Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth United Kingdom Science

Britain's Eastern Coast Yields Oldest Human Footprints Outside Africa 120

Posted by timothy from the before-the-invention-of-wellingtons dept.
schwit1 writes "They were a British family on a day out — almost a million years ago. Archaeologists announced Friday that they have discovered human footprints in England that are between 800,000 and 1 million years old — the most ancient found outside Africa, and the earliest evidence of human life in northern Europe. A team from the British Museum, London's Natural History Museum and Queen Mary college at the University of London uncovered imprints from up to five individuals in ancient estuary mud at Happisburgh on the country's eastern coast."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Britain's Eastern Coast Yields Oldest Human Footprints Outside Africa More

Britain's Eastern Coast Yields Oldest Human Footprints Outside Africa

Comments Filter:

  • And did these feet in ancient time (Score:5, Funny)

    by E-Sabbath ( 42104 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @12:28PM (#46203007)

    Walk upon England's mountains green?
    And was the holy Lamb of God
    On England's pleasant pastures seen?

    And did the Countenance Divine
    Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
    And was Jerusalem builded here
    Among these dark satanic mills?

    Bring me my bow of burning gold!
    Bring me my arrows of desire!
    Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!
    Bring me my chariot of fire!

    I will not cease from mental fight,
    Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
    Till we have built Jerusalem
    In England's green and pleasant land.

  • old news (Score:0, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 09, 2014 @12:30PM (#46203013)

    old news... It was everywhere Thursday. Salshdot is really pathetic now, even the non beta page...

    • Re:old news (Score:4, Informative)

      by Koen Lefever ( 2543028 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @12:48PM (#46203129)

      old news... It was everywhere Thursday. Salshdot is really pathetic now, even the non beta page...

      It doesn't matter if it is old news, it doesn't matter if it is a dupe, it doesn't matter if the linked article is lame, it doesn't matter that some posters are trolls or shills.

      What does matter is: is there an intelligent/insightful discussion by the community? I learned a lot over the past 16 years by reading comments here.

      Unfortunately, that does not seem to matter to Dice, who wants /. to be a "B2B social network". If the Beta (which has the comments section as an afterthought, in stead of as the starting point of the redesign) goes live and Classic gets disabled, it will only be "Slashdot" in name.

      • Re:old news (Score:2)

        by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2014 @12:58AM (#46215317) Homepage Journal

        Very much this. Thank you.

        I don't really need my "news" right this instant. Except for the very rare disaster, it's just fine if I get it a week from now. Slashdot had always been the place I came to get reasonable discussions of the news. The comments were frequently more informative than the articles. Especially in science stories, where the article reeks of Science by Press Release and the other web sites were full of ZOMG COLD FUSION, the Slashdot commenters would tell me what the *actual* science behind the article was, by actual experts in the field.

        Sadly, it's become less of that, even without the change to Beta. The community has changed in ways that made me feel much more ambivalent about it, even though I knew that it still had people who could tell me stuff I couldn't find elsewhere. And because of that I'm kind of ambivalent about Beta.

  • Jerusalem (Score:2)

    by rossdee ( 243626 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @12:31PM (#46203021)

    And did those feet
    in ancient time
    Walk upon Englands mountains green

    And please keep the Slashdot classic

  • What does this mean for the "out of Africa" model? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Alsn ( 911813 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @12:34PM (#46203035)
    As far as I know, the model states that humans migrated from Africa a couple of hundred thousand years ago. Footsteps in Britain from "humans" 1 million years ago would seem to contradict this? Or does this simple mean that these footprints are a Neanderthal precursor species or something similar that's not actually "proper" humans?

    Anyone with some more knowledge of this care to shine a light on this?

  • But we weren't there so SEE... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Capt.Gingi ( 89525 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @12:37PM (#46203059)

    I'm sorry, but how can anyone really believe that these pre-date the creation of the planet? Was anyone THERE at THAT TIME to OBSERVE exactly when and by whom the footprints were made? Seems pretty silly to me to believe in this non-obervational "science"! I've got a good book that I can recommend that answers all these questions and more....

    • Re:But we weren't there so SEE... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tylernt ( 581794 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @01:30PM (#46203369)

      I'm sorry, but how can anyone really believe that these pre-date the creation of the planet? Was anyone THERE at THAT TIME to OBSERVE exactly when and by whom the footprints were made? Seems pretty silly to me to believe in this non-obervational "science"!

