Jump to content


Photo

Out Of Place Fossils Falsify Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
561 replies to this topic

#41 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 30 April 2016 - 01:39 PM

I wrote: >>I believe, now that he has been exposed some on the Amazon site, he may take down his page, or edit it a lot.>>

 

At his site today, his article is now gone and I saw this:

 

 

April 2016 Update. This article has been temporarily removed as a new article is being prepared.

The new article will address some new evidence, and be posted in the near future. Thank you.

 

I don't think it totally resolves what I regard as being very poor science by him, when the evidence he showed was not even clear (chalk sketches??? Come ON!) and was not even likely from the Burroughs site.  The Albert Ingalls article was nothing but an evolutionist (attempted) debunking hit piece.  MAYBE Ingalls could claim ignorance (I doubt that) and MAYBE up to about 6 years ago, so could Kuban.  He tells me he did take it down previously...and I believe it was after I objected to its content.  But he for some reason recently reposted the article to his site with nothing but minor (if ANY) revisions after I notified him of his bad science and showed him much better evidence than he had seen. 

 

However, I don't want to razz him too much because it is a good thing that he took the article down again...after MUCH travail, wailing and complaint by him on the Amazon site.  So therefore, I do commend him with some reservations.  I of course will have to see just how fair and objective he is with the new and improved article he will be posting.  He was nice to say (on Amazon) that he wants to wait to see if I can provide better photos, and I hope I can do that this summer.  But even with the evidence from 1939 which I showed to him and even with photos I took in 2009 or so, (showed to him in maybe 2010) and from a second track location from about 2012...there was plenty of evidence to show he needed to completely revise what he wrote.  But then he DIDN'T.  So I have slim hope that his new article will be much improved, but I guess we'll see someday if that happens.  What is VERY commendable however is that he has promised to provide on his page a link to a website that I would create to show more evidence and to refute what his page says, and to let readers figure out for themselves who has the science on their side.  I predict that for Kuban it will NOT be the thrill of victory...but it rather will be "the agony of de feet." 


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#42 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 01 May 2016 - 03:43 PM

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! 



#43 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 03 May 2016 - 10:55 AM

 

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.  

The exchange I had with Kuban was a few years ago.  It's entirely possible my memory of it is flawed, and while it's possible it's in my "read mail" file, I have no intention of looking back to find the exact exchange.

 

>>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. 

Good research, Dave.....

 

I will grant that if I were the owner and had seen Kuban there several times before and there had been no issue with him on those occasions, it's entirely possible I wouldn't have confronted him either.

 

As for the polygraph, I'm not sure if I'd take it or not.  Have you ever taken a polygraph, Dave?  What they actually detect is emotional response to the question.  Whether or not I'd take the test would depend largely on just how upset I was about the accusation in the first place.   I've taken several polygraphs and I'm certain that at least one of them was tossed the minute I walked out the door because I was extremely unhappy about (1) being "forced" to take the test and (2) the nature of the questions (which, incidentally weren't about me).



#44 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 03 May 2016 - 11:01 AM

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.

So you think it's really unreasonable and dogmatic for me to consider the possibility that "parts of DNA would remain intact and identifiable for about 1000x longer than was considered scientifically settled previously"

 

Of course it's totally reasonable for you to say that radioactive decay rates, which are much better understood and far more stable than biological decay, took place 1,000,000,000 times faster (even though the proponents of this accelerated decay say it would likely boil the oceans and melt the surface of the planet) or the speed of light averaged 2,000,000 times faster.

 

Hmmmmmm..........



#45 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 03 May 2016 - 11:37 AM

Hmmmm...sounds like you are doing the Gish Gallop, or rather the Darwinist Dance.  Things aren't looking so good for you on THIS topic. Time to switch topics to your candy stick!

 

If you want to discuss radio dating, then start another topic.  Dr. Walter Brown has solved the heat problem of accelerated radio decay.  The processes of his model DO produce the conditions extreme enough to affect the rate of radio decay.  This is known and proven by lab experiment.  And it also removes the heat.  It appears you have no knowledge at all of that part of Brown's model.  The RATE people need to follow his lead. 

 

How about some comment about the out of place fossils you have been shown here in THIS thread?  It appears to me that even if you found a dinosaur deep in the sediments with a human in its stomach that still would not convince you that your AE view must be wrong.  You would STILL want to suck some more on your candy stick!  You would say, "NEVERMIND that...look over HERE instead!"



#46 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 03 May 2016 - 12:55 PM

Hmmmm...sounds like you are doing the Gish Gallop, or rather the Darwinist Dance. Things aren't looking so good for you on THIS topic. Time to switch topics to your candy stick!


Pot meet kettle
 

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!

