What a load of tripe Ron. You've made this claim before and each time I've turned around and delivered what you've asked for. Strangely afterward you tend to fall silent. Have you just not been back to these forums and only assume I'm being dishonest? Perhaps you stopped dealing with me a little prematurely?
Since it's so important to you, here you are again. Evidence supporting my statement that specialists have inspected these footprints and pronounced them fraudulent.
National Center for Science Education - Paluxy Man
In future Ron, if you have any objections to my methods please take them up with me. I enjoy debating you and I'd noticed you'd started talking to others on forums about me rather than to me, which I find unfortunate. Address your issues to me and we'll work on solving them. Being snarky wont help in the slightest.
Quote from site:
The only problem is that the footprints in Ingalls's photographs are highly stylized petroglyphs that even an untrained observer could scarcely mistake for real human footprints. Therefore I don't think anyone is being intellectually dishonest for suspecting that Ingalls' footprints were made with human hands instead of human feet.
Petroglyphs: (also called rock engravings) are images created by removing part of a rock surface by incising, pecking, carving, and abrading.
Among the prints that have been removed from this site are half a dozen detailed human-like footprints and two large "saber-tooth cat tracks." These are frequently mentioned in creationist works. However, upon later examination, they have all turned out to be probable or actual hoaxes.
Probable means they did not test them because they were not interested in any evidence that supports creation. You see this is one of the tactics evolutionists use on all evidence that does not support or conform to evolution. Place a little doubt, add a few rumors, and like a tabloid. The rest is already done. Lame.
Burdick's prints could easily have been carved, and those at Columbia Union College definitely were.
Could have easily been carved? Why don't they commit and say "they are carved"? It's because when you commit, especially in writing, it requires proof. No proof equals no commitment to accusations made. But doubt works just as good, right?
Burdick's prints have been cross-sectioned, and the results are ambiguous. John D. Morris claims that these cross sections prove that the prints are genuine. He reasons that, if the tracks were carvings, they would be scooped out and would slice across horizontal strata. He claims that the cross sections show that the lamentations of the rock follow the contours of the print.
ambiguous: having more than one possible meaning, equivocal: open to two or more interpretations.
Here again a lame attempt to debunk.
Both Morris and Neufeld admit that these prints were carved during the Great Depression. Neufeld says:
Local old-timers in the Paluxy River area tell that the tracks were both excavated and carved as a source of income during the Depression years. Both of these collections [the Burdick prints and the Columbia Union College prints] may well be carvings of that period.
And John D. Morris says:
Accusations have arisen from still another front. Skeptics have claimed that the prints are carvings, not real prints at all. Unfortunately, this charge has some basis; in fact, several enterprising Texans from Glen Rose did make their living during the Great Depression by digging out the best tracks and selling them. The going price ranged from ten dollars to twenty-five dollars, and the dinosaur tracks were much more in demand than the man tracks. Soon, however, the best tracks were gone, and a few men began to carve new tracks (especially dinosaur tracks) out of any limestone block available. As near as researchers can determine, however, only a very few "man tracks" were carvedÃ¢â‚¬â€probably less than six, certainly less than ten. These were all giant tracks, ranging from sixteen to twenty inches in length, and showed all features of the foot. These counterfeit tracks do not, of course, disprove the genuine tracks. In fact, it could only have been the existence of genuine tracks that made the manufacture of counterfeits profitable.
Counterfeits do not disprove genuine track. You see the same tactic here as used with the Ica stones. Find a few fakes,and try to make them all fake. Very lame.
The rest of the page goes on with the same. You see the pattern to debunking creation evidence goes like this.
If it's a find that no one has ever seen, it's always a basking shark.
If it's a clear defined foot print, or a rock carving (Ica stones etc...). Find a couple of counterfeits and say claim that the counterfeits make "all" foot prints fake. Even any genuine ones.
Always use the creationist quotes against said evidence, and only a few for the evidence. But only agree with the ones against, and discredit anything for it by making it sound lame, or the person making the quote stupid in some fashion just because they are creationists.
These techniques you will find in "every" creation evidence debunk. Opinions, rumors, hearsay, etc... When people will not go on record with their names (the ones who supposedly said they were carved during the depression), in a court of law. The quotes are considered hearsay.
I also notice no direct word debunks. It is only implied that they are fake. Why? Committed to such a claim requires evidence of such things. And in this case, an accused carving would require a witness, and the actual carver. And the carver would have to admit to carving every human print found at the Paluxy site. Well, can such things be provided? Of course not. So here again, even with all the names of schools and educated people, we are back to square one because evidence to the accusations cannot be provided.
If I had a million dollars to put up, and I wish I did, does any evolutionist here think they can prove those prints frauds by producing witnesses, and first hand testimonies to prove all the accusations about the prints in a court of law? If the debunk were so good in all the things required to do such a thing. The evidence would have already been provided. And implying things are fake would turn into making "firm" accusations instead weak ones.
This debunk is no better than any that I have seen before. It's the evolutionists lame attempt to make weak case against such things look strong. That is why when it's put into words, and it represent a certain organization. The words become weak accusations because strong accusations have to have strong evidence to back it up. But weak accusations = weak evidence to debunk. And that pretty much sums it up.
There was no new evidence here than what has been around for years since the foot prints were found. Same accusations, and no witnesses. Same weak claims against prints because no strong evidence against exists. Same hearsay, same rumors. It's lame. Is this the best science can do to debunk this?