Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,572 Year: 4,829/9,624 Month: 177/427 Week: 90/85 Day: 7/20 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human & dinosaur crossing trackways authenticated
Footprint
Junior Member (Idle past 6282 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 03-18-2007


Message 31 of 62 (391197)
03-23-2007 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
03-22-2007 9:28 PM


Does it mean that when the prints at the paluxy river were discovered the river had just changed his course, a little time earlier? That is, the water flows above the prints from only some ten of years (?)
Edited by Footprint, : No reason given.
Edited by Footprint, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 03-22-2007 9:28 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2007 7:53 PM Footprint has replied

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


Message 32 of 62 (391200)
03-23-2007 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by CTD
03-23-2007 6:34 PM


better reference please
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)
Which post are you talking about? My listing show 100 posts per page, so that would mean the very first post, and the first post on my page is
quote:
Starting a new thread for the purpose of discussing the all issues in the following post that do not apply to the thread in question, so we won't get in trouble with admins ....
If you change the 69#69 at the end of the link to n#n where "n" is the number of the post in question then your link will be directly to the message in question.
Enjoy.
ps - welcome to the fray.

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 29 by CTD, posted 03-23-2007 6:34 PM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by CTD, posted 03-24-2007 6:24 PM RAZD has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 33 of 62 (391203)
03-23-2007 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by CTD
03-23-2007 6:34 PM


CTD writes:
Would you also classify Michelson-Morley as a "head scratcher"?
I don't see why. Hasn't it been verified time and again, experimentally, theoretically, mathematically?
One out-of-place footprint is on nowhere near that solid ground.
But if I were actually present when the thing was discovered, I'd have a pretty hard time dismissing it.
That's not a very good standard of evidence.
Rather than being there myself, I'd want to see verification that it was a genuine human print, that there was no possibility of tampering, that the layer was the same age as the dinosaur-print layer (provided it could be measured directly)....
Then, if it could be established that there was a human footprint the same age as a dinosaur footprint, the question would be: How could it happen?
At no point in the process would the evolution-is-wrong scenario crop up.
Not all agree with your opinion. RAZD seems to think otherwise.
I don't think I disagree with RAZD. Can you be more specific?
(Your link doesn't seem to have anything to do with the question.)

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 29 by CTD, posted 03-23-2007 6:34 PM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by CTD, posted 03-24-2007 7:32 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 34 of 62 (391205)
03-23-2007 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Footprint
03-23-2007 7:36 PM


Does it mean that when the prints at the paluxy river were discovered the river had just changed his course, a little time earlier? That is, the water flows above the prints from only some ten of years (?)
Not necessarily - it could be thousands of years if not millions to wear away the material that has been deposited over the tracks. The banks of the river were a good 20 feet to an older floodplain level that was also well below surrounding topography. Beyond that I don't really know much -- except that the sedimentary layer in question dates to the time of the dinosaurs.
I may be able to put you in touch with a local geologist that would know. (or ask him for you).

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 31 by Footprint, posted 03-23-2007 7:36 PM Footprint has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Footprint, posted 03-26-2007 2:50 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 35 of 62 (391357)
03-24-2007 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
03-23-2007 7:44 PM


Thank you
"One piece of evidence that contradicts a concept invalidates it. The onus is then on the person supporting the concept to fully explain the discrepancy. This explanation must not just show that the evidence could be wrong, it must show how and why the evidence is the way it is.
Failure to explain the contradictory evidence means that the theory is falsified as written. The only remaining option is to modify the concept so that it fits the evidence."
I think if fixed the link now. It's #51, and the source of the above quote. I'm a little spoiled about having quotes automatically available.
The point is that some may take a single piece of evidence and assign a lot of value to it. Others may write it off as a "head scratcher". I don't see a problem unless double standards come into play. One should be consistent with oneself, but need not apply the exact same standards as another. Understand?
Looks like there's more material for me to respond to. I wanted to get this part sorted out. Thanks again for the quote demo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2007 7:44 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 03-24-2007 6:57 PM CTD has not replied
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2007 8:42 PM CTD has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 36 of 62 (391362)
03-24-2007 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by CTD
03-24-2007 6:24 PM


