Real Science Friday: Human & Dino Footprints are Real

[lightbringer]

I maintain that humans of the permo-triassic era had different anatomy, physiology and biochemistry. They still were more similar to modern humans than to any other species modern or ancient.

Anatomy and physiology...form and function?

What do you think was different about early humans as far as their anatomy is concerned? Are you implying that you believe in the Man from Ape theory, or do you believe man had his own evolutionary tree to climb as a separate and distinct species?

 

[Alencon]

Christianity isn't 'creationism' though, so do bear that in mind....

Really? Then why aren't "Christians" loudly denouncing "Creationists" and Creationism? From where I sit the silence is deafening.

If they were, we wouldn't be spending all that time fighting at school boards all around the country to keep that nonsense out of science classrooms. Funny how the pastors and their flocks always seem to be supporting the Creationists.

Or perhaps that's just my imagination. Note that I'm not talking about neutrality. A little active help would be nice.

 

[Dr.Watson]

If you think that's a real representation of what happened after reading the critique, Mr. claims to be geologist, you've just eliminated yourself from having any expertise at all.

He's done that many many times already. Stripe hasn't an ounce of credibility or intellectual integrity. He's a joke. And so are all of his YEC hero's and fans.

 

[Stripe]

Dr (or is it "Dr?") Don Patton sure has some odd credentials (or are they "credentials?")

Atheists love to point to the letters in front of a man's name instead of looking at the evidence.

 

[zoo22]

Atheists love to point to the letters in front of a man's name instead of looking at the evidence.

There's a difference between looking at the letters before a man's name and looking behind the legitimacy of a man's words. However, in this case the two overlap.

 

[Stripe]

Did you read that he said, he thought it was modified from the original? That the "toes" of the dinosaur show sandstone lenses that were carved through?

Sounds like you need to read your own source again. :chuckle:

Oh wait you're like every other creationist that selectively quotes and misrepresents their sources.

Er, it's your source, Alate. And it clearly says the dino track is legitimate.

Why do you think the dino track is not legitimate?

If you think that's a real representation of what happened after reading the critique, Mr. claims to be geologist, you've just eliminated yourself from having any expertise at all.

What does the critique say about the original formation? ANSWER: Nothing. You really need to go and have a nice lie down and think through of your position here. :chuckle:

He's done that many many times already. Stripe hasn't an ounce of credibility or intellectual integrity. He's a joke. And so are all of his YEC hero's and fans.

Do you know how a subsided and non-rechargeable aquifer could have formed yet, Watties? :chuckle:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Really? Then why aren't "Christians" loudly denouncing "Creationists" and Creationism? From where I sit the silence is deafening.

If they were, we wouldn't be spending all that time fighting at school boards all around the country to keep that nonsense out of science classrooms. Funny how the pastors and their flocks always seem to be supporting the Creationists.

Or perhaps that's just my imagination. Note that I'm not talking about neutrality. A little active help would be nice.

'Creationism' is a minority view held by Christians. It's only really the fervent fundamentalist position that espouses such nowadays albeit vocally.

I think it is your imagination to exaggerate so and it shouldn't represent Christianity itself as such. If you want vocal opposition then you've surely read Alate One's opposition to such? There's many other Christian's just here that oppose 'creationism' as valid science also whilst having faith so just something to think on...

:e4e:

 

[Dr.Watson]

Do you know how a subsided and non-rechargeable aquifer could have formed yet, Watties? :chuckle:

You're a joke.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sounds like you need to read your own source again. :chuckle:

Er, it's your source, Alate. And it clearly says the dino track is legitimate.

Why do you think the dino track is not legitimate?


What does the critique say about the original formation? ANSWER: Nothing. You really need to go and have a nice lie down and think through of your position here. :chuckle:



Do you know how a subsided and non-rechargeable aquifer could have formed yet, Watties? :chuckle:

Wow. The amount of times you've tried to patronize your way out of an argument by suggesting 'have a nice lie down and think' must be getting boring even for you by now I would have thought. lain:

I read through the whole critique, and only the most gullible would accept the original claim on face value beforehand....

