See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: DINOSAUR and HUMAN FOOTPRINTS TOGETHER
Source:
POKERFACE E MAIL
URL Source: http://184.154.224.5/~creatio1/inde ... tent&task=view&id=48&Itemid=24
Published: Oct 14, 2011
Author: Paul and Poker Face
Post Date: 2011-10-14 06:12:12 by HOUNDDAWG
Keywords: None
Views: 1258
Comments: 66
Introduction: In early July, 2000 Alvis Delk, assisted by James Bishop (both of Stephenville, Texas), was working in the Cretaceous limestone on the McFall property at the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas and discovered a pristine human footprint intruded by a dinosaur footprint. This discovery was made in the vicinity of McFall I and II Sites where the Creation Evidence Museum team has excavated since the Spring of 1982. The eleven-inch human footprint matches seven other such footprints of the same dimensions in the “Sir George Series,” named in honor of His Excellency Governor General Ratu Sir George Cacobau of Fiji.[2] Scientific Verification of Footprint Authenticity: The fossil was transported to a professional laboratory where 800 X-rays were performed in a CT Scan procedure. Laboratory technicians verified compression and distribution features clearly seen in both prints, human and dinosaur. This removes any possibility that the prints were carved or altered. Importance of Discovery: Professor James Stewart Monroe, writing in Journal of Geological Education candidly asserted that “Human footprints in geologically ancient strata would indeed call into doubt many conventional geological concepts.”[3] Professor David H. Milne of The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington and Professor Steven D. Schafersman of the Department of Geology, Rice University, Houston, Texas made further admissions in writing that “Such an occurrence, if verified, would seriously disrupt conventional interpretations of biological and geological history and would support the doctrines of creationism and catastrophism.”[4] Professor Steven M. Stanley in The New Evolutionary Timetable opined that “any topsy-turvy sequence of fossils would force us to rethink our theory…As Darwin recognized, a single geographic inconsistency would have nearly the same power of destruction.”[5]
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 29.
#1. To: HOUNDDAWG (#0)
More crap about Paluxy River at this late date?? The Paluxy River has genuine dinosaur prints ... but during the Depression, to try to turn the River into a tourist attraction, a great many of the dinosaur prints were "embellished" - usually by staining the rock to highlight the prints, and sometimes by deliberately carving human-like footprints for size comparison (also, some of the dinosaur prints, being partial such as if the dinosaur had been running, looked a tad like human prints but without toes - and some people added the toes by carving or by staining). This stuff was publicized back in the 1980s, when the Creationists were making waves. No real human prints at Paluxy.
Could you source this confident assertion please? I'd like to compare the facts and then apply Occam's razor. After all, fraud cannot simply be alleged but must be proven. Otherwise, it would not be unreasonable to surmise that those making such allegations are more desperate to further an agenda, and agenda that you obviously want to embrace. If history has taught us anything it's that those who dismiss anti-establishment revelations such as this with waves of their sickly, vaccine tainted paws should be viewed with skepticism. Surgeons who refused to accept the fact that microscopic bacteria on their hands were infecting and killing their patients were as certain of their positions as you seem to be. And they were wrong. If you have proof it will stand on its own merits. But, factoids such as "The Smithsonian says it's a fake" no longer constitute the last word. Their motto seems to be, "The scientific method is not a suicide pact."
What evidence is there that those are human prints?
What evidence is there that those are human prints? If you discovered those prints on your property how much time and money would you spend trying to discredit the obvious implications? That's not how it's done. If you or any other skeptic/critic wishes to challenge the evidence then it's up to you to provide evidence of tool marks and/or sandblasting or other evidence of fraud. If I know I committed no fraud then only a seriously deficient mind would suggest that I'm obligated to first accuse and then prove the case against myself. Your question suggests that all challenges to the dogma must be resolved prior to public exposure to insulate the Pollyannas among us from intellectual stimulation or controversy. In any case I apologize if my post overtaxed anyone's resources.
#38. To: HOUNDDAWG (#29)
(Edited)
The purported "human" prints at Paluxy look more like outlines of a foot -- though not always in normal human proportions -- and do not display the "squish" that would naturally occur from a human foot walking or running in sand or mud. Moreover, attempts to track the supposed human prints are usually futile -- as if the human somehow put one foot down in the middle of the riverbed and then FLEW away without putting down the other foot or taking a step; the "human" prints are isolated this way. The usual scientific explanation is that the "human" prints are actually partials of dinosaur prints -- that is, just the part of the dinosaur's foot if it were running or backing up or something -- and sometimes these isolated "human" prints line up with obvious dinosaur tracks so this is pretty indisputable.
I'd say that there are a few possibilities, but fraud is not the only one. 1) Fraud 2) It's possible it's not a human foot print but maybe a combination of 2 footprints that by sheer chance appears to be a single human/primate footprint. 3) Maybe it's not a footprint at all but a chance natural imprint from a log and maybe some stones? 4) Is it possible that the object could have been first fossilized with a dino print and then somehow resoftened through some unknown natural processs within the last several thousand years where it acquired the second print? This is certainly a stretch at best, but... *perhaps* not as much of a stretch to conclude humans lived with dinos. 5) Maybe the human print is real but the dino print was not from a dino, but from something much more recent, perhaps from some ceremonial object made by humans responsible for the print? Not all equally likely, of course but possibilities to be discounted nonetheless.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#10. To: Shoonra (#1)
No real human prints at Paluxy.
#26. To: HOUNDDAWG (#10)
Could you source this confident assertion please?
#29. To: FormerLurker, Pinguinite (#26)
Could you source this confident assertion please?
Replies to Comment # 29.
#39. To: HOUNDDAWG (#29)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 29.