Scientists claims to date human footprints to 23,000 years ago

[GiftOfGod]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10018883/Footprints-New-Mexico-23-000-years-ago-earliest-evidence-human-activity-New-World.html

Is this compatible with traditional Catholicism? What are we to believe?

[Prayerful]

Pius XII said warily that a Divinely guided evolution can be considered not incompatible, and implied in this is a greater stretch of time. It therefore can be compatible.

[Aulef]

Dating methods are not an exact science. In this case mentioned in the link, carbondating was used.

There are lots of recorded mistakes using this method because it is applied incorrectly for many reasons: poor calibration, unaccount of climate and atmospherical change, carbon decay variation (which is not always constant), and others.

Besides, I believe it is highly unlikely to find footprints older than 6k-7k years ago, based on Sacre history time count. Note this last statement is opinion rather than certitude in terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10018883/Footprints-New-Mexico-23-000-years-ago-earliest-evidence-human-activity-New-World.html

Is this compatible with traditional Catholicism? What are we to believe?

Radiocarbon dating is imprecise, to be charitable, and you can only date the remains of something that used to be alive (either a plant or something that eats plants).  Carbon dating a sediment or a fossil (a bone whose matter has been replaced by rock) is asinine.  https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html

And it's not clear that the footprints were left by humans.

If you want to have the Catholic evolution talk, that's fine, but this article by itself shouldn't shake anyone's faith.

[LausTibiChriste]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10018883/Footprints-New-Mexico-23-000-years-ago-earliest-evidence-human-activity-New-World.html

Is this compatible with traditional Catholicism? What are we to believe?

Radiocarbon dating is imprecise, to be charitable, and you can only date the remains of something that used to be alive (either a plant or something that eats plants).  Carbon dating a sediment or a fossil (a bone whose matter has been replaced by rock) is asinine.  https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html

And it's not clear that the footprints were left by humans.

If you want to have the Catholic evolution talk, that's fine, but this article by itself shouldn't shake anyone's faith.

I want to have the Catholic evolution talk

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

I want to have the Catholic evolution talk

Be my guest.

Belief in evolution isn't prohibited by any official teaching of the Church.

But many trads argue that entropy and logic prevent a less perfect being evolving into a more perfect being.  No amount of natural selection can imbue a monkey with a rational soul.

The scientific evidence is also much weaker than how it is portrayed in most academic settings.

[james03]

Evolution, as presented, is not possible.  Origin of Life is definitely not possible.  In summary, you have the Information Problem.  A good book is Signature in the Cell by Stephen Myer.  If you are too lazy to read it, he has many talks on Youtube, and even debates.

Someone on here coined the term "successive creationism" as an alternative, where God intervened along the way to supply the necessary information that was needed.  I wish I could take credit for it, but alas, I have to be honest.  If you want to believe in old humans, the "successive creationism" theory is a way to get around the Information Problem.  But evolution as a way to produce the Cambrian explosion?  Absurd.  And it gets far worse when you look at Origins.