Jump to content


Photo

A Questioning Teen Given The...


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
76 replies to this topic

#61 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 18 June 2010 - 06:15 AM

You were the one that put the idea that it was carved in my head. You didn't just put the fossil up, with a link and say "this is evidence, go and look for yourself"

You said "Some people say this is carved, but no-one has caught anyone doing it"

What is the name of the fossil site where it is found?

Shall I google for 'human and dinosaur footprint' and try and find it? This is your last chance to post me a link that you approve of before I do my own research.

The image comes is http://yecheadquarte...ges/print_2.jpg.

Should I look at the YEC headquarters for a neutral view?

#62 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 18 June 2010 - 06:31 AM

From Answers in Genesis:

We find human fossils in layers that most creationists consider post-Flood. Most of these were probably buried after the Flood and after the scattering of humans from Babel. So it is true that human and dinosaur fossils have yet to be found in the same layers, but does that mean that long-age believers are correct?


http://www.answersin...ossils-together

#63 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 June 2010 - 09:47 PM

You were the one that put the idea that it was carved in my head.  You didn't just put the fossil up, with a link and say "this is evidence, go and look for yourself"

You said "Some people say this is carved, but no-one has caught anyone doing it"

What is the name of the fossil site where it is found?

Shall I google for 'human and dinosaur footprint' and try and find it?  This is your last chance to post me a link that you approve of before I do my own research.

The image comes is http://yecheadquarte...ges/print_2.jpg.

Should I look at the YEC headquarters for a neutral view?

View Post


I guess you are not as well versed a evolutionists as I thought you were. Because anyone doing this for any length of time knows what those foot prints are, and how they were debunk. It was a very hot topic just about 2 years ago.

As far as my site goes, I never said it was neutral.

Also, I don't use AIG as reference 99.9% of the time. I find them bias in that they think all evidence, ideas, books, etc... Has to be preapproved by them or they will write an article to destroy it. So I don't put much trust into what they write. There seems to be a personal agenda there.

#64 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 18 June 2010 - 10:17 PM

And what about H*vind and Carl Baugh? I guess when you are a creationist, degrees do matter because what you believe does not support certain views. Because if degrees did not matter, the hoopla created about their degrees would not have mattered either. But the idea that they did not go to Harvard was driven into the ground and broke off. So if that is the way a creationist is going to be treated, that is also the way I will treat a evolutionist. If people cannot take what they dish out to others, not my problem.

But then again, Ben Stein has several degrees from schools like what is required by evos. What good did that do when he decided to go against evolution? So it's damned if you do, and damned if you don't if you dare challenge evolution.

View Post


You seem to be answering to something other than what I posted. I have made a case in multiple posts that the presence or absence of a degree is not what really counts in scientific research. It was the creationist to whom I made the reply who was trying to undermine the credibility of some individuals due to their lack of a degree, and it was to this that I responded. I actually took a rather neutral stance, unlike what he or she did, or the "tit for tat" argument you seem to be making here in apparent support of that claim.

My comments, edited only to correct the spelling of "pursue"...

And a contemporary, Abraham Lincoln didn't have a law degree.  How many of the notable men of that era actually obtained degrees in subjects they were able to pursue successfully? Lyell and Darwin had university training in the sciences they came to dominate that was about as good as anyone in that era. Lyell became a professor of geology.

But it is true that actually having university training in the sciences helps one to understand what they are either supporting or challenging. How many here have taken university geology or biology classes?


It is true that I make a case for actually learning about the subject one is either supporting or attacking. I see an apparent lack of much if any understanding about geology in some posts made on this board. This is most readily accomplished by taking some courses, but can be done by reading and researching. I mostly self-taught myself in this way about carbonate stratigraphy while doing my thesis as it became apparent that it would be a large element in my study. I held my own in grilling by professors during my thesis defense.

I didn't go to Harvard either, and certainly do not use such arguments against anyone on either side of the fence. The truth be known one of my best courses in geology and the best instructor I ever had in the subject was at a junior college.

Most of the work of a petroleum geologist involves training that was gained after starting work, and not from university classes. Rarely are the specifics of what we do covered in university courses. We usually learn the basics in university that provide a foundation to build upon. Some companies have formal class work in the specifics, others have you learn on the job and learning more through mentoring.

#65 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 18 June 2010 - 10:47 PM

Ikester, I have been thinking of another case where an important fossil has been accused of being faked.

The feathers of Archaeopteryx. Many times people have said they have been carved.

By full analysis of the fossil, this has been shown to be wrong.