Re: Thank you
CTD writes:
The point is that some may take a single piece of evidence and assign a lot of value to it. Others may write it off as a "head scratcher".
For the record, RAZD and I agree.
When I said that a single out-of-place footprint would be a "head scratcher", I didn't mean to imply that there's no need to explain it. I meant that we can scratch our heads over it for a good long while, try various plausible explanations and not worry too too much about it. The answer - temporarily - can be "we don't know".
My point was that one out-of-place footprint would have not one iota of effect on the Theory of Evolution. There are lots and lots and lots and lots of potential explanations before "evolution-is-wrong".
One piece of evidence doesn't overthrow millions.

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 35 by CTD, posted 03-24-2007 6:24 PM CTD has not replied

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


Message 37 of 62 (391367)
03-24-2007 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by ringo
03-23-2007 7:50 PM


First off, Michelson-Morley was the basis for abandoning the aether before (about 10 or 15 years) anyone bothered to repeat it. It was later repeated (Michelson-Gale and Dayton Miller); different results were obtained, and these results were duely ignored. Note that Miller was associated with Morley, so this isn't strictly "independent". Also, those who are credited with "disproving" the aether continued the search, although "their job was done". I won't post links since it's not directly on-topic, but it's an easy search.
I conclude from history that modern "science" as a whole, does occasionally apply double standards. You are free to disagree.
That's not a very good standard of evidence.
So we disagree again. I admit that my vision isn't perfect; but I have a very strong tendency to believe what I see unless there is some reason I shouldn't. After all, my hearing isn't perfect either; so if I listen to the "experts", there's also a chance I'll get it wrong. But no matter.
Then, if it could be established that there was a human footprint the same age as a dinosaur footprint, the question would be: How could it happen?
It seems we're not likely to agree on very much. I don't see much mystery as to how such a thing could happen. Now there is a mystery about what stories would inevitibly be concocted about it to avoid the obvious answer; but that's not my department.
Now what's left for us to disagree about? Perhaps ending sentences in prepositions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 03-23-2007 7:50 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ringo, posted 03-24-2007 8:04 PM CTD has not replied
 Message 39 by cavediver, posted 03-24-2007 8:27 PM CTD has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 38 of 62 (391378)
03-24-2007 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by CTD
03-24-2007 7:32 PM


CTD writes:
I conclude from history that modern "science" as a whole, does occasionally apply double standards. You are free to disagree.
Okay, I will.
Science works by consensus. You don't get to throw out a whole series of experiments just because one or two produced a slightly different result. The important thing is to explain the variance.
I admit that my vision isn't perfect; but I have a very strong tendency to believe what I see unless there is some reason I shouldn't.
Well, stop doing that.
You can't compare your personal "observations" to repeated observations by multiple scientists, with multiple experiments to test multiple possible explanations. "It looks like a human print to me," is not science.
I don't see much mystery as to how such a thing could happen.
If you don't see much mystery, you'll never discover much. If you don't ask the questions, you'll never find the answers.
Now there is a mystery about what stories would inevitibly be concocted about it to avoid the obvious answer; but that's not my department.
Your "department" seems to be to belittle science at all cost.
Edited by Ringo, : No reason given.

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 37 by CTD, posted 03-24-2007 7:32 PM CTD has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3720 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 39 of 62 (391383)
03-24-2007 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by CTD
03-24-2007 7:32 PM


First off, Michelson-Morley was the basis for abandoning the aether before (about 10 or 15 years) anyone bothered to repeat it.
If you think the aether was abandoned on the back of MM then you have some history of science learning ahead of you.
It was later repeated (Michelson-Gale and Dayton Miller); different results were obtained, and these results were duely ignored.
Check out this Wiki link and tell us again that results were ignored...
I conclude from history that modern "science" as a whole, does occasionally apply double standards.
Well, MM certainly does not support your conclusion, so it is looking a little baseless at the moment...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by CTD, posted 03-24-2007 7:32 PM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by CTD, posted 03-25-2007 3:24 AM cavediver has replied

