Lord Larehip

Fossilized shoeprints? They were discovered near Antelope Springs, Utah in June 1968 by an amateur fossil expert named William J. Meister. Since that time, numerous other shoe prints and footprints have been found in the area including those of children. I gave the age as 2-5 million years as the period of time it takes for prints in mud to turn into solid rock. However, the Utah prints are unique in that at least two trilobites were found crushed and embedded in the prints. Trilobites first appeared in the Early Cambrian period starting about 540 million years ago. They disappeared in the Permian period about 250 million years ago.

That makes these shoe prints about 250 million years old. It seems too incredible to be true. Science in general rejects this fossil evidence saying that the prints are simulacra—something naturally formed but insubstantial that resembles something artificial or man-made. And yet what are the odds that nature could haphazardly form two simulacra in close proximity that just happen to resemble a left and right shoe both in shape and size? What about the other prints that have since been discovered in the area? All simulacra apparently. The fossil-hunters had the prints examined by various shoe manufacturers who are very frequently consulted by police to identify shoe prints left at crime scenes and whose testimony in court can convict or acquit a suspect. Without exception, they identified the prints as being shoes. The heels of the shoes are easily discernible. Detailed analysis detects stitching all around the soles (pointing to shoes not sandals or moccasins—not that either of those would be any less astonishing) and the front of the prints depict exactly the type of depression one finds when someone is walking and pushing off with the toes. Chemist Melvin Cook from the University of Utah concurs that these are human footprints.


200 million + year-old shoeprint discovered in Nevada.


This shoeprint was discovered in Nevada in solid granite and dated to at least 15 million years.

And you can find a million creationist websites claiming this proves the earth is only thousands of years old and a million more science websites swearing up and down that this "bad archaeology."

What other bad archaeology can we unearth? How about the Klerksdorp Sphere?


The sphere was found in a South African Precambrian mineral deposit. It is actually rather small with three grooves. It certainly looks artificial but has been dated at 2.8 billion years. Yes, billion. Artificial or natural? Before you answer, it’s made of metal. Maybe it was mis-dated.


Thousands of the little metal parts were found in the Urals in the 1990s. Some are so small they are literally microscopic (1/10,000 of an inch). They were found in sediment 3 to 40 feet deep by gold miners. This would make them anywhere from 20,000 to 100,000 years old.

John Wilkes Booth

You mean like this one?

The Antelope Springs

These seem like reasonable objections to me.

Lord Larehip

And they might be but where is the evidence? They say these simulacra have been found elsewhere but where's the photos? I'm sure markings in rock have been wrongly interpreted many times. But where is the proof that THESE alleged footprints are natural?

And let's suppose these are footprints--would they ever admit it? No. Never. They'll always find some "reasonable objections". They are as bad as the creationists.

I was checking out info on Yonaguni--an underwater rock formation off the coast of Japan that shows signs of having been artificially created. Some geologists insist it is a natural formation and it might be--I'm not convinced either way. I asked on one skeptical website if there were other formations similar to Yonaguni that are definitely natural. A skeptical fellow who claimed to have a degree in geology then posted a photo of the Giant's Causeway in Ireland saying here was an example of a natural formation can produce surprisingly geometrical patterns. I had to point out two things:

1. I specifically asked if there were natural formations similar to Yonaguni. The Giant's Causeway looks absolutely nothing like Yonaguni. If you ask for proof that Farmer Joe grows marijuana in his field and I come back with opium poppy from Farmer Bob's field, what did I prove about Farmer Joe? Nothing.

2. Yonaguni isn't geometrical at all! No one said ANYTHING about it being geometrical. Hell, snowflakes are geometrical, who cares?

Angered that I didn't fold to his superior intellect and education, he began invoking the name of Dr. Robert Schoch, a geophysicist, who had actually inspected Yonaguni himself and pronounced it natural. Schoch was like a god to this guy--"Dr. Schoch said this" and "Dr. Schoch said that". So I did some digging and came across this:

New Era Times - How Many Times has Dr. Robert Schoch been Wrong?

When I sent it to the guy, I never heard from him again. The old "I'll just pretend I went away because I had so many more important things I had to do than sit around debating with the likes of you" ploy.

Likewise, I was arguing with a creationist about the age of the earth and he sent me a link to some so-called geologic proof that the earth is actually very young. The author of the article was listed as Andrew A. Snelling--a geologist. So I looked him up and found this:

Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?

It appears Dr. Snelling writes standard geology articles for regular geology journals and creationist articles for creationist journals and websites that reject everything he put forth as fact in his standard geology articles!!!

So, I've learned that college degrees don't always mean anything. I keep an open mind and I use common sense--something both sides of the debate often lack. They may not be foot prints but the size, shape, spatial distance between them, the appearance of a right and left foot and heel marks tells me if these aren't footprints you'd better damn well present some convincing evidence to the contrary. If he's a scientist then he needs to prove his case. Shouldn't be hard the way he dismisses the evidence in this ho-hum fashion.