There are obvious ways of telling whether something is carved. The thing that gets me is when evo's say "this is an ancient Olduvai flint tool made by our ancestors" and show what looks to me like a rock. They tell me that there is evidence they have been worked, and I accept that, but superficially it looks like a rock.

I will ask you again: has this sort of analysis been done on the example that you have provided?

Also, can you provide a link from your own side for me to investigate myself?

#66 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 19 June 2010 - 01:02 PM

Like this evidence here (out of place foot print):

Posted Image

Can you name the creationist who carved it?
Can you provide the witness who saw this?
Was their any court cases made against this creationist for defacing government property?

So we have an out of place foot print and a accusation that it was carved by a creationist. Yet not enough evidence to hold up in a court of law about said accusations.

We creationists have learned that evos do not debunk evidence against their theory scientifically. They just plant a few unprovable accusations out there and let the rumor mill take care of the rest.

View Post


That photo shows a footprint roughly 24 inches long. The guinness record for largest human foot is about 18.5 inches.

http://library.think...38/bodypart.htm

Simply from the fact that that print is nearly 6 inches larger than the largest human foot we've ever discovered, I think it's safe to say the print is not a real human footprint.

#67 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 19 June 2010 - 06:14 PM

That photo shows a footprint roughly 24 inches long.  The guinness record for largest human foot is about 18.5 inches.

http://library.think...38/bodypart.htm

Simply from the fact that that print is nearly 6 inches larger than the largest human foot we've ever discovered, I think it's safe to say the print is not a real human footprint.

View Post


Perhaps the footprint was left by a giant like Goliath?

Goliath

#68 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 20 June 2010 - 06:40 AM

I'm still waiting for Ikester to provide me with a link and to detail the analysis that has been done on this fossil.

It would be better coming from Ikester so that he can provide the best evidence for this and I can read up on his side of the story.

Obviously, if he doesn't respond, it doesn't mean he hasn't got time and has other priorities than answering points to someone he will doesn't know, it proves that evolutionists are right and creationists are wrong.

#69 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 20 June 2010 - 07:32 PM

That photo shows a footprint roughly 24 inches long.  The guinness record for largest human foot is about 18.5 inches.

http://library.think...38/bodypart.htm

Simply from the fact that that print is nearly 6 inches larger than the largest human foot we've ever discovered, I think it's safe to say the print is not a real human footprint.

View Post


Yep, through announcement it's proven wrong. Very scientific. So who carved it?

#70 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 20 June 2010 - 07:34 PM

Perhaps the footprint was left by a giant like Goliath?

Goliath

View Post


Giants don't exist because giants do not "conform" to supporting evolution. Just like the foot print does not conform to supporting evolution.

#71 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 20 June 2010 - 08:13 PM

I'm still waiting for Ikester to provide me with a link and to detail the analysis that has been done on this fossil.

It would be better coming from Ikester so that he can provide the best evidence for this and I can read up on his side of the story.

Obviously, if he doesn't respond, it doesn't mean he hasn't got time and has other priorities than answering points to someone he will doesn't know, it proves that evolutionists are right and creationists are wrong.

View Post


Of course in the terms that you and your peers debunk everything that does not conform to evolution. When is the last time anyone took the word of a creationist over a evolutionist? Point made. Bias on who should get credit, and who should we listen to will always be bias.

Example: Dr Raymond Damadian made it possible for the MRI technology to work. The Nobel Prize organization passed him up because of his outspoken Christian-creation views. But gave his assistants the award.
http://creation.com/...-nobel-decision

Posted Image

Inventions, evidence, and the creationist are all treated the same. So what difference will any thing I say or do make?

#72 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 20 June 2010 - 11:08 PM

Ad hominem and you are switching and baiting.

I will ignore the attempt to disrail this thread and ask you again:

1. Provide a link from your own perspective for me to read.

2. Tell me what analysis has been done on the fossils. Archaeoptryx was considered a fraud many times without having a name of anyone who would have done it (but able to provide a reason why someone would. The analysis revealed it couldn't have been faked. What analysis has been done on this fossil?

#73 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 20 June 2010 - 11:55 PM

Ad hominem and you are switching and baiting.

I will ignore the attempt to disrail this thread and ask you again:

1. Provide a link from your own perspective for me to read.

2. Tell me what analysis has been done on the fossils.  Archaeoptryx was considered a fraud many times without having a name of anyone who would have done it (but able to provide a reason why someone would.  The analysis revealed it couldn't have been faked.  What analysis has been done on this fossil?

View Post


I have tried on my own to find discussion of this apparent Paluxy "fossil" and have failed to find any so far. I am disappointed that nothing has yet to be provided.

#74 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 22 June 2010 - 11:07 PM

Ad hominem and you are switching and baiting.