:hammer:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Atheists love to point to the letters in front of a man's name instead of looking at the evidence.

And once again it was a Christian who took issue, and funnily enough regarding actual evidence against the mans 'credentials'. Irony seems to be lost on you Stripe.

lain:

 

[Alate_One]

Sounds like you need to read your own source again. :chuckle:

Er, it's your source, Alate. And it clearly says the dino track is legitimate.

This is a side issue either way. Here's what the guy thinks happened.

Returning to the "dinosuar" print, there is no compression folding of the sandy layers between the toes which is interesting. First, there must have been if this were a legitimate track. However, there appears to me to be evidence of removal of material from between the central and the medial "toe" as well as along the top edge of the "track." A legitimate dinosaur track was found and removed. Incompetent, unprofessional "Cleaning" damaged it. An parital overprint, or simple erosion depression was "improved" by adding "toes." The faked surfaces were smothed over with a simple kitchen concoction to make a "patina." Artifact fabricators next bury the fake for a year or two, or they smear it with fertilizer and leave it exposed. This helps weather the object and obscure tool marks.

The point is human foot is faker than fake and the whole thing has been heavily modified. You can even look back at the dino footprint images in the original post, they don't even match up. If you believe something like this that is so obviously fake, you're an idiot. But wait you've already demonstrated that many times over.

 

[Alate_One]

Really? Then why aren't "Christians" loudly denouncing "Creationists" and Creationism? From where I sit the silence is deafening.

If they were, we wouldn't be spending all that time fighting at school boards all around the country to keep that nonsense out of science classrooms. Funny how the pastors and their flocks always seem to be supporting the Creationists.

Or perhaps that's just my imagination. Note that I'm not talking about neutrality. A little active help would be nice.

Hello? Christian here . . . there are plenty of others here on ToL that spend time debunking this silliness too . . . Visit Biologos if you want to see Christians that are interested in scientific facts.

 

[Stripe]

This is a side issue either way. Here's what the guy thinks happened.

So, which is it now? Do you think the dino print is genuine or faked?

 

[Stripe]

Hello? Christian here . . . there are plenty of others here on ToL that spend time debunking this silliness too . . . Visit Biologos if you want to see Christians that are interested in scientific facts.

And read Romans or 2 Peter if you want to hear God's ideas on biologos. :vomit:

 

[Alate_One]

So, which is it now? Do you think the dino print is genuine or faked?

What is that you always say, something about wanting to discuss everything but the issue at hand? :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

What is that you always say, something about wanting to discuss everything but the issue at hand? :chuckle:

Is this thread not about the claimed discovery of Dino tracks with human tracks? :idunno:

Which is it, Alate? Do you think the dino tracks are faked or genuine?

 

[Alate_One]

Is this thread not about the claimed discovery of Dino tracks with human tracks? :idunno:

Which is it, Alate? Do you think the dino tracks are faked or genuine?

The point is, the human tracks are definitely faked, so it doesn't matter if the dino track that is next to the human one is real or modified or what. I think the dinosaur track doesn't look right. Whether that is due to modification, or total fakery, I'm not sure that is clear and it DOES NOT MATTER either way.

 

[Stripe]

The point is, the human tracks are definitely faked, so it doesn't matter if the dino track that is next to the human one is real or modified or what. I think the dinosaur track doesn't look right. Whether that is due to modification, or total fakery, I'm not sure that is clear and it DOES NOT MATTER either way.

I think it matters. If you've got a Dino track preserved in rock you'd better have a darn good explanation for it!

 

[Yazichestvo]

I think it matters. If you've got a Dino track preserved in rock you'd better have a darn good explanation for it!

What about evolution is at odds with dinosaurs leaving tracks? I think you're being a bit unclear.

 

[Stripe]

What about evolution is at odds with dinosaurs leaving tracks? I think you're being a bit unclear.

:squint:

What does this thread have to do with evolution? :idunno:

A dino walked in some mud. The tracks are still here today. How did that happen?