I have to admit that I got the biggest laugh from the response to the paw print. Some image on an internet blog is posted that shows what appears to be a paw print. You do not know the origin or the date of the rock. You can not tell whether it was carved with acid or just carved or is a print. You do not know the origin, except that there is a claim that it came from the same area where there is a clear history of someone carving stones and selling them to the unsuspecting public. You have not seen any papers discussing the merits of its authenticity.
www.bible.ca/tracks/patton-debate-john-blanton-fossil-record.htm - 7k -
This cat track (9 inches across) was found in the same layer with the Burdick track, Middle Cretaceous, supposedly 110 million years old. Evolutionists, like Richard Dawkins, have acknowledged that finding a large mammal with the dinosaurs is just as devastating to evolutionary theory as finding humans.
Richard Dawkins, Oxford "If a single, well verified mammal skull were to turn up in 500 million year old rocks, our whole modern theory of evolution would be utterly destroyed. (The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p.225)
Naturally, evolutionists must explain this away, so they just say, "It is carved." They donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t need evidence. They know large mammals did not live with dinosaurs, so this cat track must be carved.
Creationists on the other hand, test their hypotheses. We cross-sectioned the track with a view to looking for the possibility of subsurface structures. If the structures within the rock were randomly truncated by the foot-shaped depression, carving would be indicated. If however, the structures conformed to the depression, then there would be clear indication that the track was not carved, but genuine.
This picture was photographed under black light to emphasize the detail of the internal structure of the rock.
Internals structures in the rock follow the depressed contour. This track is not carved, it is a large mammal track found with dinosaurs.Scientific verification of the Burdick track
But maybe we should get back to our main theme. I do appreciate that Jason is wiling to go out on a limb and make a prediction. You don't see that very often.
I've searched the entire world looking for observable evidence of the geologic column and verifiable growth layers that confirm millions of years.The only place it exist is on evolutionists paper charts.Whats more reliable,observation or an artists imagination?
Interbedded layers that must have been contemporaneus and unconformities that lay on top of each other as flat as pancakes.All of those things tell me millions of years can't be the answer.
If I was'nt completely confident in the evidence then I would'nt make predictions,so thank you.
I'm willing to discuss my predictions further,but you do realize that I do not accept the timescale or even the existance of the geologic column.Your more than welcome to provide obsrvable evidence of it if you can find it beyond a mental abstract on a piece of paper.