Jump to content


Photo

Out Of Place Fossils Falsify Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
561 replies to this topic

#21 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 23 April 2016 - 10:14 PM

W:>>'Disgust' that I didn't immediately roll over and agree with you that these prints couldn't possibly be carved (or augmented bona fide tracks) in an area of known native Indian carvings !>>

 

No...disgusted that you would ignore the conclusions of a professor of Geology (Dr. W.G. Burroughs, who reported them) and the top paleontologist in the nation (Dr. Charles Gilmore of the Smithsonian...a track expert of 40 years) and the state geologist of KY (who visited the site and said they could not be carved), as well as Dr. Fred Coy (Indian rock art expert, who did regard them as "art" but said they were different than any carved tracks he knew of).  Also several witnesses signed a statement that they were at the site when one track appeared after a layer of surface sandstone had been worn away.  They also testified to "uproll" around the outer parts of the tracks.  Then about 35 years later, in the 1970's the team at Berea College made plaster and wax castings before vandals destroyed those tracks.  The uproll is seen in those but it is easier to detect in 3D by feeling. 

 

Attached File  testimonyDSC00814small.jpg   122.05KB   0 downloads

 

Attached File  CastSMALL.jpg   32.01KB   0 downloads

 

 

Attached File  Gilmore3SMALL.jpg   87.35KB   0 downloads

 

 

Uproll is also seen, I believe in this very rare image...a closeup of the damaged tracks, which shows one track the vandals seemed to have missed.

 

Attached File  COYuprollSMALL.jpg   24.6KB   0 downloads



#22 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 23 April 2016 - 10:17 PM

I had to reduce the size and quality of the photos due to the size limitations we have for our total number of photos posted here.  I have better resolution copies. 

 

If you hit Ctrl + in most browsers it will allow you to increase the size but it could be not great resolution.



#23 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 23 April 2016 - 10:49 PM

Quite partial to a bit of hyperbole aren't you. 'Disgust' that I didn't immediately roll over and agree with you that these prints couldn't possibly be carved (or augmented bona fide tracks) in an area of known native Indian carvings !...Yeah right. Your words are just excuses to save face. If these tracks had any authenticity the YEC propaganda machine would be all over it, and you know it. They're desperate for some find that would 'crush evolution'. Do you really think they would disregard such astounding evidence ?

 

Unfortunately. up to now, hardly anyone in the larger YEC "establishment" know about the KY tracks, other than by the ONE bogus article from 1940 with the chalk scrawlings which Kuban used as his primary representation for the KY tracks.  I believe those are not even from either of the two sites I have been showing photos of.  Burroughs was pretty ticked off about that article...saying that the one who declared them to be carved (Bushnell) had not even been to the site.  The Gilmore letter (above) refers to him.  So the YEC establishment did apparently feel "burned" by the Paluxy tracks (unjustifiably) and some other OOPF's such as some promoted by Dr. Carl Baugh, and so I have not been able to get Ken Ham or Andrew Snelling to agree to an effort to study them in the field.  Both have said they are very interesting (quite a few words to that effect) and they have referred me to another PhD in geology who has tentatively agreed to view the site when we both can fit it in.  We may have new photos in a couple of months.  Regardless, what I have is 20 times the material that Kuban has on his bogus site.  I believe, now that he has been exposed some on the Amazon site, he may take down his page, or edit it a lot. 


  • gilbo12345 and Calypsis4 like this

#24 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 23 April 2016 - 11:02 PM

Wibble...what do you have to say about the cat track...with the clear contouring beneath the surface (seen in cross-section) which follows the shape of the foot pad impressions?  If you appreciate evidence, you have to admit that argues strongly against a carving...RIGHT?



#25 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 24 April 2016 - 03:50 PM

W:>>As far as mudslinging have you seen what he said about his adversary in the out of place fossils thread - accusing him of smashing up footprints with an iron bar. No evidence of course, just anecdotes.>>

Speaking of evidence, where is YOURS for my supposedly accusing Kuban in this forum of smashing footprints with an iron bar?  Is that mudslinging when you do what you accuse ME of doing?