 
 



#47 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 03 May 2016 - 01:28 PM

When I studied the KY tracks the first time...before finding the second location, I was with Ian Juby.  We both purchased casts made of the Burroughs tracks before they were destroyed.  Just today I found a site that has a photo Juby made of his cast, which was done with very good lighting.  It shows quite clearly the contouring, bottom features AND the up push around the heel AND the toes.  It is not gigantic up push, but it is there.  This is NOT like the known Indian carvings in the area.  NO WAY.  And it was these kinds of features which caused by Burroughs and Dr. Charles Gilmore of the Smithsonian (an expert in tracks) to conclude these were NOT carved, but were actual "animal" imprinted tracks.  An amphibian with human feet!

 

Attached File  castDOUBLE_Juby_one.jpg   38.11KB   0 downloads



#48 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 04 May 2016 - 09:58 PM

On the Amazon site, Kuban has indicated that no matter WHAT the evidence is for any up push or other indications the track was authentic...he would still say that it might be carved.  That is absurd.  I could of course make the same claim about any DINOSAUR track he has ever studied.  EVERY ONE of those COULD have also been carved.  He has seen photos of tracks showing up push.  He has seen photos of casts.  He could hold a cast in his hands (I have one), or go to the site and feel the up push himself just as I have.  None of that would matter to him.  He would just say it could still be a carving.  He would base that on his fervent trust that all the OTHER evidence favors evolution.  That is what he will ALWAYS say, of course.  Evidence for evolution is ALWAYS...SOMEWHERE ELSE!  And if he thought the shape was not perfectly like what HE thinks is within the range of a modern human, then he would dismiss it altogether and pretend that he has sufficiently rebutted this strong evidence against his precious theory.  His latest quibble is that the spread of the toes (6") is too wide for a foot that is 4.1" at the ball and 9" in length.  That is preposterous.  The typical toe spread of a habitually unshod human is certainly well within those dimensions.  Moreover, the foot of humans before the flood did not have to look exactly like ours today.  Consider how different Neanderthals are from us...yet they were fully human.  And even if track-makers in KY were NOT human (they were), if they were ANY kind of hominid, then that shreds Kuban's theory just as completely.  He doesn't seem to GET that.  Again, I would invite readers here to check out the discussion I have been having with him about the KY tracks.  It begins on page 13 but I have given a link for the latest...page 23. 

 

LINK  



#49 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 04 May 2016 - 10:04 PM

Ian Juby prepared a good summary of the KY track evidence in 2012, and presents it here:

 

http://ianjuby.org/f...nd-core-ottawa/

 

...it starts about halfway down the page.  Here is what a professional sculptor, who saw the tracks personally, had to say:

 

“It is my opinion as artist and sculptor and from careful examination with magnifying glass, the impressions in the stone at [the Finnell farm] was made by imprint pressure in the substance before this hardened into stone. There is no logical, artistic argument to sustain an opinion that those marks are carved, chiseled, or made by hand. In the first place the prints are scattered aimlessly over the rock with no apparrent design; secondly there are no tool marks visible; thirdly the prints so closely resemble those made by human feet in a soft substance that a manual production so faithful could be, not only, almost beyond human skill, but is inconceivable since an artistic motive for such work would be lacking.
I can testify that the sand grains within the tracks are in closer combination than those on the rest of the surface of the stone. They have many appearances of having been compressed by a weight pressure, as the stone surface bulges upwards and outward around the tracks. Then our track, half of which is visible on the surface of the stone, the other half concealed beneath the partly cracked away, overlying layer of newer stone would seem to disprove any argument that these marks were around. All of the marks present an appearance singularly like that of human tracks.”



#50 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 05 May 2016 - 03:16 AM

IndyDave, I have just read all of that linked article, and the two most convincing explanations for me is the testimony of Hooper, which expounds a splayed-toes-explanation, and the deduction that there is displaced material around the foot, indicating true weight had formed the tracks.

 

Personally, having read more into this, I am convinced that the evolutionist reporting on these tracks was either highly flippant or darn right deceptive

 

That's probably the best evidence I am aware of for the presence of human prints, out-of-place. No doubt the evolutionists would offer a rebuttal as they always do but so far I am impressed by the KY tracks. Obviously I am still largely ignorant so I always try to employ a provisional conclusion rather than a definite/dogmatic, conclusion.



#51 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 05 May 2016 - 07:41 AM

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.


Just a passing thought, as I'm supposed to be working...I'm surprised you think there is individual sediment flows spaced out over time when I'm imagining the Flood as a cataclysm that inundated just once at a particular location and kept everything submerged for up to a year hence. Why isn't the sediment where these tracks are found full of terrestrial fossils and mixed sediment rather than than limestone. Surely a surge of sediment wouldn't just carry predominantly calcium carbonate ?

