Actually, even if the fossil were not a fake, the enthusiasm of creationist Baugh is ill placed, as a dinosaur surviving into modern times is no problem for evolutionary theory.
What do our creationists think of this? Personally, I'd recommend caution, just from a few things about the appearance of the fossil. Also, because of one or two points in the article.
The guy who made the print might be related to Piltdown Man, IMO.
None of the other "footprints" from that area that some creationists have been promoting have been legitimate, so there is no reason to suspect that this new find is any different.
Even Answers in Genesis has advised creationists to avoid relying on those earlier footprints.
Is it just me or does it look like there is something wrong with where the toes join the pad of the foot? Also what is up with the huge big toe that looks like they were sticking it in the sand. It's almost as deep as the imprint of the dinosaur track.
Is it just me or does it look like there is something wrong with where the toes join the pad of the foot? Also what is up with the huge big toe that looks like they were sticking it in the sand. It's almost as deep as the imprint of the dinosaur track.
Yes, funny toes, certainly. I wonder how much the museum guy (Baugh?)paid for it, and whether it would be worth me taking up my hammer and chisel, and "finding" such a thing myself.
No-one seems impressed with the fossil so far. Any creationists with opinions?
Strange how they 'find' the odd 'human' footprint alongside a dino print, yet they never seem to find a dino print, or anything else for that matter, in a single ancient human settlement.
Strange how they 'find' the odd 'human' footprint alongside a dino print, yet they never seem to find a dino print, or anything else for that matter, in a single ancient human settlement.
The odds for that must be much shorter.
And I keep asking them where the bones are.
If the dinosaurs were extant until just before the flood, some 4,350 years, there should be bones all over. I regularly excavate Indian sites older than that, and find all manner of bones, from human down to rodent and fish. But no dinosaur bones.
Where are they all?
(Answer--65 million years earlier.)
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Very interesting, but the earlier accounts of human and dino tracks found together were proven to be either fakes or dinosaur tracks after all (mistaken for giant human tracks, ie Nephilim) and the association with Carl Baugh makes this find practically impossible to give it any credence. I have not looked at the track in full size view yet, so i will try to respond later again on it. If there was anything earthshattering about the track (not Likely), then it would be evidence that dinosaurs survived up until recent times. But I would say that this find is 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% likely to be bunk.
"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4
The human track looks like a cross between a modern human footprint and that of an australiopithecus (Pics of the famous hominid footprints of Africa found by the leakey's had a similar big toe formation as the above). I thought at first it was a baby's handprint until i looked a bit closer and found the heel. The end of the dino track looks a bit fake and deformed.
I would caution any creationist/believer about this pic; it does not seem legit. Be careful what you find on the net. A lot of hogwash.
Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given.
Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given.
"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4
™ Version 4.2