#26 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 24 April 2016 - 04:12 PM

W:>>As far as mudslinging have you seen what he said about his adversary in the out of place fossils thread - accusing him of smashing up footprints with an iron bar. No evidence of course, just anecdotes.>>

Speaking of evidence, where is YOURS for my supposedly accusing Kuban in this forum of smashing footprints with an iron bar?  Is that mudslinging when you do what you accuse ME of doing?


"Seems" according to a very unreliable source, Glen Kuban. He is the fellow who was so determined to "refute" the human tracks at Glen Rose that he and an associate were accused of bashing up the best of the tracks so he could claim the evidence of human shape was only imagined. He has refused to take a polygraph to show if he is being truthful to not have had anything to do with that. He was seen in the river with a long iron bar on the day the track was disfigured.


Looks pretty mudslingy to me



#27 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 24 April 2016 - 04:23 PM

When you said "in the out of place fossils thread" I went back to check and didn't see anything about Kuban from me here.  But yeah, it was in Ice Ages p. 22, but I was careful to not say he did it but that others accused him of that.  And if I looked closely at what others said, even that might need to be retracted.  I don't know for sure how carefully they parsed their words.  In fact someone close to the matter indicated it was more likely to have been done by GK's associate who they believe was in the river with him on the day in question...but I will agree I was leaving a strong impression that Kuban did it.  It is totally bogus to not see that there was some bashing someone did, and it sure wouldn't have been a YEC.  You can play naive about it if you want, I guess.



#28 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 24 April 2016 - 05:13 PM

OK.... went to the video.   Briefly:

 

Patton says Kuban was enraged when he heard of the tracks; got on a plane the next morning and flew to Texas; was in the river that afternoon with a "big iron bar;" the owner of the property told Patton that Kuban was out there; two days later, they examined the track and it had been "beat to a pulp."

 

There are a lot of questions with the story.....  

1)  How did Kuban know the exact spot in the river where the tracks were located if he allegedly heard of them only the day before? 

2)  Unless Kuban had been there before, how did the property owner know it was Kuban? 

3)  Why didn't the property owner confront the man in the river?  I know I would have. 

 

A few years ago, I had some dealings with Kuban as an offshoot of a discussion I was having with Indy.  The matter of this accusation came up.  Kuban says he was in a different part of the country and has the tickets to prove it.  My "sense" of the man based on reading some of his "paleo" website and personal (email) contact with him is that he would consider artifacts such as these to be beyond priceless and would never deface them.

 

I hope you'll understand I'd like to see something a bit stronger than "Patton said the owner said" before I'm convinced.

 

No.  But I don't think Kuban did either.

 

At this point, I'd have to give benefit of the doubt to the "defendant" who says he can document his location over the hearsay claim by Patton.

 

Then let's see him document his whereabouts on the day in question...(Aug. 2, 1989) the day after the creation conference in Dayton, TN.  Have him show you the tickets.  It is very possible he was pulling a fast one in his private conversation with you merely because Patton used "1992" by mistake instead of "1989" for the date.  I don't know where you got his assurance that he had plane tickets to prove something, but I just searched my file of the entire Jellison discussion(about J's review of Brown's book...a file I made before Jellison RUDELY deleted it...100 pages!... from the Amazon site) and the word "ticket" only appears when Kuban used the phrase, "Yeah, that's the ticket."  So where did he tell you he could prove with tickets, that he was not in the Dallas area?  He should provide the proof.  Patton wrote this to Kuban:

 

"Since you are in print on the next point, you are hardly in a position to object."

 

.Kuban has acknowledged flying to Dallas, Texas and being in the Paluxy River the next day.

 

I can't imagine Patton saying publicly that Kuban was "in print" if he could not back that up.  I can easily confirm where this "in print" statement is, by asking Patton.  Patton again:

 
He was seen in the river with an "iron bar."

 

This is Patton's followup supporting statement: 

Dorthy McFall was distressed when she saw you and Scott Faust in the river with an iron bar on Sunday afternoon. She called Dr. Baugh and told him what she saw and expressed her concern. Consequently, Dr. Baugh called on Monday and asked me if I could come down and go with him to see if we could tell if damage had been done to the tracks. I was not able to arrange my schedule to make the trip until Wednesday. The reason I returned to the river on Wednesday was the telephone call Dr. Baugh received on Sunday. What we saw confirmed Dorthy's fears. At least three tracks had been bashed. 