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


Message 40 of 62 (391387)
03-24-2007 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by CTD
03-24-2007 6:24 PM


evidence and invalidation
The point is that some may take a single piece of evidence and assign a lot of value to it. Others may write it off as a "head scratcher". I don't see a problem unless double standards come into play. One should be consistent with oneself, but need not apply the exact same standards as another. Understand?
The key is that the evidence has to directly contradict the theory, thus because the evidence for an old earth directly contradicts the concept of a young earth, it invalidates the young earth concept. The evidence has be something that could not possibly happen if the theory\concept was valid. The "value" of the evidence is related to the how much it logically supports or refutes the concept in question.
The theory of evolution is that heritable traits within a population change over time, the frequency of alleles within a gene pool change with time, that species change over time, etc. This is most observable today in what are called speciation events - two 'daughter' populations that no longer interbreed have changed from a combined population that did. This has been extended and applied to the fossil record to piece together a theoretical tree of descent based on the concept of common ancestry. So far this is the most convincing explanation of those fossil records. Those relationships could be false, certainly they are missing a lot of species, ones we don't know about.
Thus evolution isn't directly contradicted by an apparent anomaly in the fossil record, especially when it is something like a footprint that doesn't match a single fossil of any known creature, and most especially when the anomaly is not an independently verified find that has since been removed from any possible context (the first rule of professional archaeology is to preserve the context of all finds).
If we do posit for the sake of the argument that the footprint is real, then we need to consider a couple of possible causes. Is it possible that humans existed prior to the fossil record as we know it? Yes, but unlikely due to the absolute paucity of evidence between known human ancestors and the time of this print (to say nothing of crossing oceans). Is is possible that some other creature had a foot with 5 toes and the rough proportions of a human foot but a different size? Yes, convergent evolution has occurred before, and has caused rough similarities in features between different animals (and that would be the best you have at this point). But we don't have any evidence of any animal that fits those "human" prints - dino, mammal or other - so it would be some currently unknown critter in either case.
Neither of these would directly invalidate the theory of evolution. What they would invalidate is the archaeological history that currently excludes either creature. That would have to be re-written, but only once the critter making the print was known. Until then it would be a head-scratcher.
Conversely when we see footprints like this:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/laetoli.htm
That are in a series of parallel tracks that show two individuals walked close together, with one larger than the other (size judged by the space between the footprints AND we can date the footprints AND match them to known fossils for size shape and stride, then we can be fairly sure (but not really absolutely positive) that they were made by the matching critters, in this case australopithicus afarensis. Means, motive, opportunity, etc. This is similar to the way that the dino prints are identified with specific dinosaur species - we have enough information to tie the two together.
We can also compare these Laetoli footprints to other human prints and see similarities to the way humans walk:
quote:
... the gait of these early humans was "heel-strike" (the heel of the foot hit first) followed by "toe-off" (the toes push off at the end of the stride); the way modern humans walk. Thus, bipedality was essentially developed by this time.
Then we can compare such prints to the one in the picture under discussion above: it does not have those heel-toe human walking characteristics. Nor do we have other prints from which to judge stride and thus size: was it a tall skinny critter with small feet and a really long stride, or a short fat big footed critter that hops on one foot at a time? Too many unknowns.
It is also possible that it is not a footprint at all (or that what is left is not a complete print). We've seen apparent faces in the moon and on mars: the human eye is adept at seeing patterns - even when one is not there.
The most one could conclude from a valid footprint without any other information is that we don't know what made it.
So far all the evidence points to the singular footprints (like the one in the picture under discussion) being a fraud, and until there is better evidence that is the most rational conclusion at this time.
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 35 by CTD, posted 03-24-2007 6:24 PM CTD has not replied

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


Message 41 of 62 (391392)
03-24-2007 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
03-23-2007 7:32 PM