I will ignore the attempt to disrail this thread and ask you again:

1. Provide a link from your own perspective for me to read.

2. Tell me what analysis has been done on the fossils.  Archaeoptryx was considered a fraud many times without having a name of anyone who would have done it (but able to provide a reason why someone would.  The analysis revealed it couldn't have been faked.  What analysis has been done on this fossil?

View Post


What am I baiting you to do?

If I wanted to derail the thread I would have just closed it.

No analysis that is science worthy to mention. In fact it was ignored fr many years until it got in such bad shape it was easy to claim it was fake.

It's like these altered pics I got from evolutionist sites that were used to convince people it was fake.

Another original pic.

Posted Image

The altered pics from the one above.

Attached File  print.jpg   5.25KB   2 downloads

Posted Image

You can tell it's the same pic by seeing the string that goes through the dino print in each picture. Why alter the pics if the analysis proves they are fake? It's because the supposed analysis was more of an opinion than a test.

#75 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 22 June 2010 - 11:19 PM

That photo shows a footprint roughly 24 inches long.  The guinness record for largest human foot is about 18.5 inches.

http://library.think...38/bodypart.htm

Simply from the fact that that print is nearly 6 inches larger than the largest human foot we've ever discovered, I think it's safe to say the print is not a real human footprint.

View Post


Question: If someone were to go to all the trouble to carve this, would not it be more convincing to be of normal size than to make one that big?

Unless of course a evolutionist carved it and wanted to make creationists look dumb and like frauds at the same time. Because if you think about it, that maybe the reason no witnesses were ever found. And no charges for defacing government property were ever filed. Maybe it's because investigating to the point required by law would have brought out the truth. And it might have been very embarrassing to those who really frauded it. It's a possibility.

Because why else make the accusations and not follow through?
Why conduct a test based more on opinion than scientific fact?

Attached File  BBC_footprint.jpg   26.88KB   4 downloads

And why accept foot prints like the above that are no where near the quality of the others?
And why go to all the fuss to protect them from weathering while allowing the others to practically be destroyed by weather?

Because one set support evolution, while the other does not.

#76 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 23 June 2010 - 01:41 AM

Ikester, the comments about the scientist not getting the Nobel prize was a bait and switch tactic and off topic.

Okay, without any scientific analysis how can I make any comments on whether it is a valid fossil or not?

The Laeotoli fossils have been extensively analysed and shown definitively to be non-fraudulent.

Therefore, from a sceptics point of view, I will accept the Laetoli footprints and use them as evidence but not use the others until better analysis comes in.

This is purely to do with the analysis of the fossils, not to do with their position in supporting or denying any particular viewpoint.

Of course, if yours are not faked it would be an easy job, even with much damge to see if there is evidence of tool marks that made them. Has anyone checked for that?

You aren't giving me much to go on here. A couple of photo's with no analysis is not great evidence and when the discovery is as earth shaking as that would be, the scientists would be swarming over it.

Geode mentioned Paluxy. I'll go and Google that and see what I find.

#77 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 23 June 2010 - 02:21 AM

Okay I did a google and typed in “Paluxy Answers in Genesis” so that I would not be contaminated by evolutionists views. I chose AIG becasue I always do when trying to find what the creationist position is. I was unaware of their position.

The Google link took me to the AIG ‘Arguments creationists shouldn’t use” page, not a great start. I did a IE find for ‘Paluxy’ and there was this link.

http://www.icr.org/a...-river-mystery/

You may read the whole detail yourself, of course, but here is their conclusions:

Even though it would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution, in the light of these questions, there is still much that is not known about the tracks and continued research is in order. We stand committed to truth, and will gladly modify or abandon our previous interpretation of the Paluxy data as the facts dictate.


Very similar to mine:

The Laeotoli fossils have been extensively analysed and shown definitively to be non-fraudulent.

Therefore, from a sceptics point of view, I will accept the Laetoli footprints and use them as evidence but not use the others until better analysis comes in.

This is purely to do with the analysis of the fossils, not to do with their position in supporting or denying any particular viewpoint.


You can see that I have been fair in my examination. I have used my own point of view when comparing the photo with a real footprint. I have asked continually for you to provide me details for me to examine from your own point of view so that I can examine things from your perspective. You have not done so. Even when getting the name of the fossils from a passing remark by Geode I didn’t rush off to Talk.Origins (though I’m sure they will be mentioned there :rolleyes: ) but went to a well known Creationist source.

If even Creationists doubt this, then there is no way we are going to accept that evolution is false based on these.

Now, would you like to look into the analysis of the Laetoli footprints?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users