 

My understanding is that they used an aquarium that day (3 days after Kuban was seen in the river) to view the track which was underwater...and later when they had time to sandbag, the photo which Bonedigger showed was made. 

 

>>1)  How did Kuban know the exact spot in the river where the tracks were located if he allegedly heard of them only the day before?>>

 

He had been to the site, many times before the 1989 Dayton conference.  GK's site has the following:

 

I began my own field study of the Taylor Site in 1980, as part of an on-going and intensive study of all Paluxy sites alleged to contain human tracks. Although working largely independently, I have cooperated in my research with a number of other investigators, including Dr. Ronnie Hastings of Waxahachie, Texas, with whom I have worked closely during the past two years. After thoroughly exposing and cleaning the Taylor Site during a drought in the summer of 1980, my associate, Tim Bartholomew, and I took many measurements, photographs, and rubber casts of the alleged "man tracks."


>>2)  Unless Kuban had been there before, how did the property owner know it was Kuban?>>

 

My guess is that she knew him from having given him her permission before. 

3)  Why didn't the property owner confront the man in the river?  I know I would have.

 

She may have not wanted to on a Sunday...or she could have just wanted to stay out of a confrontation and let Baugh handle it. 

 

>>I hope you'll understand I'd like to see something a bit stronger than "Patton said the owner said" before I'm convinced.>>

 

How about a polygraph?  Patton took one and passed.  Patton has offered to pay for Kuban's and to pay the same amount also to Kuban if he passes.  That would be what YOU would do if you were innocent, right, Pi?  But instead Kuban just keeps up his tirade against Patton to try to discredit him.  It's shameful. 


  • gilbo12345, Calypsis4 and Bonedigger like this

#29 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 26 April 2016 - 04:21 PM

W>> mammals in Devonian strata>>

Here's a cat track in the Cretaceous...is that good enough?

attachicon.gifcat_track2.jpg

You can see that the track has multiple laminations which fold over the sides of each imprinted feature. This alone rules out carving. The track was cross-sectioned in many places and you can see compression features under each imprint, as shown by the curved green line.

attachicon.gifcat_track.jpg

The substrate is not questioned as being Austin Chalk limestone from the Cretaceous period.


Based on a couple of pictures I'm not really in a position to say whether this cat print could be genuine or carved. It does look suspiciously distinct I would say, as do many of the human prints you've posted. I've no idea if the laminations and compression features are what you say they are. There doesn't seem to be any information on it apart from the bible.ca site, and they're hardly likely to be impartial. Of course, you would argue that evolutionists wouldn't be either. Again though, if the major YEC organizations aren't impressed (or oddly, not even aware of them as you mention of some of the human prints) then why should it be compelling to me ?

Also, as you know, chalk forms in shallow seas. You have to wonder how a cat managed to leave footprints under 800 feet of water.

From wiki
Sea level rose for conditions to be right for the deposition of the Austin Chalk, which also coincides with the maximum extent of the Cretaceous Interior Seaway. The depths of the deposition of the Austin Chalk occurred in ~250m or 820 ft of water. The Austin Chalk formation is filled with micro-organisms known as coccoliths,



#30 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 26 April 2016 - 05:13 PM

W >> Also, as you know, chalk forms in shallow seas. You have to wonder how a cat managed to leave footprints under 800 feet of water.<

You believe big dinosaurs made tracks in limestone rock before it turned hard correct? Are you going to say that those dinosaurs were walking around eight hundred feet below the surface? Or are you going to agree with me that there were large flows of soft sediment that encroached into areas where some land animals were and they walked on them, and then the sediment quickly hardened before the very soft and fragile tracks could be eliminated by erosion? That is not so hard to believe is it?... especially when you know you must believe that for you to explain large dinosaur tracks made in limestone mud while it was still soft. And don't try to give me this baloney that they were walking along the seashore and then the tide went out so they could step into some soft limestone mud. That track would not last for more than maybe 12 hours when the next tide came in. So that means they had to be hardened like concrete in a very short amount of time. Why is it so hard to believe that a large cat could leave a track in the same kind of sediment that you believe dinosaurs and other small creatures were able to leave tracks? I'll tell you why. It's because if you agree to that then that is the end of your precious theory. Or at least it SHOULD be.

