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: 720
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 # 48.
#3. To: HOUNDDAWG (#0)
(Edited)
I just finished reading Origins, by Phillip Day. Among other things, the author uses math to prove that evolution is bunk. Paraphrasing his work, at a rate 1/10 of proven population expansion rate through written history, if humanity began 2 million years ago, the earth would now be populated by 18,932,139,737,991,000,000,000,000,000,000... people, give or take. Where are all these people, and where are all of the ancestral remains? Starting with two original ancestors, it would take 4,400 years to arrive at today's population, using historical population growth rates. Gotta love math. :)
DNA tests have shown that at one point human populations were reduced to near extinction. Who is to say it didn't happen more than once?
Nuclear wars tend to do that. And yes I think it entirely possible there as been more than one near extinction event. One of the more popular theories on the rise of agriculture, called the Hilly Flanks Theory, posits that the climate zone of the hilly shoulders of the mountains of the Middle East were ideal for the rise of agriculture. However, my own thought, is that they would also be the most survivable zone following a nuclear war. In a nutshell the Hilly Flanks theory of Robert Braidwood argues that the conditions on the hilly flanks of the mountains got sufficient rainfall and offered a more temperate climate than the regions around. Lower down it was hot and dry, thus requiring irrigation that had not yet been developed, and higher up it was too cold and too dry. My point is that in an environment following a nuclear war up high people would be exposed to more hard radiation in the atmosphere, and down low the accumulated radioactive runoff would make the valleys hot zones. It would be the hilly flanks that would be best flushed by rainfall and still have enough atmosphere above to shield from the combination of high ambient atmospheric radiation combined with solar and cosmic radiation. So, the hilly flanks would be the most survivable and likely produce the fewest dead end mutations. So, I would suggest that Braidwood was right, but for the wrong reasons. In a post nuclear war environment the hilly flanks would have the least hard radiation as spring runoff would carry a lot of it into the valleys and so by the flushing of the rain there would be less, not eliminated but less, radiation to contend with.
#53. To: abraxas (#48)
Ping. A discussion you might enjoy.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#42. To: Critter, Original_Intent (#3)
#48. To: farmfriend (#42)
DNA tests have shown that at one point human populations were reduced to near extinction. Who is to say it didn't happen more than once?
Replies to Comment # 48.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 48.