|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Human & dinosaur crossing trackways authenticated | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Since I last checked out the Paluxy finds (about 10 years ago!) the clearest human footprint has been sectioned, demonstrating that is was not a forgery. The solid rock is compressed under the footprint but not on either side.
Page not found | AwesomeWorks An Australian creationist contact of mine was present at the Paluxy site in the 1980s as new footprints were uncovered so I persoanlly know it was not a fraud anyway. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-02-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
TB, it appears that your confidence in the Paluxy tracks is not shared by one of your creationist sources - AIG. Whilst not rejecting them outright, AIG seems to be backing away from giving any credibility to them.
I must wonder at the standards you apply for credibility. Did your creationist contact have any expertise in geology or paleontology?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
I'm aware of that. But I came across the report on sectioning I posted above and it's for a print that is definitely human if it is not fake. My contact is an Australian archeologist (ie not a paleontologist).
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-02-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I'm no paleontologist, but I don't think it looks like a natural footprint at all. Not very convincing TB. I used to think that the prints were simply misidentified as human, but now it looks more like a hoax. How about some peer-reviewed literature on this?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ I kind of agree. However, the post I linked to (or maybe somewhere else I was reading) says that you get imprints like that in stiff mud.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi TB,
I'm sorry to report (not really) that all that website you linked to is doing is rehashing two very old and well-refuted claims: that Taylor +6 and the "Burdick mantrack" are authentic. The +6 print, for example, was one of the ones trumpeted in Morris's book - and was thoroughly debunked as erroneous 20 years ago (see Taylor trackway). The Burdick print that the article you referenced makes such extraordinary noise about has been shown conclusively to be an actual forgery. See this article for a detailed dissection of the Burdick claims. In short, there is nothing "new" about the article you referenced, except the fact that it is a "new" recap of old claims. Once again creationists are making themselves look incredibly foolish. You'd think that they would try to come up with something really new once in a while.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
David unfamous Inactive Member |
I have looked at some other PDF pages from that book 'Unlocking Creation', or whatever it's called. I presume it's a creationist book for parents wishing to 'educate' their children.
I find it quite unbelievable the way it dedicates no more than a 2-page spread consisting of large type and large pictures to dismiss so many topics one-by-one, and in such an immature and ill-informed way. Is this really the source material you rely on TB? [This message has been edited by David unfamous, 12-03-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Davies Inactive Member |
My personal favorites are the "proofs" they offer for creationism.
I certainly hope they are showing actual pictures god took when she made the cosmos. If not, then who'll tell these "scientists" the simple rule that there's no such thing as "proof" in science. That's saved for math and with pictures.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
It was only 'new' to me. I'll check out your links.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
If you really follow my posts you should know that most of my material is mainstream geology, paleontology and molecular biology texts and peer reviewed papers.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-03-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
wehappyfew Inactive Member |
quote: So what's the verdict? Authentic or fraudulent?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From Informations about an image of a footprint:
quote: 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. 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Footprint Junior Member (Idle past 6235 days) Posts: 14 Joined: |
I'm the author of the thread "Informations about an image of a footprint".
- "the size of the "human" footprint is huge";- "there are five (5) dino prints (spaced ~10 feet apart in a line) but only one (1) "human" print" Yes, it is true. "the bottom of the "human" print is pretty uniform".Honestly I don't think we can see a lot of the bottom of the print in this image. Infact, I'd like to found some others images of the same print, if they exists, in order to see the track from a different angle and to understand better its shape.Did you see this print with your eyes, when you went to paluxy river?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Footprint Junior Member (Idle past 6235 days) Posts: 14 Joined: |
Excuse me for my english...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Did you see this print with your eyes, when you went to paluxy river? 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?
(If you don't know, the dino print should have three toes forward similar to a birds foot and extending some ways beyond what you see in the picture. In addition there are prints where the metatarsal (portion of leg just above the foot) is also imprinted - think of a bird leg with the lower portion laid flat behind the foot.) (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. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024