Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,569 Year: 4,826/9,624 Month: 174/427 Week: 87/85 Day: 4/20 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human & dinosaur crossing trackways authenticated
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 62 (25304)
12-02-2002 6:23 PM


Since I last checked out the Paluxy finds (about 10 years ago!) the clearest human footprint has been sectioned, demonstrating that is was not a forgery. The solid rock is compressed under the footprint but not on either side.
Page not found | AwesomeWorks
An Australian creationist contact of mine was present at the Paluxy site in the 1980s as new footprints were uncovered so I persoanlly know it was not a fraud anyway.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-02-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by wj, posted 12-02-2002 7:58 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 6 by Quetzal, posted 12-03-2002 2:10 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 62 (25313)
12-02-2002 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
12-02-2002 6:23 PM


TB, it appears that your confidence in the Paluxy tracks is not shared by one of your creationist sources - AIG. Whilst not rejecting them outright, AIG seems to be backing away from giving any credibility to them.
I must wonder at the standards you apply for credibility. Did your creationist contact have any expertise in geology or paleontology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-02-2002 6:23 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-02-2002 9:38 PM wj has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 62 (25315)
12-02-2002 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by wj
12-02-2002 7:58 PM


I'm aware of that. But I came across the report on sectioning I posted above and it's for a print that is definitely human if it is not fake. My contact is an Australian archeologist (ie not a paleontologist).
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by wj, posted 12-02-2002 7:58 PM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 12-02-2002 11:33 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1783 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 4 of 62 (25320)
12-02-2002 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tranquility Base
12-02-2002 9:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'm aware of that. But I came across the report on sectioning I posted above and it's for a print that is definitely human if it is not fake. My contact is an Australian archeologist (ie not a paleontologist).
I'm no paleontologist, but I don't think it looks like a natural footprint at all. Not very convincing TB. I used to think that the prints were simply misidentified as human, but now it looks more like a hoax. How about some peer-reviewed literature on this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-02-2002 9:38 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-03-2002 12:17 AM edge has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 62 (25323)
12-03-2002 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by edge
12-02-2002 11:33 PM


^ I kind of agree. However, the post I linked to (or maybe somewhere else I was reading) says that you get imprints like that in stiff mud.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 12-02-2002 11:33 PM edge has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5949 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 6 of 62 (25326)
12-03-2002 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
12-02-2002 6:23 PM


Hi TB,
I'm sorry to report (not really) that all that website you linked to is doing is rehashing two very old and well-refuted claims: that Taylor +6 and the "Burdick mantrack" are authentic. The +6 print, for example, was one of the ones trumpeted in Morris's book - and was thoroughly debunked as erroneous 20 years ago (see Taylor trackway). The Burdick print that the article you referenced makes such extraordinary noise about has been shown conclusively to be an actual forgery. See this article for a detailed dissection of the Burdick claims.
In short, there is nothing "new" about the article you referenced, except the fact that it is a "new" recap of old claims. Once again creationists are making themselves look incredibly foolish. You'd think that they would try to come up with something really new once in a while.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-02-2002 6:23 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-03-2002 6:08 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 62 (25336)
12-03-2002 7:49 AM


I have looked at some other PDF pages from that book 'Unlocking Creation', or whatever it's called. I presume it's a creationist book for parents wishing to 'educate' their children.
I find it quite unbelievable the way it dedicates no more than a 2-page spread consisting of large type and large pictures to dismiss so many topics one-by-one, and in such an immature and ill-informed way.
Is this really the source material you rely on TB?
[This message has been edited by David unfamous, 12-03-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-03-2002 9:42 AM David unfamous has not replied
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-03-2002 6:10 PM David unfamous has not replied

  
Mr. Davies
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 62 (25346)
12-03-2002 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by David unfamous
12-03-2002 7:49 AM


My personal favorites are the "proofs" they offer for creationism.
I certainly hope they are showing actual pictures god took when she made the cosmos. If not, then who'll tell these "scientists" the simple rule that there's no such thing as "proof" in science. That's saved for math and with pictures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by David unfamous, posted 12-03-2002 7:49 AM David unfamous has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 62 (25368)
12-03-2002 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Quetzal
12-03-2002 2:10 AM


It was only 'new' to me. I'll check out your links.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Quetzal, posted 12-03-2002 2:10 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by wehappyfew, posted 12-08-2002 4:35 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 62 (25370)
12-03-2002 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by David unfamous
12-03-2002 7:49 AM


If you really follow my posts you should know that most of my material is mainstream geology, paleontology and molecular biology texts and peer reviewed papers.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by David unfamous, posted 12-03-2002 7:49 AM David unfamous has not replied

