Jump to content


Photo

The Grand Canyon


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#101 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 16 February 2009 - 05:02 AM

I seem to remember a certain comment made by an evolutionist where what was stated was basically this: If we could find both human and dinosaur prints together, this would disprove evolution. That has already been done. Now the goal post gets moved to what you claim will disprove evolution? What's next? When this is found you guys move the goal post again?

You see, the evolutionists accusations about the foot prints being frauded, faked, or what ever. Never panned out. Not even one claim. Not even one wittness to the false accusations ever came forward. Not one finger was ever lifted to help preserve those foot prints for further study. Not one dime was spent by an scientific association to find out if this find was ligit. The prints were basically debunk by hearsay. And nothing more.

In fact, if those foot prints were so scientifically debunk. Provide for us such evidence that would stand up in a court of law that would not be considered hearsay? Because all your guys can produce concerning the debunking of this evidence is: He said she said, right?

If that is what you call science, it's a sham. And it is everything you guys accuse creation of being.

View Post


Until an occurance of dinosaur/human footprints is described and documented in a peer reviewed scientific journal then there IS NO evidence.

#102 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 16 February 2009 - 06:35 AM

You see, the evolutionists accusations about the foot prints being frauded, faked, or what ever. Never panned out. Not even one claim. Not even one wittness to the false accusations ever came forward.

View Post


From the Star Telegram

"My grandfather was a very good sculptor," said Zana Douglas, from the Adams family that found many of Glen Rose’s real dinosaur tracks about a century ago.

During the 1930s and the Depression, Glen Rose residents made money by distilling moonshine and selling dinosaur fossils. Each fossil brought $15 to $30. When the supply ran low, George Adams just carved more, some with human footprints thrown in.
........

David Lines, whose family has run a Christian school in Fannin County, is the museum photographer.

He said he can’t figure out how the footprint might have been faked.

"My feeling right now is that it’s genuine," he said Friday. But he also said that he has never seen a footprint that looked fake.

He said that he believes that scientists aren’t rushing to see the fossil because of a "wall of silence" in the academic community: "They can’t argue against it, so they just hope it’ll go away."

Zana Douglas, the Adamses’ granddaughter, laughed.

"My dad [Weldon Eakin] and my grandfather decided one day — I don’t know if it was to make money, or what — to start carving man tracks alongside the dinosaur tracks," said Douglas, 67 and now living near Houston.

They poured acid to make the fossils look like aged limestone, she said. They showed one "all over town" until they heard that a researcher from the Smithsonian Institution wanted to see the track.

"That worried my grandfather because he didn’t want anybody ever passing it off as real," she said. "So he and Daddy took it out and buried it."

She was a little girl at the time. They never saw it again, she said.

"I don’t know where they buried it."

I think we know.

http://www.slate.com...ad/1605054.aspx

What I find funny is that the Burdick footprints would be of a man some 8 or 9 foot tall. In this period, no one has ever found a mammal or even a protomammal larger than 3 feet or so, but here we have a convenient set of foot prints of an 8 foot human.

#103 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 16 February 2009 - 11:20 AM

Until an occurance of dinosaur/human footprints is described and documented in a peer reviewed scientific journal then there IS NO evidence.



"Human Footprints Found On Dinosaurs' Plateau" "...Turkmenian plateau contains more than three thousand footprints! ...But the most mysterious fact is that among the footprints of dinosaurs, footprints of bare human feet were found!" (Translated from Russian) Komsomolskaya Pravda, 1/ 31/1995

Dr. Kurban Amanniyazov, (Led Three Expeditions To Investate) "...If we speak about the human footprint, it was made by a human-like animal. Incredibly, this footprint is on the same plateau where there are dinosaur tracks." Science In The USSR, "Old Friends Dinosaurs" T 986 No.1 p. 101-107.


I'm sure you'll probibily reject those too because the journal is'nt officaly endorsed or edited by the ACLU.



Thanks.

#104 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 16 February 2009 - 11:28 AM

(4) you can continue to ignore and back away from every evidence presented.

Whether you're right or wrong about my backing away from the evidence presented has nothing to do with my question to you about the supposed unfalsifiability of evolution. You made that statement. I challenged it. Now I'm waiting for an answer.

#105 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 16 February 2009 - 11:29 AM

"My grandfather was a very good sculptor," said Zana Douglas, from the Adams family that found many of Glen Rose’s real dinosaur tracks about a century ago.

During the 1930s and the Depression, Glen Rose residents made money by distilling moonshine and selling dinosaur fossils. Each fossil brought $15 to $30. When the supply ran low, George Adams just carved more, some with human footprints thrown in.
........

David Lines, whose family has run a Christian school in Fannin County, is the museum photographer.