>> Again though, if the major YEC organizations aren't impressed (or oddly, not even aware of them as you mention of some of the human prints) then why should it be compelling to me ? <<

I suppose you could drag out that same reply for everything I might bring up to you to show you that evolution is falsified. You did not in any way address the compression features under the tracks. You think those just were accidental shapes? That's about all you can say, otherwise they are legitimate imprinted tracks of a large cat and that is a big No-No for evolution. There is no animal living during the time of the dinosaurs that makes tracks anything like that according to evolutionary theory. You are proving my point. And that is that your belief in evolution is unfalsifiable. Even if you found the skeleton of a large cat lying beside the skeleton of a dinosaur then you would still believe in evolution just as strongly. You would just adjust your theory ("Evolution evolves ") to say well we were wrong to think that mammals did not evolve until quite recently. They just evolved a little earlier than we thought but we still know that they did evolve and were not created. As I said your view is unfalsifiable and you know it.

#31 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 26 April 2016 - 07:28 PM

Based on a couple of pictures I'm not really in a position to say whether this cat print could be genuine or carved. It does look suspiciously distinct I would say, as do many of the human prints you've posted.  

 

 

 

 

Ha!  Yeah, they have to be SOMETHING...either "suspiciously TOO distinct" so they must be carved or else they are "too hard to make out at all" so they must be nothing but some random pattern caused by erosion.  There is NO "Goldilocks zone" where ANY track is "just right" for you.  You MUST find all out of place fossils and tracks to be flawed...because you MUST always protect and defend your precious theory.  To you, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" means that NO evidence is good enough to topple over your theory.  There IS NO SUCH THING as evidence that good...to YOU.

 

>>I've no idea if the laminations and compression features are what you say they are.>>

And you could care less.  If you never see that cat track again it would be TOO SOON for you!  Meanwhile you will continue to POSE as an objective evaluator of scientific evidence...supposedly willing to go wherever the truth is to be found.  Yeah RIGHT.

 

>>There doesn't seem to be any information on it apart from the bible.ca site, and they're hardly likely to be impartial.>>

I guess you figure that any very good YE evidence must be fabricated or hoaxed if it is shown to you by a YEC.  Where ELSE do you expect to see it?  An AE ev certainly won't be showing it to you!  That comment is a bogus reply and you know it.  You knew it as you typed it...which is revealed by what you typed in your next sentence!



#32 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 26 April 2016 - 08:49 PM

If you go to Kuban's own site, he acknowledges he was indeed in the Paluxy river just after the Dayton, TN conference.  Either Pi misunderstood him, or one of them is/was lying.  Here is what he wrote:

 

LINK

 

"Significantly, the "before" and "after" pictures of track -3B at the web site could not have been taken only a few days before and after the Dayton conference as the rumor suggests, because the entire Taylor Site was flooded with over a foot of water during that time..."

 

This is answered by the fact that Patton and Baugh agree, but they viewed the damaged tracks on Wed after Kuban was in the river on Sunday....and they used an aquarium to see them then.  LATER the photo (which Bonedigger showed here) was taken. 

 

Kuban continues:

 

"This is corroborated by photos by me and other workers as well as weather records. We were able to clean and view some of the tracks through the water, but none could be photographed in a dry state, and none of the Taylor site was dammed at that time. So, the photos could not have been taken when the rumor implies they were."

 

This is Kuban also agreeing that the tracks could indeed be seen through the water WHILE HE WAS THERE, which is what Patton and Baugh did.  Then LATER they got dry photos when it was possible to sandbag the river. 