The human footprints I saw were in the Museum. There was another museum in town, but it had closed down and was no longer in business. Locals said they used to have at least some of the fakes on display. The visitor center at the entrance to the park had no human prints. I was somewhat disappointed.
Now RAZD, if I agree to let you call me gullible, can I choose an adjective for you?
RAZD writes:
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.
Other than a surname, I don't know what a PRATT is. But this bears a resemblence to a typical evolutionist ploy of attempting distraction. We don't need a thread arguing that no amount of documentation will convince a person (or group) who is predisposed against a thing to accept it. Even as a C, I should expect at least a few E's would join me on that one. The rest may not be so sincere...
Neither do I agree that documentation and credibility are neccessarily off-topic here. In fact, I don't even think that's what you actually meant to say, but it's not entirely clear what's going on. Maybe that's why it looks so much like the aforementioned ploy, eh?
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?
Some of us are just gullible. I googled size 24 shoes. 1st link:
Webshots - Desktop Wallpaper and Screen Savers
But that's only 17". So I googled size 28 shoes. 1st link:
Please update your bookmark. Veuillez modifier vos signet.
From the link:
Wearing a size 90 suit and size 28 shoes, the Great Antonio weighed 495 pounds (225 kilograms) and was six feet four inches (1.9 m) tall. The Great Antonio made it into the Guinness Book of World Records in 1952 for pulling a 433-tonne train along 19.8 metres of track in Montreal
I didn't see a length in inches, but I suppose 4 shoe sizes => one inch.
Now during these googles, I didn't notice any peer-reviewed papers, so I'll just give up now & say my info's not the most reliable. Sometimes it's just more efficient timewise to be gullible.
And if I have ever given any indication of anything physical being 65 million years old, I take it back. In future, if you see me communicate any age over 50,000 years, please understand that I would be strictly speaking in terms of hypothetical years. I would never intentionally assert or imply that such ages exist for any non-eternal thing. I don't recall mentioning such an age, but if I did I was grossly mistaken.
RAZD writes:
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?
How prudent of you to include the qualifier "essentially". Wouldn't want to warp their meaning in your paraphrase.
Now I already acknowledged that AIG and CRI don't support this evidence. AIG appears to be following the lead of CRI, and they provide this link:
The Institute for Creation Research
Okay, pardon me. I've been saying "CRI" when I should have said "ICR". But the last date given for any of their visits is 1985. What they say may have been the case 20+ years ago; but I don't think it's the case today. I understand they don't have the resources to go trotting down to Glen Rose, TX all the time. I'm fine with them not "backing" the museum. I think they should refrain from putting it down until they have a chance to look at what's been found since 1985.
If they had reason to believe any of this evidence actually is forged, I personally would hope they would find a way to do something about it.
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.
Let's see, I first heard about these tracks from Weekly Reader Magazine, when I was in kindergarten. They've been mentioned in Nat'l Geographic or Time or something also. I could look up which, but I'm running short on minutes. And "famous" is such a subjective term that I doubt certain persons would agree anyhow on what qualifies.
Anyhow, I gotta leave now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2007 7:32 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2007 11:28 PM CTD has not replied

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


Message 42 of 62 (391416)
03-24-2007 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by CTD
03-24-2007 9:34 PM


