methods, even evolutionists
are beginning *to admit that this dating gap presents a problem for them.
However, the real *seriousness of this problem seems to elude them, even
when they occasionally *refer to it in their writings.[1]

See also: Bones of Contention, Marvin L. Lubenow, Baker Book House, Grand
Rapids, Michigan 49516,1993, 295 pp.

Besides Lubenow's B.A.from Bob Jones University and M.Th.from Dallas
Theological Seminary, he has a M.S.in anthropology and paleontology from
Eastern Michigan University...