      You appear to be proceeding on the assumption that direct observation is the only reliable method of determining truth. By this standard, I must infer that you do not believe in God, since you have certainly never directly observed Him. Yes?

    • Re:But we weren't there so SEE... (Score:4, Informative)

      by wonkey_monkey ( 2592601 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @01:53PM (#46203531) Homepage

      I've got a good book that I can recommend that answers all these questions and more....

      Questions like:

      1. Can I sell my daughter into slavery? Yes! [biblehub.com]
      2. Should I avoid all contact with women during her period? Yes! [biblegateway.com]
      3. Can I buy slaves from neighbouring nations? Yes! [biblehub.com]
      4. Should I kill someone who works on a Sunday? Yes! [biblehub.com]
      5. Can I eat shellfish? No! [biblehub.com]
      6. I have a lazy eye. Can I go to church? No! [biblehub.com]
      7. Can I get a haircut? No! [biblehub.com]

      Yup, good book that.

      • Re:But we weren't there so SEE... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by claytongulick ( 725397 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @05:17PM (#46205107) Homepage

        Ok, I try to avoid getting involved in religious conversations like this, but you are coming across as a typical ignorant elitist here, sneering down at things you clearly don't understand. We all get that you aren't religious, but that doesn't give you the right to present skewed information taken out of context. So, I'm going to completely waste my time here and present some *actual* information on each one of your points in the vain hope that in the future you will temper your snark.

        Questions like:

        1. Can I sell my daughter into slavery? Yes! [biblehub.com]

        What you aren't saying, is that at the time selling children into slavery was a common practice throughout much of the "civilized" world. This 'law' was put in to place to *protect women*. The reason why is that normally when a child was sold into servitude, they would be freed after a period of time. Since (by far) the reason that women were taken as 'servants' or ('hand-maidens' depending on the interpretation) was as second wives or concubines, it was grossly unfair to the woman to then release her from service after she had been used as a sex object for years. No one would want to marry her, and she was essentially screwed. To protect against that, this law was put into place saying essentially, that if you're going to take this woman on, you have to care for her forever, you can't just have sex with her for a few years while she's pretty and then kick her out once she gets older.

        2. Should I avoid all contact with women during her period? Yes! [biblegateway.com]

        Again, you're totally cherry picking here. Leviticus rules of cleanliness were generally *good* things. At the time, they simply didn't understand biology, and sanitary practices were spotty at best. This was the origin of laying down some rules for sanitary practices, which is a good thing, even if they seem strange to us now. And by the way, Leviticus' admonishments were by no means limited only to women:

        Leviticus 1-5:
        "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'When any man has a discharge from his body, his discharge is unclean. And this shall be his uncleanness in regard to his discharge; whether his body runs with his discharge, or his body is stopped up by his discharge, it is his uncleanness. Every bed is unclean on which he who has the discharge lies, and everything on which he sits shall be unclean. And whoever touches his bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening."

        This was relating to abnormal discharge, no one really understood STD's, they were just doing their best at the time. But great job completely misrepresenting Leviticus as anti-female in order to push some sort of agenda.

        3. Can I buy slaves from neighbouring nations? Yes! [biblehub.com]

        Again, you're totally misrepresenting the law here. A the time, this was incredibly progressive. Slavery was rampant and commonly accepted, to limit the bounds of slavery and who could be enslaved was a great step in the right direction. Considering that even the U.S. still hadn't worked out slavery issues as of only 140 years ago, applying 21st century morals to a progressive law created to put bounds and limits on slavery thousands of years ago... well, that's just childish.

        4. Should I kill someone who works on a Sunday? Yes! [biblehub.com]

        I don't even understand your point here. Are you saying this is still a problem? I mean, I agree - we need to stop the rampant slaughter of all the people who work on Sundays in America. Oh wait... you mean, this doesn't happen? At all? So, clearly it was a law intended for another time - a time that penalties were pretty damn harsh for just about any infraction. There's some question about how tightly this was int

        • Re:But we weren't there so SEE... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Barsteward ( 969998 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @05:26PM (#46205183)
          "Again, you're totally cherry picking here."

          thats the typical way the religious interpret the bible so whats wrong with that, the religious only cherry pick the good secular bits and hide the bad religious stuff so don't point that accusation at people criticizing the bible

        • Re:But we weren't there so SEE... (Score:2)

          by Swampash ( 1131503 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @05:56PM (#46205375)

          Religious or not, the Bible in an incredible historical document that should be treated with respect and educated thoughtfulness, not snarky cherry picking and misrepresentation.

