Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Best evidence for Creation
Junior Member (Idle past 5823 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 08-02-2008

Message 86 of 176 (477438)
08-02-2008 8:12 AM

As entertaining as the philosophical debate has been... I would like to point out that the one bit of actual "evidence" presented as of yet (which, if it was true would only be evidence against evolution, not FOR creation... but details ) has been laregly ignored. Probably for good reason... but still, given that it's the only thing that might actaully qualify as evidence for or against anything, it at least deserves to be properly torn apart.
The orignal picture proviede is a bit fuzzy, so here's a link to a better one to begin with.
"Alvis Delk #fundie"
The first thing that I would like to point out about the prints is that when you look closely at them... they cut through the layers of strata that make up the rock. Genuine Fossil footprints rarely, if ever, do this. When a foot print is put down, it's done in soft earth, and whent that earth hardens and fossilizes, the strata it forms into follows the shape of the footprint.
Chedk for yourself. Go to google image search, take a nice hard look at any close view of a fossil footprint you can find. You will not be able to see any layering in the sides of the depression.
For example...
As deep as this example is... there is no cutting through layers of strata, the layers of strata follow the shape of the print.
Secondly. They're all wrong. The "Dinosaur" footprint looks like it was made by a childs toy. No deformation at all, and no evidence of the variations in pressure that a real foot would have. And the fact that it's so deep, yet there are no scuff marks in front or behind it... it just went straight in. Not a natural step.
The other prints worse. At least with the dino print he has an excuse, he can't comparre it to a living one. The toes are splayed unaturally, the big toe is suspicously deep compared to the rest. It once again looks to deliberate. No sign of heel to toe motion that you get in any human footprint that was not deliberately and carefully placed. There is no arch to speak of... it only looks superfically like a human footprint once you actually compare it to a real one.
Page not found – BellSouth Personal Web Pages
Personal opinion... it's an obvious hoax done by someone desperate for money to pay for his medical expenses.
Of course, mine is an untrained, amatuer opinion. So you can choose to ignore it if you wish. Of course, no-one who actually has had training has examined the thing yet to analyze it scientifically. And given it current resting place and owner, it may never get properly analyzed.
Until it does however. It fails to be anything other than a tourist attraction. Mildly amusing, but about as likely to be real as a Jackalope.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024