W>>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.>>
Then what was the point you wanted to make about how a cat could not make a track in chalk? If I am mistaken and need to change the word to "limestone" then so be it. The point is exactly the same. It is the same layer where dinos walked. GET IT? I still am quite sure that I would be able to find footprints of land creatures in the Austin Chalk...and I did find reference to dino FOSSILS in it. Maybe I need to ask Patton if it is Austin Chalk where dino tracks have been found. However, when I rechecked, it was simply referred to as "Glen Rose Formation" (not Austin Chalk as I had remembered) which includes limestone layers (no doubt with at least SOME coccoliths) as well as clay, marl, etc. The point is that the LIMESTONE is where the cat track AND THE DINO TRACKS are found. So whatever you say about why a cat could not make them must apply also to other large land dwellers.
>>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 ?>>
You apparently don't know much about the way YE's address this. Do I really have to educate you on that? I would not expect that ANY YE would say it is at the latter part of the year, but only at the latter part of the deposition of sediments before all land was inundated. That might be near the 40th day or whenever...closer to that than the 300th day. Sediment flows from other parts of the globe could flow into a region where land walkers still were able to move around and so they may encounter such soft sediments...and then the tracks hardened and then more sediment flows followed. Or the flow could come in even before the tracks were fully hardened, much like what is claimed by standard ev theory. I should point out that most YE's would say that there could be post-flood deposition too, if there were some large dam breach or if there were settling of continents etc.. However, the human and animal populations would be relatively low then.
>>It would be problematic if it was genuine. Nobody has proven that it isn't a carving though.>>
I'm not sure what "proof" that would be other than subsurface compression features and lack of truncation of the features. In the case of the Delk track there were CAT scans to show compression. Burroughs did meticulous counting of sand grains to show compression, so as to refute the carving idea. His tracks also showed up push. However, if you postulate a sophisticated enough artist, I suppose you could claim about any track is carved, including Laetoli tracks. At some point there is a shift of the burden of proof to the person claiming they are carved...rather than requiring the YE to prove a negative. Would you be able to prove the negative about Laetoli?
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 ?>>
I have not heard of any that were claimed to be in situ. I just read that there were four, but maybe those were also sold after being cut out. Besides, the in situ trait would rule out the cross-sectioning. Yes, I would wish to have the site located. However, if it is true (as I am told) that a piece of Cretaceous limestone has INTRINSIC features to identify it as Cretaceous, then finding the location is superfluous.
>>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.>>
ditto what I wrote. If there are NOT intrinsic features to ID it as Cretaceous, then the cat track has little value. I suppose it would depend on whether or not some AE theory has limey muds covering the surface of TX during a time when they would say large cats lived. I doubt that is the case.
Re. Malachite Man:>>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.>>
There is a video showing the slow process of exposing the bones, and there would be no reason to leave that part (that encases the tibia) where it was...if it was easily crumbled.
>>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.>>
There were ten of them, including one infant. Not a likely "cave collapse." The HPT flood model has explanations for layering of the sediments. And of course so do other YE models. BUT the AE model has NO way to explain multiple layers deposited DURING THE LIFETIME of a tall tree (or reed) as can be seen in the MANY polystrate tree fossils. And it would NOT MATTER if ALL if the surrounding matrix of the MM skeletons were unconsolidated. Some of it was. BUT, above the level of the skeletons there is 50 feet of deposits including 2 very hard sandstone layers. It is wacky to suggest it was intentional burial. And it is also wacky to suggest there was a cave system in that sort of rock. There would be clear evidence of that and there is NOT. Plus, a cave collapse would not spread body parts around (MM was mostly disarticulated over a broad area), nor would grave burials.
>>Regarding the claim of babies, I have seen no photos. Are there any ?>>
I have not seen it but there is no reason to regard that as a lie. You should know that (I believe) the bones were seized by the US (or Utah) gov't. I believe they are in the Smithsonian now and no one...esp. a YE...is allowed to see them. That is what Patton told me about 2 weeks ago. I would guess however, that someone photo'd them all. But some of that work was done by Utah, and they may have only reported, and didn't release all the photos.
>>The lack of genuine fossils to upset the evolutionary timeline has forced certain individuals into desperate measures methinks.>>
And methinks that the desperation is on the AE side...when they come up with fanciful ideas to explain away C14 dates for coal, diamonds, dinosaur bones, etc...or to suggest bacterial biofilm was the cause of what MS reported to be endogenous soft dino tissue...or the wildly crazy idea that lifeless minerals could give rise to living organisms, all by accident. And if you want to talk about DESPERATION...when Dawkins admits to the apparent non-biological design of the universe, he (and most atheists like yourself), rather than admit that it implies a Designer, is "forced into the desperate measure" of advocating belief in an unseen and unseeABLE multiverse. Yeah, that's the ticket!