          Just like Mein Kampf!

        • Re:But we weren't there so SEE... (Score:3)

          by styrotech ( 136124 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @05:57PM (#46205379)

          So you're saying that readers of this writing should take account of the time and the cultural context of the writer(s) and not take it literally.

          As a somewhat naive (of these kinds of arguments) observer, it seems to me that you are actually agreeing with those you are apparently disagreeing with.

          • Re:But we weren't there so SEE... (Score:2)

            by claytongulick ( 725397 ) on Monday February 10, 2014 @12:21AM (#46207609) Homepage

            Well, it depends on what assumptions you are making about me.

            I never said I agreed with the things that I mentioned, or suggested that Leviticus contains a list of rules to live by, or what religion, if any, I ascribe to.

            What I disagree with is the casual disrespect and misrepresentation that the OP treated the Bible with.

            Regardless of religious preference, such an important historical document should be treated with more respect. Also, regardless of religious preference, it is a fool who goes through life believing that there isn't a great deal of wisdom contained in the Bible. Or the Koran (Quran). Or the Bhagavad Gita. I would defend any of those texts with the same fervor.

            I know that it is cool to make fun of religions, especially Christians, here. It's a guaranteed way to score yourself some easy Karma (ironic!). In this case, however, I took exception to the condescending, disrespectful tone and willful ignorance of the poster.

            Those points were specifically cherry picked in order to make a distorted point and to trash the Bible: "Yup, good book that"

            It was done by applying current moral standards, two thousand years later, to a people, civilization and culture that were *vastly* different.

            The poster made no attempt at intellectual honesty, and strictly went for "cool points". This sort of thing lowers the quality of the discussion for everyone. Even if slashdot tends to be something of a hip, liberal echo-chamber - most of us here value reasoned, intelligent debate. The poster didn't do that, so I (quite appropriately) called him out on it.

        • Re:But we weren't there so SEE... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by wonkey_monkey ( 2592601 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @06:29PM (#46205589) Homepage

          What you aren't saying, is that at the time...
          At the time, they simply didn't understand... ...they were just doing their best at the time...
          So, clearly it was a law intended for another time...
          A the time, this was incredibly progressive...

          Thanks for re-making my actual point for me, which is not that the bible was written by idiots, but that it's still used, by many idiots, as a justification for their own prejudices and wilful ignorance of fact - which appeared to be the OP's position (with the caveat that the best satire is indistinguishable from that which it satirises).

          But great job completely misrepresenting Leviticus as anti-female

          I wasn't trying to represent it as anti-female. I'm trying to represent it as being millennia out of date.

          Religious or not, the Bible in an incredible historical document

          Agreed, both as you meant it and other meanings of the word "incredible." Though perhaps only "historical" in the sense of "written thousands of years ago," not "everything within actually happened

          that should be treated with respect and educated thoughtfulness

          Perhaps in some contexts. But not as a guide for living your life in the 21st century, which, again, is the position the OP took which I took issue with.

          • Re:But we weren't there so SEE... (Score:2)

            by claytongulick ( 725397 ) on Monday February 10, 2014 @12:34AM (#46207651) Homepage

            No, I disagree. It was clear that the purpose of your comment was to score points by sneering at the Bible. It was clear that the OP's post was a joke, and poking fun at creationists. The OP was taking a sarcastic tone to illustrate some of the poorly reasoned arguments that are made by new-earth creationists.

            You post, however was not that. You post cherry picked individual lines from the Bible in order to specifically misrepresent them, take them out of context in a sort of elitist, intellectually superior tone by applying current moral standards to a culture of thousands of years ago. By doing that, you treated an important book with total disregard and disrespect.

            That was inappropriate.

            You post was inaccurate, misleading and childish. It lowered the quality of the discussion.

            • Re:But we weren't there so SEE... (Score:2)

              by wonkey_monkey ( 2592601 ) on Monday February 10, 2014 @04:18AM (#46208361) Homepage

              No, I disagree. It was clear that the purpose of your comment...

              Oh, right, sorry, I must have been mistaken about what was going on in my own head at the time.

              • Re:But we weren't there so SEE... (Score:2)

                by claytongulick ( 725397 ) on Monday February 10, 2014 @10:10PM (#46214515) Homepage

                No, just being revisionist and - once again - misleading.

