Evolution as Fact and Theory

Just so you know, both the Institute for Creation Research and the Answers in Genesis folks have determined that the Paluxy prints are not evidence of creationism, because they're not human footprints.Most of them are actually obscured dinosaur tracks that, with proper cleaning, are readily identifiable as such. Some of them are simply depressions with no sign of an instep or arch, that only appear human with selective highlighting.Some of them have been visibly altered in a fraudulent attempt to make them look human. As a result the tracks have been repudiated by all but the most gullible/dishonest/misinformed creationists. You'd be wise to do the same, I think.Thanks to CC101: Paluxy River footprints[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-03-2004] Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

It doesn't look like a human foot to me. It doesn't look like a human foot to people who study footprints for a living. It doesn't look like a human footprint to the people who would have a vested interest in it being a human footprint, that is, creationists like ICR and AiG.I guess that's enough evidence for me to conclude that it's probably not a human footprint. What is it going to take to convince you? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.