footprints and frauds
I don't know what a PRATT is.
PRATT - Wikipedia - notice the 5th example given and Thermodynamics
But this bears a resemblence to a typical evolutionist ploy of attempting distraction. ... Neither do I agree that documentation and credibility are neccessarily off-topic here.
What you claimed was:
Message 26
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.
THAT is off-topic here. What I asked you to do was to substantiate that claim on a new thread - that is NOT avoiding the issue or attempting distraction, it is taking it to a new thread where the focus can be specifically on that single claim. Start a new thread and we can discuss this issue of "documentation and credibility" on it, without distraction.
The visitor center at the entrance to the park had no human prints. I was somewhat disappointed.
Perhaps because there are/were none?
Some of us are just gullible. I googled size 24 shoes. 1st link:
Webshots - Desktop Wallpaper and Screen Savers
But that's only 17". So I googled size 28 shoes. 1st link:
Please update your bookmark. Veuillez modifier vos signet.
I googled {world "largest foot" human} and FOUND THIS (url too long):
quote:
* According to the Guinness Book of Records, Matthew McGrovy of Pennsylvania had the largest foot of any man. He wore a size 29 shoe, which in Europe is size 63; in the UK, size 29. McGrovy stood 7 feet 6 inches tall and weighed in at an astonishing 617 pounds (280 kilograms) when he was 32 years old. His shoes were all custom made and the most expensive pair cost him $22,745.
Shoe size - Wikipedia
quote:
male shoe size = 3 * last length ’ 22
Working backwards I get foot length = (29.5 + 22)/3 = 17.2" ... or less (to leave room inside for walking).
Close but no cigar.
The human footprints I saw were in the Museum. There was another museum in town, but it had closed down and was no longer in business. Locals said they used to have at least some of the fakes on display.
So you agree that there is substantial evidence of fake footprints. Good. It would be foolish not to admit this, given the abundant evidence for it.
But the last date given for any of their visits is 1985. What they say may have been the case 20+ years ago; but I don't think it's the case today. I understand they don't have the resources to go trotting down to Glen Rose, TX all the time. I'm fine with them not "backing" the museum. I think they should refrain from putting it down until they have a chance to look at what's been found since 1985.
There are legitimate scientists that are in the area and available for any independent verification of any new finds if not the park staff itself. I talked to them and they were quite helpful in telling me where the different tracks were.
In addition Glen Kuban hosts several trips a year to people interested in seeing the geology and the tracks, but he has yet to come across a "human" print. See his articles at:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm
The Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy
He posts his email address on the site so you can contact him. I found him quite chatty and friendly on email.
Note especially:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/wilker6.htm
(look familiar?)
quote:
The Burdick Print (or Burdick Track) is claimed by some creationists to be a "giant man track" from Glen Rose, Texas. However, it is one of several prints on loose blocks of rock which show strong evidence of a carved origin, and is acknowledged by Glen Rose residents to be one of the carvings made by George Adams in the 1930's. It shows serious anatomic errors as well as subsurface features which truncate at the print's surface, confirming it's carved origin. Furthermore, the orientation of algal fossils in the rock suggests that the original "up" direction was the side opposite the alleged footprint. In other words, evidently the carver unwittingly created the print on what was originally the bottom side of the rock.
In 1990 the Burdick track was re-sectioned across the toes and heel under the direction of Carl Baugh and Don Patton. Subsequently Patton promoted the track in the MIOS newsletter, which requested donations for a new museum display of the track (Patton, 1990). At the 2nd International Conference on Creationism in 1990, Patton displayed and sold photographs of the new cross sections, claiming that they showed subsurface deformation lines proving the print authentic. However, others at the conference, including the current authors and creationist paleontologist Kurt Wise, observed that the alleged pressure features were algal structures truncated by the print depression, indicating that that track was carved. Nevertheless, Carl Baugh and Don Patton continued to promote the track as genuine (Baugh, 1996, 2005).
color mine for empHASis ...
Claiming in 2005 that a known fake footprint is real. How many times do you need to confirm that a con-man is presenting fake samples to cull gullible people?
Compare the pictures ... from the "museum" site:
http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html
quote:
The Burdick Track is a human footprint in Cretaceous limestone found in the Cross Branch stratum, a tributary of the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas.
Make that 2007: can you spell fraud?
And if I have ever given any indication of anything physical being 65 million years old, I take it back. ... I don't recall mentioning such an age, but if I did I was grossly mistaken.
65 million years ago is when the age of dinosaurs ended so any dinosaur (other than birds) would have existed before then.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/primate.html
quote:
The fossil record of several ancient ape species collectively called Proconsul shows that the split between the common ancestors of the Old world monkeys (above left) and the apes (above right) happened in the earliest Miocene, at least 20 million years ago.
And that's before developing from apes into hominids. There are no fossils of remotely ape-like mammals during the age of the dinosaurs to say nothing of human fossils.
Let's see, I first heard about these tracks from Weekly Reader Magazine, when I was in kindergarten. They've been mentioned in Nat'l Geographic or Time or something also. I could look up which, but I'm running short on minutes. And "famous" is such a subjective term that I doubt certain persons would agree anyhow on what qualifies.
Or something eh? From Glen again:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/glenrose.htm
quote:
During the next two years, using a team of local workers hired under a a WPA project, Bird exposed a long section of the riverbed with numerous parallel trails of sauropod tracks (indicating a herding behavior) as well as a long trail of theropod tracks following the same path, often interpreted as an ancient chase scene. Contending with a fickle river that often flooded after each rain and using sandbags to hold back the water, Bird and crew managed to chisel out several striding sequences of the now famous trackways. One sequence went to the American Museum, where after sitting in storage for many years, it was carefully reassembled and mounted under a sauropod skeleton. Other sections went to several other museums and universities. Bird reported his findings in series of popular articles in Scientific American and National Geographic, catapulting the little town of Glen Rose into instant fame.
Okay, but what they are famous for are the dinosaur tracks. Your claim was:
Message 27
.... but these are the most famous because of the reports of human prints found with them.
And that is not the case.
Anyhow, I gotta leave now.
Later then.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added "museum" link