 

This clearly proves "in writing" (as Patton said) that Kuban admits to being present in the river at the time in question.  Kuban does his usual tap dance and "majoring in minors" to quibble about his already having planned a trip and he was not going there only because of what Patton said at the conference.  SO WHAT???  He does not deny BEING there, as Pi said.  He denies that he damaged the tracks but that is not credible.  I think the truth is that they did damage them but they probably thought they were not removing any actual part of any TRACK.  Of course to them, only the part that looked dinosaurian was actual track evidence. To them, the putative human part was just stuff that had infilled the dino tracks.  Removing that was of no concern to them.  According to Patton, the human parts were actually RAISED...sticking up above the level of the bottom of the dino track.  They were slightly harder than the stuff that infilled the dino track after the human stepped in it so that part was eroded away while the harder human part was preserved.  So that part could well have been regarded by Kuban as not part of any track at all.  I don't think that clears him of gross negligence, but it might mean his intentions were good in his mind.



#33 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 27 April 2016 - 04:02 PM

W >> Also, as you know, chalk forms in shallow seas. You have to wonder how a cat managed to leave footprints under 800 feet of water.<

You believe big dinosaurs made tracks in limestone rock before it turned hard correct? Are you going to say that those dinosaurs were walking around eight hundred feet below the surface?


Yes, there are dinosaur tracks in limestone rock. However, you have said the cat paw print is in chalk rock. To remind you, chalk is a particular type of limestone that is formed primarily from the remains of coccolithophore algal cells and is particularly untainted by land borne sediments as they were formed far from land. Other limestones can be formed from a variety of sources (shells, coral, precipitate etc.) and are usually contaminated by other sediment types like clay.

I'm not aware of any acknowledged, authenticated footprints from any chalk formation, are you ?
 

>> Again though, if the major YEC organizations aren't impressed (or oddly, not even aware of them as you mention of some of the human prints) then why should it be compelling to me ? <<

I suppose you could drag out that same reply for everything I might bring up to you to show you that evolution is falsified. You did not in any way address the compression features under the tracks.


How do you know they are compression features ? Who is the expert that authenticated them as such ? Where was the fossil found ? Who dug it out of the surrounding rock ? Where are the photos of it in its original context in the location it was discovered ? At the moment its just a photo on the internet. I've also seen photos of Nessie, Sasquatch and UFOs on the internet.
 

Even if you found the skeleton of a large cat lying beside the skeleton of a dinosaur then you would still believe in evolution just as strongly.


That would be far more impressive and much less easy to fake. Why are you able to find all these supposed prints but no in situ fossilised bones ? (Malachite man has been pretty thoroughly debunked)
 

As I said your view is unfalsifiable and you know it.


Incorrect. I absolutely know that it is falsifiable. Is YEC falsifiable ?
 
 

>>I've no idea if the laminations and compression features are what you say they are.>>

And you could care less.  If you never see that cat track again it would be TOO SOON for you!  Meanwhile you will continue to POSE as an objective evaluator of scientific evidence...supposedly willing to go wherever the truth is to be found.


You have merely shown me a picture purporting to be an Austin Chalk fossil. No supporting framework for the find. Why should I just accept what you assert are compression features ? Who is the acknowledged expert who said they were ?

 

>>There doesn't seem to be any information on it apart from the bible.ca site, and they're hardly likely to be impartial.>>

I guess you figure that any very good YE evidence must be fabricated or hoaxed if it is shown to you by a YEC.  Where ELSE do you expect to see it?  An AE ev certainly won't be showing it to you!


What do you think would happen if this was found by an 'evolutionist'. Would they hide it ? Destroy it ? Do you think there's some dark evolutionist council that vets every find and only releases ones to the public eye that fit the mainstream view ? Yeah you probably do don't you.



#34 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 28 April 2016 - 05:40 AM

 

 

Wibble: Of course, you would argue that evolutionists wouldn't be either. Again though, if the major YEC organizations aren't impressed (or oddly, not even aware of them as you mention of some of the human prints) then why should it be compelling to me ?

 

This coming from a man who said that all I ever do is use a major YEc organisation when citing evidence.

 

So which is it? Do you want me to provide evidence from an obscure, uncorroborated source or from a major YEC organisation, since those are usually the only two options? :gotcha:

 

Your argument doesn't hold water anyway. The veracity of a claim doesn't depend on a major organisation okaying it. The reasons CMI don't want to get involved in specific claims is they worry about the possibility of backing a horse that won't come in.

