Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2019 7:57 AM
26 online now:
Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), vimesey (3 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,247 Year: 5,284/19,786 Month: 1,406/873 Week: 302/460 Day: 2/52 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345678Next
Author Topic:   Humans walked with dinosaurs
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 31 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 1 of 108 (282151)
01-28-2006 1:11 PM


While watching a Christian station, it was professed that evidence was found towards proving that humans and dinosaurs walked together.

Here are 2 links where the info can be read:
http://www.creationevidence.org/

The Museum's team, led by its Founder and Director, Carl Baugh, Ph.D., has excavated eleven dinosaurs (Acrocanthosaurus, Stegosaurus, Allosaurus, etc.), 475 dinosaur tracks, 86 human footprints, 7 cat prints, and other fossil remains - all in Cretaceous limestone. Excavations were professionally documented along the Paluxy River and various other international locations.

Among museums this entity makes a unique contribution, demonstrating that man and dinosaur lived contemporaneously.

and:
http://www.unmuseum.org/palx.htm

So, not being a scientist, I am guessing that if it is true, then that would upset the entire TOE.

My question is, how valid are these evidences?


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 01-28-2006 1:22 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2006 1:27 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 01-28-2006 2:01 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 01-28-2006 2:21 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 01-28-2006 3:24 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 9 by ramoss, posted 01-29-2006 1:26 PM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 28 by Gary, posted 02-11-2006 12:21 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 108 (282155)
01-28-2006 1:20 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6532
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 3 of 108 (282156)
01-28-2006 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by riVeRraT
01-28-2006 1:11 PM


quote:
...then that would upset the entire TOE.

Why would that be?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by riVeRraT, posted 01-28-2006 1:11 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 108 (282157)
01-28-2006 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by riVeRraT
01-28-2006 1:11 PM


My question is, how valid are these evidences?

Absolutely not valid. The only human footprints at the Paluxy river valley are the bootprints of Baugh and his guys looking for "evidence" to bilk the gullible. Even Answers in Genesis won't corraborate these "Paluxy footprints", and they'll go for just about anything.

For example, one of the "footprints" that Baugh found is a roughly-oblonged-shaped depression over 20 inches from "toe" to "heel" - and actually has neither of the concave depressions you would expect from the ball and heel of a normal foot. You'd have to be 7 feet tall to have a size-20 foot; somebody that tall who had nether heel nor arch simply couldn't stand.

Baugh has a legitimate dinosaur footprint alongside a depression that he himself admits chipping out to make it look more like a footprint. Is that the kind of evidence you believe could overturn the most successful theory in biology, the one that's letting thousands of scientists nationwide get on with real work?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by riVeRraT, posted 01-28-2006 1:11 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 5 of 108 (282171)
01-28-2006 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by riVeRraT
01-28-2006 1:11 PM


Upsetting the ToE
As asked above, why would it upset the ToE anyway?

There are two possibilities if the footprints are true:

1) Dinosaurs survived to much nearer modern times than thought.

This doesn't have any influence on the ToE. Things don't HAVE to go extinct. However, with weak evidence like not very good samples (to be charitable) of footprints we'd have to think about how likely they are good evidence. To do this we'd have to explain a LOT of other facts. E.g., we haven't found any trace of dinosaur remains at layers higher than the KT boundary.

2) Humans lived a long time back when we know the dinosaurs were around.

This would be a BIG problem of evolutionary biology. There are no atecedents to humans in the record. It would be very hard to explain how they arose over 65 Myr ago from apparently nothing.

This is, however, only a problem if everything else is the same (dating etc.).

Since there are lots of reasons to think that neither of the above are true and only this flimsy (even, as noted, some creationists don't accept it) "evidence" to say one might be true. I think we can put this aside until better evidence is produced.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by riVeRraT, posted 01-28-2006 1:11 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5381
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 6 of 108 (282177)
01-28-2006 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by riVeRraT
01-28-2006 1:11 PM


Carl Baugh, Ph.D

PhDs from California Graduate School of Theology in Los Angeles, Pacific College of Graduate Studies in Melbourne, Australia, and the College of Advanced Education in Irving, Texas, depending on when he was asked. None are accredited, and Baugh himself founded the third one. The man's a carnival barker besides having fake footprints.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by riVeRraT, posted 01-28-2006 1:11 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 7 of 108 (282185)
01-28-2006 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by riVeRraT
01-28-2006 1:11 PM


i'm not normally one to post bare links, but this has been covered and hased out repeatedly, and anything i could say has already been said here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by riVeRraT, posted 01-28-2006 1:11 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2006 10:22 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 8 of 108 (282261)
01-28-2006 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by arachnophilia
01-28-2006 3:24 PM


The rest of the evidence, eh?
For me, the evidence discussed in this article

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html

is more than sufficient to totally discredit the Paluxy claims in their entirety:

That dinosaurs were capable of making elongated impressions by impressing their metatarsi into the sediment was confirmed by my documentation in 1982 and 1983 of another Paluxy site, bordering the Alfred West property, about a mile south of Dinosaur Valley State Park. On the West Site are many typical tridactyl tracks, and several trails composed primarily of elongated dinosaur tracks. Some of the trails with elongated tracks also contain some non-elongated and partially elongated dinosaur tracks, apparently indicating that the dinosaur would sometimes alter the extent to which it impressed its metatarsi into the sediment. The clarity of the individual tracks also varied greatly, especially in the region of the digits. Many of the elongated tracks showed three distinct dinosaurian digits, as well as a posterior extension with rounded "heel."

