Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,573 Year: 4,830/9,624 Month: 178/427 Week: 91/85 Day: 8/20 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human & dinosaur crossing trackways authenticated
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 4070 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 16 of 62 (390388)
03-20-2007 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
03-19-2007 9:13 PM


Re: Paluxy booted again ... for Footprint ...
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?
Dino picked up a snack on the way?:-p

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2007 9:13 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2007 7:38 AM Nighttrain has not replied

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


Message 17 of 62 (390404)
03-20-2007 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Nighttrain
03-20-2007 2:55 AM


Re: Paluxy booted again ... for Footprint ...
Well I had thought he\she had been doing yoga - the tree pose - while the dino went by ...
... but I didn't see any coprolites either

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Nighttrain, posted 03-20-2007 2:55 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Footprint
Junior Member (Idle past 6283 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 03-18-2007


Message 18 of 62 (390515)
03-20-2007 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
03-19-2007 9:13 PM


Re: Paluxy booted again ... for Footprint ...
Three days ago I was walking on a soil of dry mud in a city park and I noticed that in the path I was following there were a lot of dog's prints and some human prints. The dog prints were alligned in a long track, whereas the human ones were only 3 or 4 prints, all the others were absent. It seemed that the man who made the prints suddenly disappeared.
Probably it was because when the man was walking only one puddle had remained on the path, so he left his footprint only there, whereas the dog left its ones some day earlier, when the mud was wet for a longer stretch.
Similarly I wonder if it is possible that the "man" who left our print (in the image) began to walk on some "island" of dry soil, after the step that we watch in the photo, or that others steps were completely filled during some inondation, before to become petrified.
I don't know, may be not.
But if we suppose that someone carved the "human" print, one can wonders why such a men decided to grave only one print. Why didn't he carve three or four prints, making all more realistic, and why he carved a print so big. Why didn't he carve a series of human sized prints?
The edges of the "human" print are fairly clear, but in "my" image also the edges of the dino prints are clear.
I don't know why not one single human fossil has been found in that area, maybe because humans lived faraway from there?
What do you think?
Anyways it is possible that it was carved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2007 9:13 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2007 9:30 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 19 of 62 (390521)
03-20-2007 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Footprint
03-20-2007 8:40 PM


Re: Paluxy booted again ... for Footprint ...
The edges of the "human" print are fairly clear, but in "my" image also the edges of the dino prints are clear.
No, the toes of the dino are missing.
Three days ago I was walking on a soil of dry mud in a city park and I noticed that in the path I was following there were a lot of dog's prints and some human prints. The dog prints were alligned in a long track, whereas the human ones were only 3 or 4 prints, all the others were absent. It seemed that the man who made the prints suddenly disappeared.
Were any of the prints as deep as the "human" print?
But if we suppose that someone carved the "human" print, one can wonders why such a men decided to grave only one print. Why didn't he carve three or four prints, making all more realistic, and why he carved a print so big. Why didn't he carve a series of human sized prints?
Because it is a lot of work to carve one print, and a whole lot more to make any others to be LIKE it.
Most admitted carvings also claimed they started with a footprint like feature. That would also explain the size.

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 18 by Footprint, posted 03-20-2007 8:40 PM Footprint has not replied

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 5946 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 20 of 62 (390541)
03-21-2007 3:09 AM


It is true that AIG (and, as I recall CRI) list the Texas footprints as evidence creationists shouldn't use. I disagree. Their information isn't up-to-date, and it would be better if they didn't mention the issue.
I find it noteworthy that the large cat's paw-print at the Creation Evidence Museum isn't mentioned in any of the "dubunking" stories I've seen.
I made the trip down there about four years ago, and just missed the chance to participate in a dig. They were doing them every July.
While I can't vouch for where anything was found, I had familiarized myself somewhat with the "dubunking" stories beforehand, and I saw nothing that would indicate carving or "toes of dino prints falling in to make them appear human". I was not able to view everything I had seen on the internet, however. I do wish I had time and resources to investigate further.
It is 80% likely in my opinion that at least some of the prints are genuine, but I don't have a problem with that situation so I suppose that makes me "biased".
Regardless of which side one takes on the issue, I consider it disgraceful that there is little or no effort being made to preserve the dino tracks, and they are rapidly weathering away.
Since the only ones digging for more tracks are creationists, anything that is found will be subject to "dismissal" on the grounds that it wasn't found in the right place. Pictures and videotape mean nothing to many of the detractors - no amount of documentation is likely to satisfy them.
The best evidence against the human footprints and "tracks" is the lack of a particular marking. It should resemble a pair of bowling balls in a gunny-sack having been drug along the path, and smearing the footprints. I've always said that type of marking really should be there, but I didn't see any sign of it there or in pictures.
I must add that it is a profound experience to walk barefoot in the tracks left by dinosaurs. The trip was worth it for that alone.

