Human & dinosaur crossing trackways authenticated

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.

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? (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.

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

No, the toes of the dino are missing. Were any of the prints as deep as the "human" print? 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.

No, it makes you gullible. You want to believe, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. I agree. 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. False. Scientists dig too, they just don't make hollywood productions over it. 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. 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.

They started with an existing depression and then embellished it -- added toes, made the shape a little more "human" 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.

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. 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.

type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: type [quote]quote lines are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quote lines are easy

---

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 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. 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? 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? 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. Did you see any "human" prints in the river? What were they like? Or did you only see dino prints in the river? 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.EnjoyEdited 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.

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.

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.

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.htmThat 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.

PRATT - Wikipedia - notice the 5th example given and ThermodynamicsWhat you claimed was: 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. Perhaps because there are/were none? 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. 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. 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" ControversyHe 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? 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. 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: And that is not the case. 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.

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 TheoryEdited 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.

I agree it is totally OT - please start a new thread - then you can define the topic.This is the second time you have brought up something off topic by implication in your arguments while failing to address the issues of the topic.I fail to see anything this has to do with footprints in the paluxy river, other than being a creationist attempt at distraction.Can we get back to the issue of facts on tracks and footprint fakes and footloose fraud?

There are chisel marks on the "Burdick Print"The closest I found on google images was an Erich von Dniken photo where the proportions look funny and "Dino tracks" is plural and "Man track" is singular ... and the space between the prints is different.http://www.daniken.com/e/index.html
If the print is real, shouldn't there be several different pictures of it? Wouldn't it be prominently shown on many of the creationist websites?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.