                1. Can I sell my daughter into slavery? Yes! [biblehub.com]
                2. Should I avoid all contact with women during her period? Yes! [biblegateway.com]
                3. Can I buy slaves from neighbouring nations? Yes! [biblehub.com]
                4. Should I kill someone who works on a Sunday? Yes! [biblehub.com]
                5. Can I eat shellfish? No! [biblehub.com]
                6. I have a lazy eye. Can I go to church? No! [biblehub.com]
                7. Can I get a haircut? No! [biblehub.com]

                Yup, good book that.

                Your phrasing, use of exclamation points, and flippant "Yup, good book that" were all clear indicators of your tone.

                But not as a guide for living your life in the 21st century, which, again, is the position the OP took which I took issue with.

                Saying something does not make it so. The OP did not take the position you stated. Your post was clearly intended to be derogatory and sarcastic.

                Congratulations, the moderators of slashdot agreed with you. You sunk to the level of hipster group think and won karma points. Well done.

                You don't need to justify yourself, you "won". I should have never wasted my time trying to help you improve your critical thinking and writing.

                Please ignore my points, and carry on as you were.

            • Re:But we weren't there so SEE... (Score:2)

              by Xest ( 935314 ) on Monday February 10, 2014 @09:13AM (#46209171)

              Why is the bible and important book exactly? Just because it's old? It's certainly not an accurate portrayal of events that occured or any such thing. Is there a reason it deserves more respect than say, The Hobbit? or the Harry Potter books?

              Just intrigued to know what you think is special about it. If it's merely age then I can think of a thousand more old books and documents that are far more interesting, far more fascinating, and from which we can learn much from.

              • Re:But we weren't there so SEE... (Score:2)

                by werepants ( 1912634 ) on Monday February 10, 2014 @02:54PM (#46211397)

                Why is the bible and important book exactly? Just because it's old?

                Importance is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose, but the bible is:
                1. The best selling book of all time
                2. Arguably the most influential book in (and on) human history (for good or ill)
                a. I mean, seriously. People have died for this book. People who died because they were so committed to what it said, and people who have killed because of it. Numerous social movements have happened because of this book. Essentially ALL of Western thought for the past several centuries has been significantly impacted by these writings.
                3. One of the most complete and well-preserved specimens of ancient thought which exists today

                There might be some other books that are contenders for importance to humanity, but The Hobbit and Harry Potter certainly aren't among them. Please note - I'm not saying that anybody should love this book, or that it is "good" - those things are purely subjective. By almost any objective measure, though, the bible is undeniably Important.

                • Re:But we weren't there so SEE... (Score:2)

                  by Xest ( 935314 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2014 @05:40AM (#46216099)

                  I think all those measures are rather arbitrary. One book is no more important than any other.

                  Newton's Principia may have sold far less copies than the bible, it may not be as old, but it's sure as hell been the basis for the largest improvements to technology and quality of life for humanity in the years since. The technological advances stemming from the knowledge within have saved and improved far more lives.

                  Similarly there are writings that are much older than the Bible without which the Bible would likely not even exist.

                  You may place a lot of emphasis and value on the Bible but that's entirely your subjective view, you're claiming objectivity where there is only subjectivity. It was far more relevant hundreds of years ago, but in modern times it's for example, sold less copies than Harry Potter in a similar time period, and arguably more importantly, has been read by less people because even most owners have never read the bible but few have copies of Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings and so forth without ever having read them.

                  I used Harry Potter as a popular example of book, not because I genuinely really give a shit about it, but consider this - people have died for Harry Potter too given that the Taliban have executed people for owning a copy due to perceiving it as "un-Islamic" so not only does it fulfil your criteria of more copies in it's lifetime, if you switch to a more objective ratio of units sold per year of existence, it's also had people die for it and it's arguably even been more influential since it's writing.

                  To cut a long story short, you can dream up arbitrary measures of importance for just about any book on earth. Those measures don't result in an objective declaration of worth though, only a subjective declaration precisely because the measures are arbitrary.

                  • Re:But we weren't there so SEE... (Score:2)

                    by werepants ( 1912634 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2014 @12:40PM (#46218569)

                    I think all those measures are rather arbitrary. One book is no more important than any other.

                    The criteria you use to call my standards arbitrary is just as arbitrary - so there.

                    But seriously, claiming that no book is more important than another makes it so this isn't really a discussion worth having. You are not really talking about the bible at all then... just about a general relativistic perspective by which all value statements are subjective, and therefore you don't assign worth to them. Sure, everything is subjective when you get down to it, but we can still get some useful things done with our ultimately subjective and arbitrary perspectives. And, acting as though there are some objective quantities/qualities out there that can be known (or at least approximated well enough) facilitates much more interesting conversation and has proven to be fairly useful (in my subjective opinion).