 

Humans missing from the record is not a big deal like you imply, when we consider all of the transitional species that are missing. (millions) It is at least conceivable that the more intelligent creatures were not preserved for escaping but I have told you many times before there are also many other factors. Largely fossil relics are found from boreholes and outcrops, meaning the uninvestigated portions of the fossils and the obliterated portions and things that happened to not be fossilized, might hide one species or even several, but it wouldn't hide milllions of transitional ones. :P

 

We KNOW logically, that people and cats exist. What we have 0% evidence of is an evolutionary pre-bat, pre-turtle, pre-pterosaur, pre-seahorse. So which do we go with, the possibility that humans were not preserved, or the belief in  millions of fictional creatures?  :gotcha:



#35 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 28 April 2016 - 01:19 PM

W>> Yes, there are dinosaur tracks in limestone rock. However, you have said the cat paw print is in chalk rock<<

I don't always go look up exact details and maybe I should. I usually get things right but I thought that the Austin chalk was a very widely spread layer of impure limestone. Not the kind of pure chalk that we were discussing in the chalk thread. It has different names but it is essentially the same sedimentary layer covering large parts of the globe... at least that's what I recall someone who is very familiar with the layer saying. I checked the source where the details about the cat track are given and it simply says that it is Cretaceous and it is of the same layer as the Burdick track and I believe that track has had microscopic confirmation that it is of Cretaceous age. I think you are blowing smoke to try to say that dinosaurs can make tracks where a large cat cannot. Neither of them lives 800 feet below the surface of the ocean so this applies as I said just as much to your view about dinosaurs as it does about cats. This cat track defies explanation from your viewpoint and you know it. All you can say is it was a carving and the compression indicators disprove that idea.

>> I'm not aware of any acknowledged, authenticated footprints from any chalk formation, are you ?<<

I did notice that Wiki said that dinosaur fossils were found in the Austin chalk. That probably is not the same as a footprint because a footprint is ephemeral and there needs to be fast solidifying of the mud to preserve it unless there is another large flow that covers the footprint while it is still soft. If you think that there are no dinosaur or other foot print tracks in any part of the Austin chalk and if you will tell me that would affect your point of view some then I will try to find that out. I expect that I would succeed but you could be right.

>>How do you know they are compression features ? Who is the expert that authenticated them as such ? <<

I don't need an expert to tell me that those shapes under the imprint follow the contours of the cat's pad. If you want to pretend they aren't there then you go right ahead and show others your lack of objectivity.

>> Where was the fossil found ? Who dug it out of the surrounding rock ? Where are the photos of it in its original context in the location it was discovered ? <<

It would be great to locate where the track came from and there has been effort to do that. The claim is that the track is from the same layer as the Burdick track and they claim to have located the exact type of rock for that track. If it were not for there being a large mammal track in it I'm quite sure that one of your evolutionist experts would have no hesitation to refer to that as Cretaceous limestone. But my guess is that would work about the same way that Carbon 14 dating works once they figure out that there is some young earth argument to be made from it. I believe I recall reading that 4 of them were found together but I have only seen pictures of this one probably because it was the one which was cross sectioned. I think I also recall reading that it was discovered by YEs after it was purchased in some sort of a rock shop and no one documented the location where it came from. We might wish to know where the exact location is but we do not necessarily need that to establish that the surrounding matrix is indeed Cretaceous limestone. There is no ambiguity as to what the creature is. That is often the kind of objection we hear. And there is no question about it being Cretaceous. And in my opinion there is no question about it being imprinted rather than carved. The shapes under the pads indicate that to an objective mind. To one who has decided to never allow Evolution to be falsified then it I suppose would be considered to be inconclusive to him.

>> (Malachite man has been pretty thoroughly debunked)<<

That's hogwash! I showed photographs here where part of the rock was encasing the leg and there is no sign at all of any intrusive burial or mining tools and there would be no babies in a mine anyway. You have no answer for this. You just want to declare it to be debunked and be done with it without being inquisitive or accountable for giving your own explanation of it.

