Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Humans walked with dinosaurs
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 16 of 108 (282451)
01-30-2006 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by randman
01-30-2006 12:00 AM


Re: anybody got a link besides TalkOrigins
I know these are bare links, but all you asked for were other sites about the paluxy river tracks.
Dinosaur Pursuit? | Answers in Genesis
Page not found – Creation-VS-Evolution
http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm

Asgara
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now"
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 12:00 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 12:20 AM Asgara has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 17 of 108 (282453)
01-30-2006 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Asgara
01-30-2006 12:11 AM


Re: anybody got a link besides TalkOrigins
Well actually, the links in the OP apparently deal with finds besides the Paluxy river tracks, or on skimming it, I notice they first feature tracks of normal size footprints, not the oversize ones you guys seem familiar with.
But thanks for the links. I'll check them out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Asgara, posted 01-30-2006 12:11 AM Asgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 01-30-2006 12:41 AM randman has not replied
 Message 26 by ramoss, posted 01-30-2006 2:51 PM randman has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 18 of 108 (282454)
01-30-2006 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by randman
01-30-2006 12:20 AM


Re: anybody got a link besides TalkOrigins
the ones i addressed on the previous page were just slightly larger than my own foot prints. (and what's wrong with t.o? the articles there are by the paleontologists who first found and charted and documented the paluxy tracks)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 12:20 AM randman has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 19 of 108 (282456)
01-30-2006 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by randman
01-30-2006 12:00 AM


Re: anybody got a link besides TalkOrigins
My experience has been TalkOrigins is less than credible.
Well, they cite their articles with accessable, peer-reviewed literature. I've never seen AIG cite anything except their own "journal."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 12:00 AM randman has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 20 of 108 (282549)
01-30-2006 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by randman
01-30-2006 12:00 AM


Re: anybody got a link besides TalkOrigins
Why do you find Talk origins 'less than credible'. They document their sources very well, including links to peer reviewed scientific journals.
Could it be that you don't want to accept their viewpoint?
Since you claim they are 'less than credible', perhaps you can point out a specific incident, and we can analyse if they are 'less than credible' or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 12:00 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 12:04 PM ramoss has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 21 of 108 (282559)
01-30-2006 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ramoss
01-30-2006 11:46 AM


Re: anybody got a link besides TalkOrigins
It would be another thread and too much time to get into now, but there is often a level of illogic and distortion in the articles I have read that basically places it, imo, in the arena of propaganda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ramoss, posted 01-30-2006 11:46 AM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-30-2006 1:22 PM randman has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 22 of 108 (282592)
01-30-2006 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by randman
01-30-2006 12:04 PM


TalkOrigins total bunk
oh clearly that's enough for anyone. what was i thinking?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 12:04 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by AdminNosy, posted 01-30-2006 1:28 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 23 of 108 (282596)
01-30-2006 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by macaroniandcheese
01-30-2006 1:22 PM


Re: TalkOrigins total bunk
It is certainly not a topic for here but should be discussed in another thread, Brenna.
I suggest that someone open two threads:
1) Criticisms of TalkOrigins
and
2) Criticisms of AIG and/or ICR
I'm sure that anyone making an assertion of flaws in any of these sites would enjoy laying out the details and evidence for this.
It would be interesting for the EvC community to take turns going from one of these threads to the other and see how the results compare.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-30-2006 1:22 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-30-2006 2:07 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 24 of 108 (282615)
01-30-2006 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by AdminNosy
01-30-2006 1:28 PM


Re: TalkOrigins total bunk
well yes, but instead of opening that topic, rand is just dodging the issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by AdminNosy, posted 01-30-2006 1:28 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 01-30-2006 2:20 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 25 of 108 (282625)
01-30-2006 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by macaroniandcheese
01-30-2006 2:07 PM


Astonishing
Rand dodge an issue?
LOL
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-30-2006 02:21 PM
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-30-2006 02:22 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-30-2006 2:07 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 26 of 108 (282639)
01-30-2006 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by randman
01-30-2006 12:20 AM


Re: anybody got a link besides TalkOrigins
If you saw the one link, they have found that a number of the tracks were made by man, carving them. These tracks were sold for souvineers in the 20's and 30's.
Fakes made for the tourist trade don't really count for evidence , does it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 12:20 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by arachnophilia, posted 01-30-2006 3:32 PM ramoss has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 27 of 108 (282643)
01-30-2006 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by ramoss
01-30-2006 2:51 PM


Re: anybody got a link besides TalkOrigins
Fakes made for the tourist trade don't really count for evidence , does it?
of course they do! haven't you heard of the ica stones?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ramoss, posted 01-30-2006 2:51 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 108 (285787)
02-11-2006 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by riVeRraT
01-28-2006 1:11 PM


Footprint looks fake to me
I looked at the first link, and I have to say that the footprint depicted in the photos there looks very, very fake. It is perfectly understandable that creationists might confuse it for a real footprint, because they obviously have never looked at their own feet before.
Here is the picture in question:
The most striking feature of the footprint, to me, is its incredible flatness. The heel and part by the toes should be pressed down more, because that is how weight is distributed when we walk. The part in the middle shouldn't be pressed down very much at all. The website says that these areas are pressed down as they should be, but if they are the picture sure doesn't show it.
To illustrate, I found this photo on Google Image Search of a fresher footprint.
You could do some handwaving and say that these problems are caused by erosion. If that is the case, however, the toes shouldn't be so clearly defined. In the above photo of the new footprint, you can see that the smaller toes are hard to make out, if you can even differentiate one from another at all. The "fossil" footprint, however, looks more like a sock with toes sewed on. The toes are all equally perfectly preserved.
These problems make me come to the conclusion that this particular footprint was carved by someone who wanted to make a footprint in a piece of rock, but didn't know much about feet. I don't know how old the rock is, but the footprint is new. Its shape reminds me of fake footprints of Bigfoot, where someone simply cut out a piece of plywood in the shape of a big foot and stamped it into the mud. Even creationists should be able to see through this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by riVeRraT, posted 01-28-2006 1:11 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ramoss, posted 02-11-2006 10:57 AM Gary has not replied
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 02-12-2006 10:30 AM Gary has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 29 of 108 (285832)
02-11-2006 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Gary
02-11-2006 12:21 AM


Re: Footprint looks fake to me
Supposedly, a number of 'fake' footprints were made for the tourist trade in the 1920's and 1930's. You will notice that is it not part of the original bed of rock, but removed from the original scene. That is so they could sell them in souvenier shops.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Gary, posted 02-11-2006 12:21 AM Gary has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 30 of 108 (285854)
02-11-2006 4:31 PM


All you'd have to do is cut a cross-sectional view of the 'footprints' and see if the sediment is depressed beneath it. But I'm sure we wouldn't want to destroy such important evidence of creation.

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Gary, posted 02-11-2006 6:37 PM roxrkool has replied
 Message 32 by arachnophilia, posted 02-12-2006 10:10 AM roxrkool has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024