                    There are methods properly called objective (as in, as objective as any physical quantity used in science) to measure a book's influence (number of citations by other sources being a great one - many scientific journals are measured by this standard). There are objective ways to measure a book's proliferation - number of copies sold/distributed/read. You could probably also even come up with some pseudo-objective measure of a book's impact on an individual... measure the economic change in that person's life as a direct result of the book (giving away money to charity, buying merchandise related to the book, dying for said book)... of course, that would be difficult to isolate, but it is in principle a knowable quantity.

                    My selection of influence, proliferation, and impact is arbitrary, yes, but I think it is reasonable. I'm open to hearing an alternative set of standards by which we could determine the "importance" of a work. If you are arguing that the word "important" is meaningless and arbitrary, though, I won't get in your way. That would just mean that this discussion doesn't really involve Harry Potter or the bible, but whether it is appropriate to assign values to things. It seems to me that importance is a quality that has widely understood meaning and utility and is a helpful way to guide our thinking about things like art, science, and philosophy, but you are free to think otherwise.

                    • Re:But we weren't there so SEE... (Score:2)

                      by Xest ( 935314 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @12:36PM (#46229437)

                      Not really, the point I was actually making is simply that you were bitching at someone for daring to not treat the bible as an important book. I was only really arguing for the sake of that - I think it's arrogant to demand someone treat something with respect just because you think it's deserved, even if they do not.

                      Did it really not cross your mind to consider that perhaps whilst it may be important to you, there are many others of us who really could not give the slightest shit about it nor see any merit in it?

                      To me a book that is a factually incorrect portrayal of history muddled with a bit of fantasy doesn't become important simply because some people are gullible enough to take it as gospel (literally). I'd rather place more importance on works that have actually furthered humanity, whether it's Plato's writings on philosophy, Newton's principia, or Turing and Godel's papers on computability theory. All of these have had a much more drastic impact on furthering progress for humanity. The Bible? It's just an old story book that far too many people put too much weight on - that's my view, don't bitch at people if they have the same opinion and hence refuse to treat it with respect.

                      The problem is that the Bible offers nothing really unique, if it's the philosophy within you're after then it's basically a rehashing of older more foundational works. If it's historical perspective then it's of little merit because it's no more historically accurate than any other work of fiction - you can point to some events in the bible and say something like this roughly happened, but you can similarly point to the battles of middle earth and claim they are references to human events.

                      I do not think mere number of buyers of a book over the years is in itself a measure of importance or value - christ, the Sun newspaper and The Daily Mail have been the UK's most popular papers but it doesn't mean they have the most value, merit, or worth given that they're normally factually incorrect - for the 3 million that do buy that tosh there's another 57 million that have opted not to buy one of them. Many others will agree so don't try and pretend their point has no merit because they don't attach the same arbitrary value of worth to it as you do.

                    • Re:But we weren't there so SEE... (Score:2)

                      by werepants ( 1912634 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @02:47PM (#46230767)
                      Hey, don't get all riled up here - I'm not really saying that anybody ought to like the bible, or consider its contents valuable, or even respect it. Really, I'm just saying that, according to most reasonably objective criteria that we might use to quantify the "importance" of a work, the bible is certainly going to be among the top contenders.

                      It seems to me that you want to call the bible unimportant because you dislike it, see inaccuracies within the text, or believe that it has had a net negative influence on humanity. That is another discussion entirely - a work can be "important" yet have had a major negative influence on humanity (indeed, it might be important specifically BECAUSE of that negative influence). Consider Mein Kampf. Accuracy shouldn't really enter into it either, because that would exclude all fiction, and that would mean that we see the Principia as less important since relativity is more factually correct. Or, the works of Aristotle - Aristotle is rightly considered an important philosopher, but his philosophy essentially set human progress back about 2000 years because he was so opposed to using factual evidence in philosophy. His theories about gravity and inertia (and hell, the number of people's teeth) were completely wrong. He and his followers actively destroyed works by previous philosophers (Democritus, Aristarchus) who were making steps in astronomy and rudimentary atomic theory that would not be matched until Copernicus and Galileo.

                      Please don't think that I'm trying to tell you love or respect the bible because of its intrinsic properties, age, or out of religious reverence. It is, as you say, just a book. But there's a reason that entirely non-religious scholars devote their lives to researching this book - it is undeniably an important part of human history.