>> What do you think would happen if this was found by an 'evolutionist'. Would they hide it ? Destroy it ? Do you think there's some dark evolutionist council that vets every find and only releases ones to the public eye that fit the mainstream view ? Yeah you probably do don't you.<<

I can tell you exactly what I think would happen if instead of hiding good evidence they proclaimed it as being supportive of young Earth. The hit squads would come after them to destroy their careers. And you know it. Don't act as if you don't know there is bias. At least your friend Pi would admit there is bias on both sides. But maybe you are one of these arrogant types who only sees the bias of your opponents and not your own.

#36 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 28 April 2016 - 02:51 PM

Wibble, Indydave clearly has done his homework on these issues, your defiance is quite insane, I suggest you renounce your false claims that evolutionists are saints that would not hide or destroy evidence. :)

 

That is tantamount to saying that people are incapable of suicide bombing. Utterly crazy, of course they would hide the evidence or destroy it. Boy are you innocent to the world of sin we live in! Do you think if you left your car in the street with an open window it would still be there in the morning? I suppose you also believe that people are incapable of lying or being greedy or selfish, and there is no such thing as criminals?

 

I can see it now, there probably already has been found human burials in the cretacious for all you know, and here is how the conversation would go; "what do we do with this find though? I mean it's amazing but we will look like right cranks to suggest humans lived hundreds of millions of years ago, and this would make a mess of the science. I think we should just leave this well alone, we won't get paid for this, in fact we will probably lose our funding. Look at all the fuss that 4,400 year old T-rex raised with fresh meat on it so fresh they used it on their new macdonalds dino-burger special, I've ate several of them myself, they tasted like chicken".


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#37 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 29 April 2016 - 03:18 PM

Wiki:
The 40–200 ft thick beds of the Glen Rose formation are composed of a limestone with alternating units consisting of clay, marl, and sand. The depositional environment of the Glen Rose was a shallow marine to shoreline environment. This shoreline environment would eventually bring notoriety to the Glen Rose since it would eventually preserve dinosaur tracks. This process would occur when living terrestrial creatures would roam about and look for food near the shoreline. As they would do this, they would leave footprints and trackways that would eventually be preserved by mud depositing in and on top of the footprints. Eventually more formations would be deposited on top of the mud layers, and build essentially a 100 million year time capsule of the trace fossil. As time passed, weathering from water and wind caused the overlying sediments to erode and expose the footprints, and hence the reason why dinosaur tracks are present in the Glen Rose Dinosaur Valley State Park.

I am pretty sure that the cat track would have been found in the Glen Rose formation rather than in the Austin chalk. It appears to me that perhaps the Glen Rose formation includes limestone and other types of rock and that might include Austin chalk but I am not certain. If it includes limestone of some sort then this is just as damaging to Evolution as it would be if it were chalk.  So this is pretty much a red herring that Wibble has tried to raise.  I still would be very surprised if there are no land-dwelling footprints to be found in any Austin chalk worldwide.  But now I guess it is irrelevant because now the objection is refuted that it would be impossible for a cat (or a dinosaur) to make a track in this limestone. And even if you believe this very ad hoc explanation of it being animals strolling along the seashore, that is also irrelevant because if a dinosaur can make tracks that way then so can a large cat. And this proves that large cats did indeed live alongside of dinosaurs just as the creationists would say and in contradiction to the evolutionary view.  If I find any reference to fossil footprints in any Austin chalk, whether it is a large mammal or a dinosaur, I will let you know.



#38 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 29 April 2016 - 04:00 PM

W>> Yes, there are dinosaur tracks in limestone rock. However, you have said the cat paw print is in chalk rock<<

I think you are blowing smoke to try to say that dinosaurs can make tracks where a large cat cannot. Neither of them lives 800 feet below the surface of the ocean so this applies as I said just as much to your view about dinosaurs as it does about cats.


Strawman. My comment about 800 feet below the sea was in regard to what you said "there is no dispute that it is Austin Chalk". Now you say it wasn't chalk. There is no problem with dinosaur tracks in the broader rock class of limestone in the mainstream view and I never said there was.

Besides, the YEC view is that the Cretaceous layers represent the latter part of the Flood year, since they occur relatively high up in the geological sequence. How was there any land animal available to produce footprints, and indeed on a planet covered everywhere by considerably more than 800 feet of water ?
 

This cat track defies explanation from your viewpoint and you know it. All you can say is it was a carving and the compression indicators disprove that idea.