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2007 8:17 AM CTD has replied

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


Message 21 of 62 (390574)
03-21-2007 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by CTD
03-21-2007 3:09 AM


It is 80% likely in my opinion that at least some of the prints are genuine, but I don't have a problem with that situation so I suppose that makes me "biased".
No, it makes you gullible. You want to believe, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
I must add that it is a profound experience to walk barefoot in the tracks left by dinosaurs. The trip was worth it for that alone.
I agree.
Regardless of which side one takes on the issue, I consider it disgraceful that there is little or no effort being made to preserve the dino tracks, and they are rapidly weathering away.
Well it is a natural river bed, you would have to re-route the river and protect the critical areas from flood waters. Then the areas where you re-routed the river would likely ALSO produce footprints ...
The ones you saw are not the same as ones in history books, new ones are uncovered by the same process that erodes the old ones.
One set of track is preserved in the Smithsonian.
Since the only ones digging for more tracks are creationists,
False. Scientists dig too, they just don't make hollywood productions over it.
The best evidence against the human footprints and "tracks" is the lack of a particular marking.
Actually the best evidence is that there are no two "human" tracks in a line that can really be defined as human, there are no two "human" tracks that are similar, there are no fossils of humans large enough to make the tracks involved and there are no fossils of humans at the time that the sediment was deposited.
and I saw nothing that would indicate carving or "toes of dino prints falling in to make them appear human".
Yet this has been admitted by some people. Did you see any "human" prints? (put your foot in one?)
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 20 by CTD, posted 03-21-2007 3:09 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by CTD, posted 03-23-2007 9:20 AM RAZD has replied

  
Footprint
Junior Member (Idle past 6283 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 03-18-2007


Message 22 of 62 (390819)
03-22-2007 7:12 AM


I didn't understand very well the phrase: "Most admitted carvings also claimed they started with a footprint like feature. That would also explain the size." Because I don't speak well english. I didn't understand what would explain the big size of the print.
I have read many times that the prints we now see in the river bed are being evidently eroded by the water. If we appreciate that phenomenon in a little amount of years (such as the time elapsed from the prints discovery), how is it possible that such prints ("dinos" or "humans") are millions of years old? Wouldn't they must be already completely eroded from thousand of years?

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 03-22-2007 7:45 AM Footprint has not replied

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


Message 23 of 62 (390824)
03-22-2007 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Footprint
03-22-2007 7:12 AM


I didn't understand very well the phrase: "Most admitted carvings also claimed they started with a footprint like feature. That would also explain the size." Because I don't speak well english. I didn't understand what would explain the big size of the print.
They started with an existing depression and then embellished it -- added toes, made the shape a little more "human"
I have read many times that the prints we now see in the river bed are being evidently eroded by the water. If we appreciate that phenomenon in a little amount of years (such as the time elapsed from the prints discovery), how is it possible that such prints ("dinos" or "humans") are millions of years old? Wouldn't they must be already completely eroded from thousand of years?
The river is uncovering new prints as it erodes the old prints. The river has not been eroding these currently existing prints for thousands of years.

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 22 by Footprint, posted 03-22-2007 7:12 AM Footprint has not replied

  
Footprint
Junior Member (Idle past 6283 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 03-18-2007


Message 24 of 62 (390976)
03-22-2007 7:07 PM


Ok. I understand.
Does the river uncover new prints that are under those that it erodes?