                    • Re:But we weren't there so SEE... (Score:2)

                      by Xest ( 935314 ) on Friday February 14, 2014 @08:06AM (#46244289)

                      "Hey, don't get all riled up here - I'm not really saying that anybody ought to like the bible, or consider its contents valuable, or even respect it"

                      Right, but the person I was responding to originally was:

                      "By doing that, you treated an important book with total disregard and disrespect."

                      Why do you think I responded in an "Oh no, god forbid anyone defy the important book!" manner?

                      "It seems to me that you want to call the bible unimportant because you dislike it"

                      I want to call it unimportant because I do not deem it to be important. I've already explained why, I am not alone. If I viewed it as important, I would own a copy, I don't, because to me, it's not.

                      This means that contrary to the OP's claims that we shouldn't treat it with disregard or disrespect it doesn't matter the level of importance, respect, or regards with which he holds it. Anyone who doesn't view it as important is free to treat it with as much disrespect and disregard as they see fit, and not be condemned for doing so.

                    • Re:But we weren't there so SEE... (Score:2)

                      by werepants ( 1912634 ) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @02:43PM (#46296975)
                      Ok - I agree with you mostly on your rebuttals to the OP - he(or she) was getting fairly high-and-mighty about the bible, and there is no obligation to treat any work with more "respect" than another, as far as I'm concerned. Outside of a religious context, I still think the bible is important (as in playing a significant role in the course of humanity and the lives of many humans throughout history), but someone telling you not to "disrespect" it is merely projecting religious values on others, and I certainly wouldn't defend that.

        • Eh (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 10, 2014 @02:48AM (#46208137)

          This is just your interpretation of how we should interpret certain parts of the Bible, and that there are many countless believers that would find your interpretation silly, even heretical. Once, I had a conversation with an Orthodox Jewish person about whether the Jewish prohibitions against certain foods was due to health concerns of the day. His response was, "No, these are the commandments. We don't follow them because of health issues. We follow them because God said to." That's not even a paraphrasing. You can't accuse someone of cherry picking bits of the Bible or interpretations of Bible passages without acknowledging that believers do also as a critical part of their specific faith, do the very same thing. I applaud you for trying to find logic in those verses. It can't be all an illogical though poetic mess, but you can't just presume that these laws had any rational basis. People were NOT smarter then than they are now. They weren't beholden to any great esoteric wisdom, and in fact, in those days, everyone was looking for the next Messiah. People constantly claimed being messiahs. The people then who wrote those verses were subject to the same prejudices and irrational knee-jerk reactions as people are today. Somewhere in the Bible is an ancient version of Freedom Fries.

    • Re:But we weren't there so SEE... (Score:2)

      by rasmusbr ( 2186518 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @02:05PM (#46203613)

      Ah, but the scientists actually found that the group likely consisted of one adult male and several children and most of the footprints were pointing in the same direction...

      So clearly this man must have been engaging in all sorts of unthinkable sinful behavior with his young victims right before they all heard the flood approaching and began to run away from it in a vain attempt to escape God's wrath.

    • My book is better than your book...... (Score:2)

      by rts008 ( 812749 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @02:07PM (#46203631) Journal

      Was anyone THERE at THAT TIME to OBSERVE exactly when and by whom the footprints were made?

      Yes, someone WAS there at the time as a matter of fact.
      One of the footprint makers THEMSELVES, informed me in a vision, Just exactly how the footprints were made, and who made them.

      Their names were Bob, Harry, and Alley Oop. The infamous Oop brothers. They took a wrong turn leaving 'The Cave'(a popular local pub at the time), and ended up on the beach by mistake.
      Now their blunder was recorded for history.

      And further more, I'll be writing a book detailing all of my visions(sent by Harry Oop), and the book will also have all the answers to everything.

      *teaser from upcoming book*
      It was Bob Oop that discovered friction made fire, as he slid down a steep embankment. He later remarked that it was handy there was a creek nearby, or the discovery of firemaking might have been delayed by centuries if he had burnt up then, and it made his hemorrhoids act up!       ;-)

      On a less sarcastic note, why don't you keep your myths and cults out of a science discussion.
      Your myths have no useful information for the discussion, just like my 'Oop brothers' fabricated story above....NOTHING.

  • Messed up teeth? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 09, 2014 @01:00PM (#46203201)

    Can the footprints tell us if they had crooked teeth?