He said he can’t figure out how the footprint might have been faked.

"My feeling right now is that it’s genuine," he said Friday. But he also said that he has never seen a footprint that looked fake.

He said that he believes that scientists aren’t rushing to see the fossil because of a "wall of silence" in the academic community: "They can’t argue against it, so they just hope it’ll go away."

Zana Douglas, the Adamses’ granddaughter, laughed.

"My dad [Weldon Eakin] and my grandfather decided one day — I don’t know if it was to make money, or what — to start carving man tracks alongside the dinosaur tracks," said Douglas, 67 and now living near Houston.

They poured acid to make the fossils look like aged limestone, she said. They showed one "all over town" until they heard that a researcher from the Smithsonian Institution wanted to see the track.

"That worried my grandfather because he didn’t want anybody ever passing it off as real," she said. "So he and Daddy took it out and buried it."

She was a little girl at the time. They never saw it again, she said.


The Burdick track was found insitu and has been cross sectioned showing compression marks underneath the toes and foot.

Besides,if people make and sell statues of Elvis does it prove he never existed.

What I find funny is that the Burdick footprints would be of a man some 8 or 9 foot tall. In this period, no one has ever found a mammal or even a protomammal larger than 3 feet or so, but here we have a convenient set of foot prints of an 8 foot human.


Heres a 9 inch catpaw track that was also found in the pauluxy river,it too has been cross sectioned and verified as authentic.

Posted Image


Ofcourse large mammals and dinosaurs occuring together would be rare because of competition and ecology.Even shortface bears and grizzly bears occuring together is rare in the fossil record.



Thanks.

#106 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 16 February 2009 - 11:33 AM

Whether you're right or wrong about my backing away from the evidence presented has nothing to do with my question to you about the supposed unfalsifiability of evolution.  You made that statement.  I challenged it.  Now I'm waiting for an answer.

View Post


Ofcourse i'm right,and your still backing away from the evidence.Present your argument in the thread ikester posted or stop wasting everyones time with rhetoric.

#107 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 16 February 2009 - 11:35 AM

The Burdick track was found insitu and has been cross sectioned showing compression marks underneath the toes and foot.

Besides,if people make and sell statues of Elvis does it prove he never existed.
Heres a 9 inch catpaw track that was also found in the pauluxy river,it too has been cross sectioned and verified as authentic.

Posted Image
Ofcourse large mammals and dinosaurs occuring together would be rare because of competition and ecology.Even shortface bears and grizzly bears occuring together is rare in the fossil record.
Thanks.

View Post


Ah yes, thank you Jason, Evolution has now been formally disproven(again). I'm going to have to celebrate this wonderful occasion with a nice refreshing can of Dr. Pepper.

#108 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 16 February 2009 - 11:38 AM

If you would really like to know more about those cracks,Paul Garner goes into quite a bit of detail about them in the video I posted earlier in the thread, etc. etc. etc.

No, I'm not asking about cracks, I'm asking about your beliefs about cracks. When you see a crack in an old rock that has been filled in with newer deposits, do you assume that the crack formed at the same time as the old rock?

#109 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 February 2009 - 12:17 PM

Finding a fossil rabbit next to a Triassic dinosaur would go a long way.  Finding a fossil of an aquatic angiosperm plant next to a trilobite would cause major doubts.

View Post

You don't think a discovery like this would have an excuse even if it was found? Every time I hear statements like this it makes me chuckle and think about things like the coelacanth, which are still considered reliable index fossils, for the Devonian–Cretaceous period even though they're still alive!

Posted Image

Easystreet, you are the only one who can stop and recognize the goal post shifting that has occurred for the ad hoc hypothesis of evolution.

Posted Image

I think the reason that most scientists in the field don't question evolution is because there is no science of evolution. It's a religious belief system that is taught uncritically and there is no reason to question it because there is a marvelous shell game associated with the theory and it goes like this:

The paleontologist thinks the biologist has the best evidence for evolution.

The biologist thinks the geologist has the best evidence for evolution.

The geologist thinks the botanist has the best evidence for evolution.

The botanist thinks the astronomer has the best evidence for evolution.

The astronomer thinks the paleontologist has the best evidence for evolution.

...and around and around and around we go. :( You're free to mix and match these vocations as much as you want but if you like debates at all, any scientist who's defending evolution almost always will point to a field other then their own for the "best evidences" for evolution.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program...

#110 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 16 February 2009 - 09:47 PM

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.

And what kind of response does one receive to all this?

Ah yes, thank you Jason, Evolution has now been formally disproven(again).


You've got to love it.

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.

Creation predicts that all life will be found fully formed and the greatest diversity will be found before the flood.

