W:>>However, I don't know where it says that evolutionists argue that this track represents the latter, can you enlighten me please ?>>
Well KUBAN should have enlightened you, but the stupid idea would have made the evolutionists look silly so he probably was too embarassed to mention it. That idea, approved by Burroughs and Gilmore (both ev's) was contained in the same article GK cites by Ingalls (Albert, not Robert, as GK said) in Jan. 1940 Scientific American.
Contrary to your opinion, the images from the Ingalls article IN NO WAY resemble the photos made by Burroughs himself which were shown to Dr. Charles Gilmore of Smithsonian. And now Kuban KNOWS that and has known it for about 5 years now, since I have discussed with him the very vivid and complete photos of them I obtained from the museum and library at Berea College where Dr. Burroughs was a Professor of Geology. In fact I photographed the ORIGINAL copy of the Ingalls article which Burroughs himself kept in his collection. The same article Kuban used for the photos. The article says "...science rejects the attractive explanation that man made these mysterious prints in the mud of the Carboniferous Period with his feet. But he could have made them with his hands and that is the explanation offered by the ethnologist David I. Bushnell of the Smithsonian Institute. He states that every one of them which he has seen was unquestionably a carving made by the Indians." At the bottom of the page, Dr. Burroughs, who spent probably hundreds if not thousands of man-hours himself studying them, wrote "This man Bushnell NEVER examined the Ky. fossil tracks and did NOT visit these tracks. Signed: W. G Burroughs." Regardless of what Bushnell wrote, the correspondence between Gilmore and Burroughs (which I have) clearly indicates that neither of them saw the tracks as being carved. Indeed, one document I have is a statement signed by 5 witnesses saying they attest that one track which was not present at first became visible after the top part of Pottsville (Carboniferous) sandstone had worn away, to expose some toes. They also attest to two tracks which are partially covered by Pottsville sandstone. I have a vivid photo of one of these which has the heel mark revealed and the front half of the foot is still covered by stone. How would THAT be explained away???
>>You say it doesn't look carved, how do you tell this ? It does look similar to the undisputed Native American carvings pictured on Kuban's website don't you think ? Can you rule out that they weren't carved by them>>
Similar? Not to an expert. I spoke personally with the top expert in Ky Indian Rock Art and he told me the track in my profile is entirely UNlike ANY of the Indian carvings he knew of...and I believe he knew of EVERY ONE IN KY.
(Note: someone carved initials into the bottom of the track many years ago...decades). The main features are the sloped sides and uppush...plus the humanlike stride and exactly identical sizes of the 6 tracks. The likely labyrinthodont tracks within inches of them also argue strongly against any carving, since those would have been unknown by Indians. The only thing to cause someone to think "carved" is the "wrong age" and the devotion one has to evolution. There is NOTHING intrinsic to the tracks that suggests that...NOT AT ALL.
>>or they found some bona fide tracks but enhanced them to look more human ?>>
The last refuge of a desperate man (Kuban). But, I am not surprised at all that you would lap up whatever Kuban slopped onto your plate. When confronted with clear evidence of compression features under other human tracks, that was his pathetic proffer. Unfortunately for him, even the TOES also had compression features and laminations which curved over and down the sides of the toe impressions. Those tracks were from Texas and could be cross-sectioned (like the cat track I showed), but the KY tracks cannot be.
>>So sorry, I will have to draw your ire and say that I don't find them at all convincing as evidence of human presence in the Carboniferous.>>
Not ire, but perhaps disgust! SUCH an INQUISITIVE mind you have, Wibble! How long did that take you to toss out this good evidence that to a fair and unbiased mind would falsify your pet theory?....10 minutes? FIVE? Am I REALLY supposed to believe you would EVER be receptive to any evidence that falsifies evolution? SERIOUSLY?
>>Regarding human fossils generally (which includes footprints) it's interesting that the major creationist organisations, which once trumpeted such finds, are no longer convinced by them>>
I guess back in the 80's or so, it became too dangerous to them to include the Paluxy tracks or OOPF's in their argumentation, since I guess they got burned a few times. Safer route is to dismiss them all without looking at them very closely. Everyone has their own "baby" they want to promote over someone else's "baby." Politics happens within the YEC's as well as among AE ev's. Of course all this good evidence is poo-pooed by the SO SCIENTIFIC evolutionists who ONLY want to search for TRUTH.
As for Dr. Snelling, I don't know when the quote was made or if he would still say it. (LATER EDIT: I found it was from 1991). However, he saw the KY tracks I photo'd and words he used to me were they were "potentially human footprints" "look realistic" and "certainly look human-like" and "certainly look convincing." I want to be clear that he has not given his settled opinion whether they are or are not human footprints. Sadly, the cost of being wrong about something can be very costly to delicate and valuable reputations, so there are few who are in the "higher up" positions in the YEC community who would stick their necks out about something like this, even IF it has the potential by itself to crush evolution. I guess some of the down and dirty work has to be done by us mere "laymen" who have no reputations to worry about!