  • Comment removed (Score:2)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @01:06PM (#46203235)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:The mammoth in the room (Score:4, Informative)

      by Geeky ( 90998 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @01:17PM (#46203307)

      There was a land bridge at the time - in fact until quite recently [wikipedia.org].

    • Re:The mammoth in the room (Score:0)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 09, 2014 @01:24PM (#46203347)

      ..Unless there was a land bridge or glacier linking France and England,

      Oh, look, just Google the English Channel..these footprints are approx half a million years older than that event..

      (Captcha: disband, quite apposite, considering the current climes here..and rearrange these two words into a well-known phrase Beta, Fuck..)

    • Re:The mammoth in the room (Score:2)

      by Bite The Pillow ( 3087109 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @01:59PM (#46203571)

      http://arstechnica.com/science... [slashdot.org]">Ars has an interesting take on this question, which does not require full ships.

      And because I'm mobile and went through enough trouble on your behalf already, you may on your own find more about suggestions that people have essentially rafted about the world longer than we have had actual ships.

      In addition to land bridges and other possibilities, it is very easy to imagine without requiring ship building, unless you spend no time reading or thinking about how ancient people lived.

      Ships are the obvious and sole answer if you lived in the past hundred years, but might they have built weather balloons created by the gas from volcanic vents? Domesticated flying dinosaurs? Tamed dolphins? Oh no, ships are not the only possibility.

    • Re:The mammoth in the room (Score:2)

      by TapeCutter ( 624760 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @06:32PM (#46205611) Journal
      The English channel is said to have been cut by a single massive flood from an natural ice dam that burst toward the end of one of the "recent" ice ages. Humans were most likely living on the land bridge at the time. The loose rubble it left behind is why they had so much trouble finding a suitable path for the channel tunnel.

  • Arthur Philip Dent (Score:5, Funny)

    by denisbergeron ( 197036 ) <DenisBergeron@@@yahoo...com> on Sunday February 09, 2014 @01:21PM (#46203329)

    It's obviously footprint of Arthur Philip Dent when he was back in the past abord the phone's cleaner spaceship.

    • Re:Arthur Philip Dent (Score:0)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 09, 2014 @01:29PM (#46203365)

      It's obviously footprint of Arthur Philip Dent when he was back in the past abord the phone's cleaner spaceship.

      Hmm, the 'B' ark landed in the London area..then there was the trip to Norway..(looks at map)..I think we have a winner!

  • where are jesus's foot prints (Score:1)

    by maxwells daemon ( 105725 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @01:30PM (#46203367)

    This has so many problems. Number one. the photograph is undated, so who knows the reference point for the footprint dating? Number two. the lens cap is obviously intelligently designed. This foot print is 4000 years old. Max.

  • Mr. and Mrs. Piltdown? (Score:1)

    by shankarunni ( 1002529 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @01:31PM (#46203379)

    On a summer's beach outing with the family?

  • And .... they're gone (Score:2)

    by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @01:38PM (#46203429) Journal

    The footprints themselves, which survived for almost 1 million years, won't be there. Two weeks after they were uncovered, North Sea tides had washed them away.

  • Proof that the Doctor was there (Score:0)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 09, 2014 @04:06PM (#46204623)

    It's proof that time travel is real. I bet if they looked for it, they will locate the imprint of the Tardis.

  • Shennanigans? (Score:3)

    by Toad-san ( 64810 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @04:54PM (#46204993)

    Look as closely at the "footprints" as you can in these images:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/n... [independent.co.uk]

    And then consider this statement:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/n... [independent.co.uk]
    "Of the 50 or so examples recorded, only around a dozen were reasonably complete - and only two showed the toes in detail. Tragically, although a full photogrammetric and photographic record has been made, all but one of the prints were rapidly destroyed by incoming tides before they could be physically lifted."

    Sooooo .. they existed (presumably buried by the seaside) for almost a million years .. appear, and then are DESTROYED by the next incoming tide?

    Riiiii-ight.

    • Re:Shennanigans? (Score:0)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 09, 2014 @07:53PM (#46206215)

      That's how erosion works. The rocks are protected until they reach the surface level, at which point they are subject to erosion. And at Happisburgh the shoreline is receding rapidly due to erosion, hence the footprint surface disappearing in weeks once exposed is plausible.

    • Re:Shennanigans? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 09, 2014 @11:32PM (#46207397)

      PhD archaeologist here.