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 03-22-2007 9:28 PM Footprint has replied
 Message 27 by CTD, posted 03-23-2007 9:38 AM Footprint has not replied

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


Message 25 of 62 (390998)
03-22-2007 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Footprint
03-22-2007 7:07 PM


Does the river uncover new prints that are under those that it erodes?
I doubt it, not that there couldn't be different sedimentary layers with such fossil prints, it's just unlikely (and they would likely be from a different geological period).
No, the ones uncovered are from the same (approximate) period and layer, just a different part of it.
Ok. I understand.
cool.

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 24 by Footprint, posted 03-22-2007 7:07 PM Footprint has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Footprint, posted 03-23-2007 7:36 PM RAZD has replied

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 5946 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 26 of 62 (391042)
03-23-2007 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
03-21-2007 8:17 AM


I don't know how to make quotes here, so I won't try.
I don't have the resources to verify 100% whether or not anything was faked. If that qualifies me as "gullible", too bad.
I may have seen 2 or 3 human prints. One in particular sticks in my memory. I'm certain it was a human footprint, but I cannot say how it was found because I was not present. Neither did I take samples and compare them to the site - that wasn't an option. If it was faked, other methods were used to "pull it off" - not carving or "fallen in toes".
Off the top of my head, I would say clear plastic might be used to preserve the dino tracks in place. Maybe there is no cheap way to preserve these things, and future generations are just going to miss out. I don't see that it's been pursued at all. Perhaps it is because I see this kind of thing as a treasure for all people of all times that I feel it's a higher priority.
The erosion over time is clearly evident in pictures, and pictures don't do justice to 3-D images in a one-color background. {There are exceptions - I once took some pics at the Alamo that turned out surprisingly well.}
Now as for the credibility, and the need for excessive documentation... Perhaps I'll just point out that even when media "pet" evolutionists find things that are "too old", they are also dismissed. I understand the fellow who discovered Java Man also found remains that were "too human" and "too early", as well as that Leaky fellow. Perhaps "your scientists" would do well to overdocument as well, if they intend to report everything they find, should they choose to go looking in this area.
I don't think we need fossil evidence of giant humans when we have humans alive now that are giants - unless you mean some of the old sasquatchesque tracks that people confessed to forging.
The forgeries don't help matters one bit. Those who made them, and those who accepted them uncritically have done a disservice to anyone trying to discover the truth. Both sides of this controversy have reason to consider the fakers as traitors.
Even if only one print is legit - even if only the cat print is, it says a lot. Maybe not enough - maybe so. The luminiferous aether was thrown out based on just one set of experiments: that of Michelson & Morley. In the minds of many, there was no need to verify it. Ain't science funny?
I shall do my best to consider all meaningful evidence in this matter as it becomes available. If things are shown to be falsified, I will not be pleased with those behind it. Neither will I support any attempt to suppress legit evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2007 8:17 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ringo, posted 03-23-2007 11:10 AM CTD has replied
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2007 7:32 PM CTD has replied

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 5946 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 27 of 62 (391045)
03-23-2007 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Footprint
03-22-2007 7:07 PM


Erosion
Most of the prints were under water when I was there. There were some on the shore, but not many.
The river isn't eroding much at all. The main problem is that the level of the river can drop drastically, and if this happens in winter and a freeze comes, it's highly destructive. Even frost chews away at the rock, and removes details.
There are expected to be more prints (some have been found) under the banks and other ground in the area which is naturally higher than the river (because water follows the lowest path it can).
Dino tracks have been found many other places, but these are the most famous because of the reports of human prints found with them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Footprint, posted 03-22-2007 7:07 PM Footprint has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 489 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 28 of 62 (391052)
03-23-2007 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by CTD
03-23-2007 9:20 AM


CTD writes:
Even if only one print is legit - even if only the cat print is, it says a lot.
Does it?
The dinosaur/human time line is well established all around the world. There is a gap of millions of years.
Given that evidence, how could any "human" print found in the same layer as a dinosaur print be unequivocally "legit"? At the very most, it would be a head-scratcher, not a deal-breaker.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by CTD, posted 03-23-2007 9:20 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by CTD, posted 03-23-2007 6:34 PM ringo has replied