Also, how did the exquisitely preserved tracks you're  showing (toe prints all there) survive when rain was hammering down like never before ? Surely they would just be eroded away before they could be preserved by overlying sediment ?



#52 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 05 May 2016 - 12:27 PM

 

 

Wibble: just a passing thought, as I'm supposed to be working...I'm surprised you think there is individual sediment flows spaced out over time when I'm imagining the Flood as a cataclysm that inundated just once at a particular location and kept everything submerged for up to a year hence. Why isn't the sediment where these tracks are found full of terrestrial fossils and mixed sediment rather than than limestone. Surely a surge of sediment wouldn't just carry predominantly calcium carbonate ?

Also, how did the exquisitely preserved tracks you're  showing (toe prints all there) survive when rain was hammering down like never before ? Surely they would just be eroded away before they could be preserved by overlying sediment ?

 

I'm not sure this even passes for a thought, Wibble. It seems to me you have a very simplistic view of the flood

 

For example, we don't know if those tracks were during the recessional parts of the flood, which washes away that green highlighted part of your quote. (pun intended)

 

 

 

Wibble: Why isn't the sediment where these tracks are found full of terrestrial fossils and mixed sediment rather than than limestone.

 

There are such examples of mixed terrestrial and marine creatures preserved at fossil bluff. It very much depends on what happened to happen. Nobody can really guess the specific scenario that enabled these tracks to be preserved but I think it can be safe to say that deductive-logic can rule out some things;

 

1. The displaced material pushed out proves the tracks can't have been made when the rock was hard. That can be seen on the photographs.

2. Photographic forgery is out for rather obvious reasons.

 

This means whatever made the tracks had to have weight to displace the surrounding rock and had to have made them while the rock was not solidified, we also know they are human prints.

 

Seems to me the rather obvious conclusion is the only remaining possibility, assuming my premises are correct.



#53 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 05 May 2016 - 01:24 PM

I'm not sure this even passes for a thought, Wibble. It seems to me you have a very simplistic view of the flood
 
For example, we don't know if those tracks were during the recessional parts of the flood, which washes away that green highlighted part of your quote. (pun intended)

 

And exactly how were there dinosaurs and humans wandering about in America during this phase of the Flood ? Did that thought not pass through your head ?
 

There are such examples of mixed terrestrial and marine creatures preserved at fossil bluff. It very much depends on what happened to happen.


What would have happened is that the percentage of fossils would not be 95% marine and instead there would be a much larger percentage of terrestrial fossils if a flood had really inundated the entire Earth.



#54 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 05 May 2016 - 01:56 PM

 

 

wibble: And exactly how were there dinosaurs and humans wandering about in America during this phase of the Flood ? Did that thought not pass through your head ?

 

It did enter my head, yes - because America didn't exist, and was part of the pangea, so when the continents separated, that area in KY would have drifted thousands of miles. 

 

 

 

wibble: What would have happened is that the percentage of fossils would not be 95% marine and instead there would be a much larger percentage of terrestrial fossils if a flood had really inundated the entire Earth.

 

I disagree. I think the majority of fossils would be marine creatures given the flood waters stem from the ocean. I also think all of this talk is to take away the focus from the fact that the KY prints seems like good evidence. :)



#55 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 05 May 2016 - 03:03 PM

It did enter my head, yes - because America didn't exist, and was part of the pangea, so when the continents separated, that area in KY would have drifted thousands of miles.


Setting aside the zero evidence and obvious problems for rapid tectonic drift, this process happened as the Flood retreated didn't it ? So the continents were probably already separated by the time the Ark was disembarked. Even if you say not, how did the handful of humans and dinosaurs manage to be conveniently already in the location of the future southern US rather than somewhere in or near Turkey and then conveniently leave footprints to be fossilised, which in itself is very rare event requiring special circumstances ?
 

I disagree. I think the majority of fossils would be marine creatures given the flood waters stem from the ocean.


Course you disagree. However, it flies in the face of the obvious if the whole land surface was subject to the same disaster as the oceans. Apply a bit of logic.
 

I also think all of this talk is to take away the focus from the fact that the KY prints seems like good evidence. :)


Just agree what I have just said makes sense and I'll get back to it ;)


  • mike the wiz likes this

#56 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 06 May 2016 - 08:31 AM

Just a passing thought, as I'm supposed to be working...I'm surprised you think there is individual sediment flows spaced out over time when I'm imagining the Flood as a cataclysm that inundated just once at a particular location and kept everything submerged for up to a year hence. Why isn't the sediment where these tracks are found full of terrestrial fossils and mixed sediment rather than than limestone.