      It's incredibly common for formerly stable artifacts removed from a state of archaeo-geological stasis to rapidly degrade once exposed to a completely new set of formation factors. These can include air, light, water, or mechanical action.

      I myself have seen Roman Fresco fragments fade from a state of brilliant color to near colorlessness in less than 20 seconds when exposed to air by excavation. Similarly, these footprints were protected from air, light, and most importantly hydrological action by a relatively hard and impermeable layer of overburden. As soon as that was removed, the friable substrate the footprints were in was rapidly washed away.

    • Re:Shennanigans? (Score:2)

      by Xest ( 935314 ) on Monday February 10, 2014 @12:24PM (#46210337)

      Yes, they'd been covered by sand for many thousands of years and when that was eventually washed away to the point the rock was exposed it didn't take long for the rock to be weathered away.

      They weren't in open air or fully exposed to the sea for the last 800,000 years if that's what you're thinking. If they had been then given the UK's population density don't you think someone might have stumbled across them before now?

  • Shennanigans? (Score:3)

    by Toad-san ( 64810 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @05:18PM (#46205117)

    I haven't walked the seashore. I haven't examined the sediments (and never will now, apparently). I'm certainly not the bearer of an archeology sheepskin from some exalted university.

    But ...

    http://www.independent.co.uk/n... [independent.co.uk]

    http://www.independent.co.uk/i... [independent.co.uk]

    Does anyone see more than two prints in any sort of logical and likely walking pattern? You know, one in front of the other, left foot, right foot? No, I didn't think so.

    "Of the 50 or so examples recorded, only around a dozen were reasonably complete - and only two showed the toes in detail. Tragically, although a full photogrammetric and photographic record has been made, all but one of the prints were rapidly destroyed by incoming tides before they could be physically lifted."

    That's odd: EVERY bare foot print I've ever seen clearly showed the toes (even Bigfoot's!). And how curious, that "footprints" cast in rock-hard sediment that has survived for a million years beside a seaside that's repeatedly changed depth over the milleniums .. suddenly are totally and almost completely destroyed by the very next incoming tide? How .. unfortunate.

    The Happisburgh geology (readily available with the most trivial search) also does not support this. The beach surfaces and their underlying sedimentary structure are NOT a million years old.

    https://www.bgs.ac.uk/landslid... [bgs.ac.uk]
    http://books.google.com/books?... [google.com]

    No, I'm sorry, I'm not buying this. Someone was seeing what they wanted to see.

  • News in from Norfolk.... (Score:0)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 09, 2014 @05:18PM (#46205119)

    Two pairs of ancient footprints in Norfolk are from a father, mother, and son. Early Norfolk Man had six toes like his modern day cousin/sister/mother.

  • These foot prints aren't 800k years old (Score:0)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 09, 2014 @05:41PM (#46205263)

    "The footprints themselves, which survived for almost 1 million years, won't be there. Two weeks after they were uncovered, North Sea tides had washed them away."

    So they lasted 800k years and then 2 weeks later they were washed away?

    FUCK OFF!

  • Hardly a news (Score:3)

    by manu0601 ( 2221348 ) on Sunday February 09, 2014 @10:46PM (#46207153)
    BBC article on human presence [bbc.co.uk] in Britain one million years ago. With a nice map showing that Britain was not an island at that time.

  • This site used to be great. Even in its latter days, it's been good. That is poised to change. Before long, it will be mediocre, and ordinary.

    I didn't see a problem when Dice Holdings initially bought Slashdot. I figured there would be efforts to drive nerd traffic towards their job listings and such. That was fine. We all need jobs.

    Things have changed now. Beyond the shifts in story choices, the slashvertisements, and so on, something fundamental has changed: Slashdot's owners do not appreciate it.

    Their recent financials show that they have written its value as an asset down to zero. They have legally claimed it to be worthless. That is at the root of what is happening now. They want to fundamentally change the nature of this site in order to remake it into something with big growth potential.

    Beta is just the latest symptom of this disease. It will not be the last. In striving to make it into a site that will bring them a growing user base and growing revenue per user, they have shown a willingness to dumb down the interface in the name of making it more accessible to newcomers, to cast aside essential elements of decade-spanning community culture, and to plow ahead with changes in the face of overwhelmingly negative user feedback.

    This is not going to change. This will not go away. I will not support it.

    I will be gone for this entire week, in protest. While away, I will work to create a new community where things can be run with quality user discussions as the paramount objective.

    Be seeing you.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close