Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution as Fact and Theory
q3psycho
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 22 (82495)
02-03-2004 5:01 AM


You guys, I'd be happy to look at PHOTOS of the tracks you say are frauds. the problem is that I posted a photo above that looks like a human print inside a dinosaur print. You haven't even looked at it.
But I went to all the sites you posted and read what they had to say.
Looks to me like this is a one way street.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2004 5:19 AM q3psycho has not replied
 Message 18 by Silent H, posted 02-03-2004 7:02 PM q3psycho has not replied
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 02-03-2004 7:13 PM q3psycho has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 17 of 22 (82496)
02-03-2004 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by q3psycho
02-03-2004 5:01 AM


the problem is that I posted a photo above that looks like a human print inside a dinosaur print.
It doesn't look like a human foot to me. It doesn't look like a human foot to people who study footprints for a living. It doesn't look like a human footprint to the people who would have a vested interest in it being a human footprint, that is, creationists like ICR and AiG.
I guess that's enough evidence for me to conclude that it's probably not a human footprint. What is it going to take to convince you?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by q3psycho, posted 02-03-2004 5:01 AM q3psycho has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 18 of 22 (82788)
02-03-2004 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by q3psycho
02-03-2004 5:01 AM


I went. I looked. I scratched my head.
The prints are not obviously ANYTHING, until they put that convenient human print overlay, which if you notice does NOT follow the bottom part of the foot at all, and excludes pieces they should have highlighted at the top of the foot (if they were going to be consistent with the toes).
They could easily have been other dinosaur tracks.
The only think that looked conclusive at all was the hand print. I'd like to see more about that.
But for sake of argument let's say that these prints are real. Exactly what does that mean? Although it might cause alot of evolutionists to have to revisit their theories, how would it help creationists at all?
The authors use the dating of rocks to place them well beyond Biblical ages. Either that means the Bible is STILL wrong, or the dating is incorrect, which at worse would open up the possibility of certain dinosaurs living in isolated pockets for longer than expected. This is not a problem for evolutionary theory.
This is not to bring up the problem that dinosaurs are not found in the Bible and especially not on the ark. Or the sorting issues in earlier beds.
Kind of you can't have your cake and eat it too on this one.
By the way, your Irreducible Complexity example was horrific, I am sure Behe (the author who came up with it) would be mighty disappointed. A liver is a complex organ, and you can't live without it right now... so? Did it have to form all at once as we find it today in humans? Could there have been no precursors?
Of course there could. The liver is NOT an irreducibly complex system.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by q3psycho, posted 02-03-2004 5:01 AM q3psycho has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 19 of 22 (82797)
02-03-2004 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by q3psycho
02-03-2004 5:01 AM


Heheheh... Something was bothering me about those photos so I went back and looked at them again.
Take a very close look at the "human foot" which is inside the dino print. Especially the close up where they identify the upper foot and the "toes". Do the mouse thing over them to see what they are outlining.
Notice anything strange? The foot is emerging from the rock, not depressed. Particularly the "toes" can be seen as raised surfaces.
This is not a cast (which is where you expect to see such a thing), it is the "fossil" itself!
Run through wet concrete and tell me if the ball and toes of your feet leave impressions or bulging hills.
Maybe the photos don't do them justice? All I know is the dinosaur prints appear to be an impression, and the human print mainly bulging up.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by q3psycho, posted 02-03-2004 5:01 AM q3psycho has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 22 (82870)
02-03-2004 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by hitchy
02-02-2004 3:43 PM


Re: creation theories!?!
Hitchy,
I don't agree that science cannot deal with spirituality. Why do you have the opinion that they must remain separate? Gould thought the question open enough to feel that a book was needed defending his contention that it was more practical if they were separated. (Rocks of Ages.) But, Dossey's reviews of science and spirituality, and various study groups on the subject, suggest that you might be wrong about this.
As to your prayer experiments, clearly, unless you take the reseach seriously, you won't get any results. Those who do, often report success.
Stephen
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by hitchy, posted 02-02-2004 3:43 PM hitchy has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 21 of 22 (82899)
02-03-2004 11:26 PM


Terminal topic drift
Due to bad topic drift, this topic is closed by request of the originator. It may be re-opened later.
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 22 of 22 (396407)
04-19-2007 9:36 PM


After a three year rest, this topic is reopened
It had suffered from extreme topic drift. Let's try to not let that happen again.
I suggest reading from message 1, and ignoring the off-topic stuff later on.
Remember, the topic title is "Evolution as Fact and Theory".
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024