Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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:   Did dinosaurs and man coexist?
Madelaine
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 60 (32986)
02-23-2003 10:25 PM


I hate to seem argumentative but...
quote:
The man/dinosaur footprint claim is an old and extremely doubtful one
Regardless of its age, the point is still quite valid. Just because an argument is ignored doesn't mean it should be discounted
quote:
you're probably thinking of the Paluxy River prints in Glen Rose, Texas, which even the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research now disavow.
As a matter of fact, that is the place I am referring to, I'm rather imporessed you knew it. As far as it being "disavowed", I live rather close and have not heard such news, you may want to check that.
quote:
Rather than rehashing this issue, perhaps you could look into this a little more (there's plenty of material on the Internet) and explain why it's deserving of further attention at this time.
Again, I do not mean to sound arrogent or haughty at all but I have actually quite a bit of research on this subject, as well as most other mythological creatures. I do infact have a slight idea, as I'm sure you do as well, which is what makes a debate great.

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Coragyps, posted 02-23-2003 10:45 PM Madelaine has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 32 of 60 (32988)
02-23-2003 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Madelaine
02-23-2003 10:25 PM


Hey, Madelaine, if you can't be argumentative here, where can ya?
Really - "Dr" Carl Baugh is about as discredited as you can be with his footprints. The "human" prints, if I remember the web pictures, are about 15 inches long - not a typical shoe size. And they appear to be the back half of a dinosaur print, without the toe prints.
The real issue, though, is that people have been digging up dinosaur bones for about 200 years now, and have yet to find a single human bone in the same stratum as a dinosaur bone - heck, they have yet to find anything like any modern mammal in with any dinosaur remains. Doesn't that seem a little odd, if people and dinosaurs supposedly coexisted? Now I, too, would like to know where dragon myths started, but I'd also like to know where myths of forty-foot-tall giants and of gods that lived above the clouds started, too. It may be nothing more than the storytelling instinct that a campfire brings out in some people...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Madelaine, posted 02-23-2003 10:25 PM Madelaine has not replied

  
Madelaine
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 60 (32993)
02-23-2003 11:15 PM


The fossil I saw was not as your described. Both the dinosaur and the human had toes. Well the dinosuar had 3 "toe-like" features but I don't know their technical name. The human foot print had 2 distinct dimples where the toes should be and the other 3 could be seen but I could understand someone arguing that they're not there. I don't know the exact measurments of the foot but it appeared normal. Secondly, there are possiblities as to why there are not other fossils found with dino- fossils. The Egyptians, for instance, put their dead in tombs, in which case their bones would not be found with dino- bones because they were not buried. Many civilzation could have had the same custom. It is also possible (this sounds gross, I'm sorry if it offends you) that the dead could have been burned and their bones ground into dust and possibly even used for other things. It sounds morbid but its not a foriegn concept.

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 34 of 60 (32997)
02-24-2003 12:17 AM


ICR Paluxy River Paper
Since Madelaine would like to pursue Paluxy River, let's give the evos a real challenge. Here's a detailed paper on Paluxy River from ICR: Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research. It's far too long to address in a single thread, but perhaps someone can pick out a facet or two to focus on.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-24-2003 12:45 AM Admin has not replied
 Message 36 by David unfamous, posted 02-24-2003 7:31 AM Admin has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 35 of 60 (33000)
02-24-2003 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Admin
02-24-2003 12:17 AM


Re: ICR Paluxy River Paper
In reading through the ICR paper, this paragraph stood out to me:
quote:
The creationist does not face such a problem. This evidence harmonizes with a great deal of data indicating that the earth and all its strata are quite young and that all of the earth's inhabitants were created essentially at the same time. These footprints, (which everyone would agree were man tracks if situated in strata designated as recent), imply the existence of man in the Cretaceous by all modes of logical thought, by the scientific method, and by open-minded analysis of raw data.4
Even if both the human and dinosaur tracks showed strong evidence of being what they seemed, that would NOT harmonize with the real abundance of data that indicates that the earth and the life of earth has a very long history, not at all like that of the YEC time frame.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Admin, posted 02-24-2003 12:17 AM Admin has not replied

  
David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 60 (33027)
02-24-2003 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Admin
02-24-2003 12:17 AM