I think if you are honest you will agree that the presence of limestone and Dolomite are major problems with your view as well. Walter Brown has an entire chapter in his book about how he thinks his HPT solves the mystery. There seems to be obviously flows of sediment which certainly does not fit well with what your theory says. For instance I have seen a picture in the Grand Canyon of a layer which has a block of Quartzite which is the size of a house and surrounding that are layers of what I believe to be Limestone but I'm not sure, and there are clear flow patterns around the quartzite block. And by the way that block matches the kind of rock that was below that layer of limestone. So it appears to have been broken off by a lateral flow of the limestone material before it hardened. And of course the layers in the Grand Canyon are very flat and without erosion separating those layers which should be seen if they were exposed to erosive forces.

>>Also, how did the exquisitely preserved tracks you're showing (toe prints all there) survive when rain was hammering down like never before ? Surely they would just be eroded away before they could be preserved by overlying sediment ?<<

This is a fair question and some of the answer may be that the flood did have extreme rain but the main flooding did not come from the sky. The Bible says that the rain stopped after 40 days but the water continued to rise for another 110 days as I recall. So that means there was some time when the land was not yet covered with water but the rain had stopped. So animals and humans would still be roaming around and able to step through these sediment layers as they were moving to get to higher ground. And another layer could then flow in to cover those tracks. Or they may not be covered but they would be preserved when the material hardened in a matter of days or so. The other part of the answer is that these layers were full of cementing agents and so a track would not have to be quickly covered in order for it to be preserved and hardened. I would guess that you could step into concrete while it is raining and your footprint could still be preserved, depending on how close to being fully hardened the concrete was. For instance the tracks in Kentucky do not appear to have had layers of material above them at least not at this time. You would think that if they were covered at one time there would be some sign of that. Of course if it was a very soft layer then it all could have eroded away. I think I recall reading that the tracks that Burroughs found were discovered after there was a log road built and that suggests there was some layer that protected the tracks. It is clear that when I saw the site 70 years later the surface was already being eroded. In fact you could tell where the vandals broke up the rock surface in 1972 and it was certainly not as sharp edged as it was in photographs that I have seen from that year.
  • mike the wiz likes this

#57 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 06 May 2016 - 10:12 AM

You can view the transported quartzsite block here:


http://www.creations...uefaction7.html

#58 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 06 May 2016 - 11:11 AM

Wibble, do you agree that IF the human footprints are real, can't be photographic fakes, can't be carved because of the displaced surrounding material, then whatever the case, be it a flood or millions of years of geology, nevertheless we seem to have human footprints in rocks that are supposedly many millions of years old.

 

Why is that? I think it doesn't really make sense if evolution were true, even if long ages were assumed true. But then would there be a need to believe the rocks are old if we assume the prints are genuine? If humans have somehow been around for millions of years, it seems to me that wouldn't fit ANY model.


  • Gneiss girl likes this

#59 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 06 May 2016 - 02:12 PM

Kuban wants to make a big deal about how wide the toes are spread.  He goes on and on about how far outside of human range they are.  Here's a comparison:

 

Attached File  splayedUNSHODvsBurroughs.jpg   69.52KB   0 downloads

 

 

That (on the right) is a photo of a cast made of Burroughs' track which is 9.5" long.  On the left is a modern human unshod foot.  MY MY...what a MASSIVE difference in length/width... (NOT!)  The tracks I located at another site near to B's site were 11.5" long and they ALSO are 6" wide at the toes.  So that means they are LESS wide than the normal modern unshod human.  Plus, this is a PHOTO of a modern unshod human foot and you could expect the track made by it to be slightly wider. 


  • Gneiss girl likes this

#60 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 06 May 2016 - 02:37 PM

Wibble, do you agree that IF the human footprints are real, can't be photographic fakes, can't be carved because of the displaced surrounding material, then whatever the case, be it a flood or millions of years of geology, nevertheless we seem to have human footprints in rocks that are supposedly many millions of years old.

 

Why is that? I think it doesn't really make sense if evolution were true, even if long ages were assumed true. But then would there be a need to believe the rocks are old if we assume the prints are genuine? If humans have somehow been around for millions of years, it seems to me that wouldn't fit ANY model.

 

Mike, I have to wonder what Wibble would say if we are successful in our next trip to find the half exposed track that Burroughs reported.  I have a good photo of it and it is clear that it is NOT some random feature of the rock, and it would be STUPID for any carver to start a track at the edge of an overlying layer of very hard iron oxide one inch thick.  I wonder what would Wibble say if I can video record our removing that layer and showing a set of toes!  That IS what Burroughs said happened while they were working the site.  A BRAND NEW track appeared after some softer sandy rock was worn off.  Five witnesses signed their names to testify to that, and I have that letter.  Wibble...would that make a big difference to you if you saw us uncover some toes? 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users