Evolutionist’s Refuse to Accept the Sole of Man; These are the Soles that Try Men’s Times (200,000,000 Years+); The Sole of Man After Death; Fossilized Shoe Sole from Rock Supposedly Hundreds of Millions of Years Old

Posted by Chris Parker | January 15, 2010 2

Click Photo For Higher Resolution

Fossil Under Lens Like Manmade Shoe—
Microphotos Are Made of Freak Taken From Rock Millions of Years Old—-
Stitches Are Revealed. —-Examination by Rockefeller Institute Tends to Upset Long-Accepted Theories
New York Times, August 13, 1922

Chris Parker, Copyright 2010

“Microphotographs taken by the Rockefeller Institute of the so-called Triassic shoe of Nevada have been interpreted by some experts as establishing that fossil, now in the possession of John T. Reid of Lovelock, Nev., as a work of human manufacture.

This fossil or freak, which resembles a hand-welted sole with marvelous definitiveness of detail, was found embedded in Triassic rock, somewhere from 100,000,000 to 300,000,000 years old. The shoe, if it is a shoe, is older than the rock, because the rock must have formed over and around it by the precipitation of minerals from solution”….NYT Aug 13, 1922

The Apostle Paul defined faith as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”. Merriam-Webster defines it this way in part;: “firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction”.

Paul says that faith is based on evidence. Popularly it is said that Christians believe without evidence but that science is wholly based on facts, evidence and substance.

This popular belief is wrong in both respects; faith in God is built on evidence and belief in evolution and materialism is without facts or substance—or else the “facts” have been misunderstood, ignored or twisted.

With respect to God, Romans Chapter 1 says that God’s invisible qualities and Divine nature can be clearly understood by what has been made-so that man is without excuse. Sir Isaac Newton put it this way:

” This thing [a scale model of our solar system] is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you, as an atheist, profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?”

With respect to evolution natural selection has failed as an adequate mechanism to explain macroevolution and there is no known scientific explanation for the creation of life from non-life.

When it comes to the universe itself, the materialist essentially believes; in the beginning there was nothing—which exploded! When it comes to the origin of the universe and the mechanism for the macroevolution of plants and animals, evolutionists have to sustain themselves by faith! After all, the main scientific theory as to the origin of this universe (the big bang) requires one to accept that up to 96% of the universe is “invisible” and undetectable (dark matter and energy). See; that’s faith; belief in things unseen–but where is the evidence?

In 1922, John T. Reid, himself a mining engineer, found the sole of a shoe encased in “Triassic rock” outside Lovelock, Nevada. If accepted, it would have as the NY Times article suggested; upset long held theories. This is why there was absolutely zero chance of the fossil being accepted as a shoe sole either then, or now.

This would be true even after an examination by one of the preeminent medical institutes of the time (Rockefeller Inst.) examined the object under very high magnification and took photographs clearly showing the stitching.

Before the microphotographs were taken, certain scientists pronounced it ”the most remarkable natural imitation of an artificial object they had ever seen”. No doubt they would have said the same thing even if it had had a Nike logo embedded.

Now, science had said that Triassic rock was up to 300,000,000 years old. The Bible says that they are less than 10,000 years old. Somebody’s way off!

But now we have science which we’re told relies on facts and data with the object in hand and with the results of high magnification from every angle with which to produce more facts and data to decide the question. But would science’s loyalty be to the facts and the data or to the paradigm;—materialism, evolution and a very old universe? Faith defines what one believes but therefore also defines those things one cannot believe.

According to the discoverer and others who saw the microphotographs, under magnification, “the holes punched in the sole for stitching show very clearly, and even the twist of the thread used in the welt is developed”.

In microphotograph LH1, the right hand path of the stitching is clearly visible. “The twist of the thread is plainly visible … In micrograph, LH3 the stitching shows as having been doubled up for a portion of the distance around the sole.

In microphotograph LH2 there is a perfectly clear reproduction of the thread used in stitching the sole to the upper, and the spacing is clearly shown until it disappears beneath a portion of the sole”…

Reid, further discussing the results of the scientific testing on the fossil with the NY Times said; “It seems quite unnecessary for me to dwell on the remarkable resemblance to our modern shoe leather, as it appears reproduced here, in that it duplicates exactly in all respects the process that takes place in worn out shoes.”

…”In microphotograph LH2 ½ we have reproduced a portion of that contained in LH2, only on a scale of twenty times the magnification of the original specimen. In this highly magnified picture, the twist of the thread is distinctly visible. Its warp is brought out in unmistakable prominence. This admits of but one interpretation, which to all must be readily apparent, that this is the sole of a shoe that was surely done by the hand of man.”