...
The predictions of Creation coul'nt be more completely opposite for any Family or Order than Darwins prediction of common descent,so there is no meeting halfway,someone is completely wrong.

View Post


So yes, there are some orders like trilobites that were most diverse in the late Cambrian, but why don't we take a look at the prediction for four large classes of animals (which include trilobites) and see how the prediction holds up for the period since the Vendian (the period before the Cambrian). Of course, if we included simpler forms of life (single cell prokaryotes, Eukaryotes, sponges etc) we could go back quite a bit further.

Posted Image

Looks like I need to agree with Jason on this one based on the evidence.

someone is completely wrong.

View Post



#111 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 16 February 2009 - 10:34 PM

Hi James,

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 don’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.

Posted Image


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

[godtube]3bef986953ae249e3abd[/godtube]

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.




Thanks.

#112 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 16 February 2009 - 11:54 PM

No, I'm not asking about cracks, I'm asking about your beliefs about cracks.  When you see a crack in an old rock that has been filled in with newer deposits, do you assume that the crack formed at the same time as the old rock?

View Post

Talk about a loaded question!

#113 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 17 February 2009 - 12:34 AM

So yes, there are some orders like trilobites that were most diverse in the late Cambrian, but why don't we take a look at the prediction for four large classes of animals.


The topic is the Grand Canyon,but if no is willing to complain then neither am I.

If you don't mind moving afield a bit to the mesozoic (the Grand Staircase) then lets look at dinosaurs.we know all of these dinosaurs do not exist there,but for the sake of arguement.

Posted Image

As you can see from the data,dinosaurs show up suddenly without any verifiable link between different families.The chronolgy is also consistant with sorting according to density.


I also have no problem with extending the Grand Staircase over the top of canyon,because that is what the evidence seems to suggest.In which case it's on topic because it use to be part of the canyon. :)




Thanks.

#114 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 17 February 2009 - 12:45 AM

As far as your charts for plants and insects are concerned,that is'nt what is found in India or the Grand Canyon.



In chapter 3, I present a case of fossil evidence showing that the current Darwinian picture of the evolution of nonhuman species is also in need of revision. Beginning in the 1940s, geologists and paleobotanists working with the Geological Survey of India explored the Salt Range Mountains in what is now Pakistan. They found deep in salt mines evidence for the existence of advanced flowering plants and insects in the early Cambrian periods, about 600 million years ago. According to standard evolutionary ideas, no land plants or animals existed at that time. Flowering plants and insects are thought to have come into existence hundreds of millions of years later. To explain the evidence some geologists proposed that there must have been a massive overthrust, by which Eocene layers, about 50 million years old, were thrust under Cambrian layers, over 550 million years old. Others pointed out that there were no geological signs of such an overthrust. According to these scientists, the layers bearing the fossils of the advanced plants and insects were found in normal position, beneath strata containing trilobites, the characteristic fossil of the Cambrian. One of these scientists, E. R. Gee, a geologist working with the Geological Survey of India, proposed a novel solution to the problem. In the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of India for the year 1945 (section B, v. 16, pp. xlv–xlvi), paleobotanist Birbal Sahni noted: “Quite recently, an alternative explanation has been offered by Mr. Gee. The suggestion is that the angiosperms, gymnosperms and insects of the Saline Series may represent a highly evolved Cambrian or Precambrian flora and fauna! In other words, it is suggested that these plants and animals made their appearance in the Salt Range area several hundred million years earlier than they did anywhere else in the world. One would scarcely have believed that such an idea would be seriously put forward by any geologist today.” The controversy was left unresolved. In the 1990s, petroleum geologists, unaware of the earlier controversy, restudied the area. They determined that the salt deposits below the Cambrian deposits containing trilobites were early Cambrian or Precambrian. In other words, they found no evidence of an overthrust. The salt deposits were in a natural position below the Cambrian deposits. This supports Gee’s suggestion that the plant and insect remains in the salt deposits were evidence of an advanced fauna and flora existing in the early Cambrian. This evidence contradicts not only the Darwinian concept of the evolution of humans but of other species as well.

http://www.humandevolution.com/

Pollen has been found in Cambrian and Precambrian rocks, particular the Hakatai Shales of the Grand Canyon.

http://creationwiki....nd_in_old_rocks








Thanks.

#115 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 17 February 2009 - 04:57 AM

The Creation model is able to predict land plants and insects being covered up by marine organisms because of rising flood waters.Just as we could expect to find dinosaurs covered with fish.

Posted Image

#116 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 February 2009 - 08:24 PM

Why?

View Post


Because obviously trilobites should have evolved through an evolutionary worldview, but unfortunately there are no transitionals. We just find trilobites.

Thats why.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users