It would be problematic if it was genuine. Nobody has proven that it isn't a carving though. What makes those marks 'compression features' and not just random darker patches in the rock ?

Where are the other cat prints you said remained in situ ? Surely somebody would have thought to take lots of photos and splash them over the internet to show the original location ?

It just seems terribly convenient that this print was just 'found' already removed from the source location. Easier to carve hidden away in a shed somewhere rather than out in the open. Same as the Burdick 'human' print supposedly also from the same limestone formation for which there is also no traceability.
 

>> (Malachite man has been pretty thoroughly debunked)<<

That's hogwash! I showed photographs here where part of the rock was encasing the leg and there is no sign at all of any intrusive burial or mining tools and there would be no babies in a mine anyway. You have no answer for this. You just want to declare it to be debunked and be done with it without being inquisitive or accountable for giving your own explanation of it.


Most of the substrate is clearly unconsolidated sand. The smaller areas of pale rock look more solid but without a physical inspection we don't know whether this would crumble easily either. Even you would have to agree that the majority of the bone is in the obviously sandy part. You have to wonder how it would be laid down in a flood in two different types of sediment ? More rational to think that the poor guy was buried in a cave collapse.

Regarding the claim of babies, I have seen no photos. Are there any ?
 

>> What do you think would happen if this was found by an 'evolutionist'. Would they hide it ? Destroy it ? Do you think there's some dark evolutionist council that vets every find and only releases ones to the public eye that fit the mainstream view ? Yeah you probably do don't you.<<

I can tell you exactly what I think would happen if instead of hiding good evidence they proclaimed it as being supportive of young Earth. The hit squads would come after them to destroy their careers. And you know it.


Creationists could always venture out and find come indisputable fossilised bones in the wrong strata but they haven't have they, else AIG or CMI or whoever would be displaying it prominently.

If such evidence existed, the notion of an old earth and evolution wouldn't have gained traction in the first place. It was the careful study of the geological layers that displaced the idea of a young earth over 200 years ago. The lack of genuine fossils to upset the evolutionary timeline has forced certain individuals into desperate measures methinks.



#39 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 29 April 2016 - 04:12 PM

Wibble, Indydave clearly has done his homework on these issues, your defiance is quite insane, I suggest you renounce your false claims that evolutionists are saints that would not hide or destroy evidence. :)


I'll renounce it if you give me evidence that they have :P 
 

I can see it now, there probably already has been found human burials in the cretacious for all you know, and here is how the conversation would go; "what do we do with this find though? I mean it's amazing but we will look like right cranks to suggest humans lived hundreds of millions of years ago, and this would make a mess of the science. I think we should just leave this well alone, we won't get paid for this, in fact we will probably lose our funding. Look at all the fuss that 4,400 year old T-rex raised with fresh meat on it so fresh they used it on their new macdonalds dino-burger special, I've ate several of them myself, they tasted like chicken".


The discovery of stretchy collagen fibres within some dinosaur bones was remarkable indeed. Yet it was openly publicised and no one got sacked or had their funding withdrawn, unless you know otherwise ?



#40 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 29 April 2016 - 08:45 PM

I'll renounce it if you give me evidence that they have :P


The discovery of stretchy collagen fibres within some dinosaur bones was remarkable indeed. Yet it was openly publicised and no one got sacked or had their funding withdrawn, unless you know otherwise ?


Mary Schweitzer was shrewd enough to not use terms like blood cells or blood vessels or osteocytes when referring to her find. She knew full well what the consequences would be if she provided ammo for the young-earth opponents of the evolutionists. She would instead use absurd wording like nucleated red round microstructures so as to carefully avoid getting her hand slapped by her peers. Or at least she tried to not use those terms but she often would slip up. However other scientists aware of her work would readily use the term blood cells or blood vessels. They did not have her canned because in her writings, she would not recognize the obvious implications of finding such soft tissue within bones that they claim are 65 million years old. She and the other evolutionists who control the science media took the ridiculous alternative to say that collagen could remain intact and even parts of DNA would remain intact and identifiable for about 1000 times longer than was considered scientifically settled previously.
  • Calypsis4 likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users