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 62 (25953)
12-08-2002 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tranquility Base
12-03-2002 6:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
It was only 'new' to me. I'll check out your links.
So what's the verdict?
Authentic or fraudulent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-03-2002 6:08 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2007 9:47 PM wehappyfew has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 62 (390158)
03-18-2007 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by wehappyfew
12-08-2002 4:35 PM


Paluxy booted again ... for Footprint ...
From Informations about an image of a footprint:
quote:
Hi, I'd like to have some information about a human footprint placed very close to a dinosaur's one, at the paluxy river in Glen Rose.
You can see an image of this footprint at the page Evolution-Facts | Fakta & Evolusi Ilmiah and also at the page | www.ZILLMER.com | Die Evolutionslüge |. (first picture on the left)
I'd like to know if others picturs of the same footprint are available on the web and if someone has criticized this footprint.
Infact it seems to me very clear, more than many others footprints at the paluxy river that seems very more indistinct.
I've not found anything, for example, in the J. Kuban's witings about this image, but maybe for my oversight.
Thank you.
Please notice several things:
(1) the size of the "human" footprint is huge. When I was at Paluxy I put my foot inside one of those dino prints ... and I could have stood with both feet inside and had room left over.
(2) there are five (5) dino prints (spaced ~10 feet apart in a line) but only one (1) "human" print.
(3) the bottom of the "human" print is pretty uniform. Compare this to the dino print and to prints made in sand or mud by actual people walking.
The Paluxy area is known for hoaxes - several people have admitted carving "human" prints during the depression.
Of course this doesn't stop creatortionistas from using these hoaxes to scam the gullibles.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by wehappyfew, posted 12-08-2002 4:35 PM wehappyfew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Footprint, posted 03-19-2007 12:49 PM RAZD has replied

  
Footprint
Junior Member (Idle past 6282 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 03-18-2007


Message 13 of 62 (390223)
03-19-2007 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
03-18-2007 9:47 PM


Re: Paluxy booted again ... for Footprint ...
I'm the author of the thread "Informations about an image of a footprint".
- "the size of the "human" footprint is huge";
- "there are five (5) dino prints (spaced ~10 feet apart in a line) but only one (1) "human" print"
Yes, it is true.
"the bottom of the "human" print is pretty uniform".
Honestly I don't think we can see a lot of the bottom of the print in this image.
Infact, I'd like to found some others images of the same print, if they exists, in order to see the track from a different angle and to understand better its shape.
Did you see this print with your eyes, when you went to paluxy river?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2007 9:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Footprint, posted 03-19-2007 6:18 PM Footprint has not replied
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2007 9:13 PM Footprint has replied

  
Footprint
Junior Member (Idle past 6282 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 03-18-2007


Message 14 of 62 (390303)
03-19-2007 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Footprint
03-19-2007 12:49 PM


Re: Paluxy booted again ... for Footprint ...
Excuse me for my english...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Footprint, posted 03-19-2007 12:49 PM Footprint has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 15 of 62 (390333)
03-19-2007 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Footprint
03-19-2007 12:49 PM


Re: Paluxy booted again ... for Footprint ...
Did you see this print with your eyes, when you went to paluxy river?
Nope. All I saw were dino footprints. Part of the problem was the river level:
From Paluxy Hike
This made finding ANY prints difficult due to the mucky bottom filling in all the low areas.
The prints in "track #1" were the elongated ones, and they were 18 to 20 inches (45 to 50 cm) and way too narrow in proportion to be anything like your "human" print.
What do you think is the significance of there being only one (1) "human" footprint supposedly made at about the same time that a whole set of tracks was left by a dino?
I'll also add:
(4) Why do you think the edges of the "human" print are fairly clear and the toes are easy to distinguish, while the dino prints are less distinct and have their toes covered\filled by the mud?
(If you don't know, the dino print should have three toes forward similar to a birds foot and extending some ways beyond what you see in the picture. In addition there are prints where the metatarsal (portion of leg just above the foot) is also imprinted - think of a bird leg with the lower portion laid flat behind the foot.)
(5) There have been a lot of dinosaur fossils found in the area that match the size and shape of the footprints, but there has not been one single "human" fossil found in the area -- not only not big enough to make the footprint, but none at all -- for the same strata that the prints and dino fossils are found in.
Why do you suppose that is?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Footprint, posted 03-19-2007 12:49 PM Footprint has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Nighttrain, posted 03-20-2007 2:55 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 18 by Footprint, posted 03-20-2007 8:40 PM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024