Re: ICR Paluxy River Paper
Why analyse an article that has been refuted by so many others? Here's one such response that should be read word by word:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/retrack.html
"Morris' claim that the "human-like" depressions are "fairly consistent in length" is unfounded, since:
1. None of the depressions are very human-like,
2. The same depressions have been interpreted in vastly different ways by different creationist authors — some claiming they were "giant human prints" from 16 to 19 inches long, and others, such as Morris and Stan Taylor, indicating that the "best" prints in the trail represented normal sized feet about 10 inches long. Baugh and Patton recently attempted to show that the "new" human prints (in the same dinosaur tracks) are each 11.5 inches long. This they did by partially filling each track with muddy water until a puddle about 11.5 inches long was achieved!
[This message has been edited by David unfamous, 02-24-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Admin, posted 02-24-2003 12:17 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by w_fortenberry, posted 02-27-2003 11:38 AM David unfamous has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 37 of 60 (33041)
02-24-2003 8:47 AM


If the human prints actually are in every dino. track
and the ICR article's age of 38000 years is accurate
how can we rule out man having invented flippers for
under water fishing?

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by David unfamous, posted 02-24-2003 9:42 AM Peter has replied

  
David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 60 (33045)
02-24-2003 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Peter
02-24-2003 8:47 AM


Ah, you must be talking about the famous River Thames flipper tracks — flipper tracks right next to flip-flop tracks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Peter, posted 02-24-2003 8:47 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Peter, posted 02-24-2003 5:40 PM David unfamous has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 39 of 60 (33101)
02-24-2003 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by David unfamous
02-24-2003 9:42 AM


In all seriousness though, the existence of an undiscovered
large reptile when man was alive doesn't proove a young earth
in any case.
I think this came up a few months ago, not sure in which thread
though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by David unfamous, posted 02-24-2003 9:42 AM David unfamous has not replied

  
Madelaine
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 60 (33179)
02-25-2003 5:41 PM


Admin, I fail to see where the essay you've presented disproves the foot prints? It does give possiblities that may account for a few fossils, but it doesn't discount them altogether? Why then is this an "out dated" argument?

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Admin, posted 02-25-2003 8:13 PM Madelaine has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 41 of 60 (33185)
02-25-2003 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Madelaine
02-25-2003 5:41 PM


Hi Madelaine,
When I post as Admin I'm not a participant in the debate. I instead try to play a moderator role by keeping discussion on track and guiding it to fruitful areas of inquiry.
The article I posted a link to is from ICR - in other words, it's on your side. I was trying to provide you some helpful ammunition.
By the way, if you use the little "reply" button that's at the bottom of this message (look down about an inch) then it'll be easier to figure out who you're replying to because it will cause your reply to be listed in the "Replies to this message" list. The general "reply" buttons at the top and bottom of the webpage will not do this.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Madelaine, posted 02-25-2003 5:41 PM Madelaine has not replied

  
The Arachnophile
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 60 (33219)
02-26-2003 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Madelaine
02-23-2003 7:17 PM


The real question...
...is whether creationists and common sense can co-exist?
The Arachnophile

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Madelaine, posted 02-23-2003 7:17 PM Madelaine has not replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6107 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 43 of 60 (33372)
02-27-2003 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by David unfamous
02-24-2003 7:31 AM


quote:
"Morris' claim that the "human-like" depressions are "fairly consistent in length" is unfounded, since...
...The same depressions have been interpreted in vastly different ways by different creationist authors — some claiming they were "giant human prints" from 16 to 19 inches long, and others, such as Morris and Stan Taylor, indicating that the "best" prints in the trail represented normal sized feet about 10 inches long. Baugh and Patton recently attempted to show that the "new" human prints (in the same dinosaur tracks) are each 11.5 inches long. This they did by partially filling each track with muddy water until a puddle about 11.5 inches long was achieved!"

Wouldn't it be much more valid for the people at Talk Origins to go to the Paluxy River and measure the inconsistencies of the tracks rather than claim that the creationists have not agreed on the size?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by David unfamous, posted 02-24-2003 7:31 AM David unfamous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by David O, posted 03-06-2003 1:48 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
David O
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 60 (33769)
03-06-2003 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by w_fortenberry
02-27-2003 11:38 AM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by w_fortenberry, posted 02-27-2003 11:38 AM w_fortenberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Karl, posted 03-07-2003 8:09 AM David O has not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 60 (33828)
03-07-2003 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by David O
03-06-2003 1:48 PM


That site could only be the answer to a very silly question.
Sorry, couldn't resist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by David O, posted 03-06-2003 1:48 PM David O 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