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 5946 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 29 of 62 (391169)
03-23-2007 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by ringo
03-23-2007 11:10 AM


I have no problem with such a position, as long as one is consistent. Would you also classify Michelson-Morley as a "head scratcher"?
As to how such a thing could be considered legit, that's a question of documentation in most cases. But if I were actually present when the thing was discovered, I'd have a pretty hard time dismissing it. That's one way how.
Edit to add:
Not all agree with your opinion. RAZD seems to think otherwise. Check out the first sentence of the first post on this page:
EvC Forum: Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone)
Re-edited to (hopefully) repair link
Edited by CTD, : add to response, clearly marked
Edited by CTD, : Fix link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ringo, posted 03-23-2007 11:10 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2007 7:44 PM CTD has replied
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 03-23-2007 7:50 PM CTD has replied

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


Message 30 of 62 (391195)
03-23-2007 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by CTD
03-23-2007 9:20 AM


note to percy ... see first comment
I don't know how to make quotes here, so I won't try.
type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy
type [quote]quote lines are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quote lines are easy
I don't have the resources to verify 100% whether or not anything was faked. If that qualifies me as "gullible", too bad.
I may have seen 2 or 3 human prints. One in particular sticks in my memory. I'm certain it was a human footprint, but I cannot say how it was found because I was not present. Neither did I take samples and compare them to the site - that wasn't an option. If it was faked, other methods were used to "pull it off" - not carving or "fallen in toes".
Are you referring to "examples" in "Dr" Baugh's "Creation Evidence Museum" or actual footprints still in stone and still in the river? I am assuming the former, which (yes) does make you gullible. I trust you also donated generously to the museum ...
Please note what AIG has to say about Carl Baugh and his museum:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
quote:
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
Some of Carl Baugh’s “evidences” for creation.
We are sorry to say that, while AiG thinks he’s well meaning, Baugh unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any “evidence” he provides unless supported by creationist organizations with reputations for biblical and scientific rigor. Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh “evidences” despite being approached on the matter.
Color mine for emPHAsis
Now as for the credibility, and the need for excessive documentation... Perhaps I'll just point out that even when media "pet" evolutionists find things that are "too old", they are also dismissed. I understand the fellow who discovered Java Man also found remains that were "too human" and "too early", as well as that Leaky fellow. Perhaps "your scientists" would do well to overdocument as well, if they intend to report everything they find, should they choose to go looking in this area.
This would qualify for another PRATT -- I suggest you start a new thread on this topic and provide proper substantiation for this assertion in the process. It's off-topic here. And if you don't do this I will take as just another example of typical creationist propaganda that has no substantiation.
I don't think we need fossil evidence of giant humans when we have humans alive now that are giants - unless you mean some of the old sasquatchesque tracks that people confessed to forging.
Humans alive now with 18" long feet? No fossils older than 4 million years of hominids of even current human size (they are all smaller) and you are talking well over 65 million years ago and think it is credible ... and you think that you are not being gullible here?
The forgeries don't help matters one bit. Those who made them, and those who accepted them uncritically have done a disservice to anyone trying to discover the truth.
Even if only one print is legit - even if only the cat print is, it says a lot.
Again, even creationists at AIG think Baugh's museum evidence is essentially a forgery - or do you read that statement above in a kinder light because you are so gullible and just want to believe it that it doesn't matter to you what other people say?
If things are shown to be falsified, I will not be pleased with those behind it.
Care to put that to the test? We can start with the age of the earth: see Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) - and reply there when you are ready.
Message 27
Most of the prints were under water when I was there. There were some on the shore, but not many.
Did you see any "human" prints in the river? What were they like? Or did you only see dino prints in the river?
Dino tracks have been found many other places, but these are the most famous because of the reports of human prints found with them.
Famous maybe to creationists. Famous maybe to gullibles. Notable to others as examples of creationist fraud. NOT that notable to scientists or paleontology as examples of dinosaur tracks -- other sites have more kinds of dinosaurs.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : /

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 26 by CTD, posted 03-23-2007 9:20 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by CTD, posted 03-24-2007 9:34 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