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 41 by CTD, posted 03-24-2007 9:34 PM CTD has not replied

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


Message 43 of 62 (391456)
03-25-2007 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by cavediver
03-24-2007 8:27 PM


Totally OT
Check out this Wiki link and tell us again that results were ignored...
Easily done. Einstein's 1905 papers were essentially and "overnight success" and within a very short time the aether was discarded.
Now check the date chart on your link. Note the sequence 1887...1902-1904 (a minor "Morley-Morley" set I hadn't heard of, but I'll look after this eventually. No rush, Wiki being Wiki)...1921
By 1921, those still working on this were a small minority; and the theory was largely considered dead. Now what was it I said? "There was no confirmation until 10-15 years later", or something like that.
Let us apply a little formula here. We can even use some familiar letters!
C - E = M
C = confirmation E = Einstein's Day in the Sun
M = my margin
So 1921 -1905 = 16. 10 to 15 < 16 . Looks like I missed by one. If we allow that it took a few months for everyone to get the news, E can = 1906 or even '07 or '08. That would make me look a little better, wouldn't it?
Now 1921 is a Miller date. As one of Morley's buds, he can't be considered very independent. I'll give you Tomascheck 1924. I know it hurts me vs. my formula, but facts are facts.
If this doesn't support my conclusion, well... I doubt that anything could support it in your opinion.
If you'd care to try again, it's a free shot. I won't risk the wrath of the mods next time. But please try to do better. It's too easy when your own link verifies what I'm saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by cavediver, posted 03-24-2007 8:27 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 03-25-2007 5:56 AM CTD has not replied
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2007 7:27 AM CTD has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3720 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 44 of 62 (391462)
03-25-2007 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by CTD
03-25-2007 3:24 AM


Re: Totally Evasive
Easily done. Einstein's 1905 papers were essentially and "overnight success" and within a very short time the aether was discarded.
But you said that MM was the basis of abandoning the aether!! You never mentioned SR
By 1921, those still working on this were a small minority; and the theory was largely considered dead. Now what was it I said? "There was no confirmation until 10-15 years later", or something like that.
No, what you said, and let me repeat it for you, was:
CTD writes:
different results were obtained, and these results were duely ignored.
Please start a new thread providing evidence that results were ignored or simply retract your accusation in this thread
To give you a clue:
quote:
Though Kennedy later also carried out an experiment at Mount Wilson, finding 1/10 the drift measured by Miller, and no seasonal effects, Miller’s findings were considered important at the time...
...To date, no one has been able to replicate Miller's results, and modern experiments have accuracies that rule them out.
  —Wiki
is not synonymous with "these results were duely ignored"
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by CTD, posted 03-25-2007 3:24 AM CTD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2007 7:22 AM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 45 of 62 (391464)
03-25-2007 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by cavediver
03-25-2007 5:56 AM


Re: Totally Evasive and off topic
Please start a new thread providing evidence that results were ignored or simply retract your accusation in this thread
Yeah, I'd like to see it too. It is off topic here and this is the second attempt by CTD to deflect this topic from discussions of the validity of the "human" footprints in the paluxy river.
ps - MM could prove a geocentric earth ... Flat Earth Theory
Edited by RAZD, : ps

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 44 by cavediver, posted 03-25-2007 5:56 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by CTD, posted 03-26-2007 9:21 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