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.