That the "elongated" tracks match the Paluxy tracks in size and shape, and neighborhood and time period, means that there is an explanation for the tracks that does not require the hypothesis that strange large footed human like creatures were responsible - creatures for which there is absolutely no evidence of any kind.

We can see obviously dinosaur tracks becoming "paluxy" type tracks and back to dinosaur type tracks in several different trails, and thus no other explanation (than that the makers were dinosaurs) is necessary to explain the Paluxy tracks.

To then conclude that the makers must be "human" (while ignoring the lack of any other evidence of even vaguely humanoid (large) footed creatures - whether dinosaur or mammal or whatever - occupying that area and time is a logically unfounded conclusion of the worst kind.

To continue to espouse such a position in order to make money (through the "museum") after this has been refuted by the evidence above, is clearly self-serving hucksterism of a pernicious if not malicious kind.

Enjoy

corrected "non-elongated" to "elongated" above.

This message has been edited by RAZD, 01*29*2006 09:29 PM


www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1157&m=1>Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 01-28-2006 3:24 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 9 of 108 (282315)
01-29-2006 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by riVeRraT
01-28-2006 1:11 PM


It would upset our understanding of human evolution.

However, there are not problems there. The 'paulxy river' footprints are not human footprints at all. they are mostly a different kind of dinosaur (and not even going in the proper direction, and some are modern forgies. The "Creation Evidence Museusm" is run by a Carl Baugh, who has made many outragous and fraudulant claims, inclding
have a 'fossilzed' human finger, and all sorts of nonsense.

The personw who runs the museum , although he claims to have a PHD, is a Baptist minister who went to an non-accreditied university.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by riVeRraT, posted 01-28-2006 1:11 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 01-29-2006 7:36 PM ramoss has not yet responded
 Message 11 by riVeRraT, posted 01-29-2006 9:17 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 10 of 108 (282377)
01-29-2006 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by ramoss
01-29-2006 1:26 PM


metatarsi
However, there are not problems there. The 'paulxy river' footprints are not human footprints at all. they are mostly a different kind of dinosaur

mostly the same kind of dinosaur, actually. bipedal dinosaurs in this area seemed to have walked flat-footed across soft terrain. we humans are one of the few animals that walk on our feet. most walk on their toes, and heel looks like an extra joint in the leg.

quote:

Figure 1. Variations of Bipedal Dinosaur Tracks

A. Bipedal dinosaur in digitigrade stance
B. Typical bipedal dinosaur track
C. Bipedal dinosaur track with partial metatarsal impression
D. Bipedal dinosaur in plantigrade stance
E. Elongated dinosaur track with full metatarsal impression
F. Elongated dinosaur track with digit marks obscurred by mud back-flow
G. Elongated dinosaur track with indistinct digits. May be the result of a firm substrate, erosion, secondary infilling, or a combination of factors. Note resemblance to a human footprint.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsfig1.html



אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ramoss, posted 01-29-2006 1:26 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 31 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 11 of 108 (282398)
01-29-2006 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by ramoss
01-29-2006 1:26 PM


Thats funny because the guy on the Christian channel said that a woman took off her shoes and placed her foot in it, and it fit better than her shoes.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ramoss, posted 01-29-2006 1:26 PM ramoss has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-29-2006 10:09 PM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 01-29-2006 11:18 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2039 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 12 of 108 (282408)
01-29-2006 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by riVeRraT
01-29-2006 9:17 PM


that's very telling of women's shoes, but not very telling of dinosaur footprints.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by riVeRraT, posted 01-29-2006 9:17 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by riVeRraT, posted 01-29-2006 11:00 PM macaroniandcheese has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 31 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 13 of 108 (282438)
01-29-2006 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by macaroniandcheese
01-29-2006 10:09 PM


Just to be clear, I suspect it is fake, as this would be the only evidence?

I am starting to really hate mixing science with religion, and creation science in general. It's no better than some of the claims made by regular science, and worse in most cases.

But I see nothing wrong with searching for evidence of a creator. I think we all do that anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-29-2006 10:09 PM macaroniandcheese has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 14 of 108 (282443)
01-29-2006 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by riVeRraT
01-29-2006 9:17 PM


coincidence
Thats funny because the guy on the Christian channel said that a woman took off her shoes and placed her foot in it, and it fit better than her shoes.

most of the prints they talk about are 11.5 inches.

just to be clear about this, i'm a 6'3 male, and my feet are just under 11 inches.

most of the tracks they show look like this (borrowed wholesale from the site listed in big letters on the graphics):

you can also see at pages like this one and this one and this one and this one that the "human" footprint is not just inside the dinosaur track, but actually part of it. it's curious the number of dino tracks they've found that have a human footprint in exactly this formation, with the human part direct at the rear of the standard dino print. it looks a lot like a metatarsel imprint.

This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 01-29-2006 11:20 PM


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by riVeRraT, posted 01-29-2006 9:17 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3010 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 15 of 108 (282448)
01-30-2006 12:00 AM


anybody got a link besides TalkOrigins
My experience has been TalkOrigins is less than credible. Anyone have a link besides TalkOrigins.

Mind you, I have no stance on the data yet at all, but would like to see something from a credible site discounting this.


Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Asgara, posted 01-30-2006 12:11 AM randman has responded
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 01-30-2006 12:59 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 20 by ramoss, posted 01-30-2006 11:46 AM randman has responded
 Message 49 by anglagard, posted 03-18-2006 8:51 PM randman has responded

  
1
2345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019