All but two paleontologists and geologists to whom Reid had taken the fossil prior to the analysis insisted that it was simply a “freak of nature”. Those who accept the current ruling scientific paradigm really had no choice other than to refuse to accept the fossil as a shoe sole. Their faith demanded it.

If the fossil shoe had been confirmed by science, then either modern shoe-making man lived hundreds of millions of years ago—or Triassic rock is quite a bit younger than had been thought. At that time, human civilization was believed to have been between 5,000 and 10,000 years old.

Miners Watch Formation of Anthracite Coal-Supposedly 200 to 300 Million Years Old Form in 4 Months

There have doubtless been many previous discoveries of unexplained artifacts (unexplained by current paradigm) that would give the fossil shoe discovery some support. About 46 years prior to the discovery of the fossil shoe by a mining engineer, in 1876, another seemingly impossible and relevant discovery took place in the Indian Ridge Mining Shaft of the Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron Co.

This particular out of place artifact was more than 50 feet long with a six inch diameter.

The article appeared in the Shenandoah Herald in March 1876. “Strange Statement—The Process of the Formation of Anthracite Coal Discovered in the Indian Ridge Shaft”.

It should be mentioned that anthracite was a type of coal thought to have formed on the latter end of the 200 to 300 million age range given for the fossil shoe.

A pipe had been installed in the mine for the purpose of diverting water from a nearby stream that otherwise would have continuously poured down upon the miners. After some time, this six inch pipe became clogged with reddish brown sediment from the stream reducing the pipe opening to about two inches. At that point, the flow was diverted and a new pipe was installed.

Four months later, a portion of the old pipe was taken down.

“when broken open the wonderful phenomenon presented itself that the sediment was gradually changing into what appears to be anthracite coal. About a half inch of the inside of the sediment lining the pipe had been changed into coal and the remainder was also gradually changing….The process of the formation is plainly seen in the sediment next to that which had already turned into coal.”

“….Samples of coal taken from the pipe have been tried on the blacksmith fire at the colltery, and it makes an exceedingly hot fire, but being of a softer nature then the natural anthracite, it clunkers badly.

Fortunately there are any quantity of samples of the wonderful formation, and those who are unwilling to believe without themselves seeing and touching can be accommodated…..A section of the pipe of about 16 feet long has been left standing in the shaft to see what results will follow…..”

Chances are, you have never heard of this “discovery” and it is doubtful that any follow-up research was undertaken. It should be noted that the discovery took place in a coal mine, so that there were plenty of people there who were very familiar with types of coal. You could imagine that if they had found a way to turn sediment into gold—and it didn’t mess with the paradigm, you would have heard of it.

Finally, the writer of that 1876 Shenandoah Herald article challenges the experts;

“if anthracite coal will form from sediment deposited by water when exposed to the action of the atmosphere under certain conditions for a period as short as four months, what becomes of all the pet theories of the geologist and mining engineers on the subject?

How about the great heat, the millions of years of time and tremendous, pressure which according to the various theories of the heretofore accepted authorities were necessary to account for our deposits of the finest and best fuel yet found?”

These stories have important ramifications in terms of how paradigm shifting or paradigm conflicting data and artifacts are approached by science. We have every reason to believe that few of them will see the light of day and then that even if they do, science will never accept them as genuine, no matter what the objective evidence might show. We have every reason to believe as well that there are dozens if not hundreds or thousands of other paradigm shattering artifacts that have been found that we will never see or hear about.

The shoe fossil discoverer, John Reid, wanted to donate the fossil to some “scientific museum” so that others could see and make up their own minds.

This was unlikely to happen for obvious reasons.

See Also The Stones Cry Out Part 3;
Rock Solid Proof of Dinosaur and Human Interaction?

4th Edition

2 Responses

  • Administrator

    From Dan Moore,

    Chris–I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this book before: Investigating the Unexplained, by Ivan Sanderson.

    Sanderson was a naturalist and “enigmatist” (I just made that up!). He was no Creationist; he was a hard-headed Scot who followed the trails of oddities, no matter where they led.

    One of the chapters of the above book deals with rapid petrification/fossilization in fascinating detail. It fits right in with what you’re discussing. I’ve heard of the shoe-sole before. There are other “petrified” tracks showing details of shoes and sandals, including stitching.

    The only thing “out of place” about any of the “ooparts” is the accepted geological column. If the Earth is between 6,000 and 20,000 years old, the only explanation for the “paleontological” evidence is the Great Flood. This makes paleontology an “extinct” science!–Dan Moore

  • Administrator

    We received a nice note from Marshall White, a Fine Arts Painter located in Hawaii. Thanks for the kind comments and we want to assure everyone that we really do know the difference between “soul” and “sole”. The title is all about the pun..

    Marshall, the author of “Breaking into the Art World: How to start making a living as an artist.” beautiful art can be seen here at: http://www.successfulartist.com

    Marshall is the soul owner

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.