Jump to content


Photo

Proving Prints In Paluxy River Are Frauds.


  • Please log in to reply
161 replies to this topic

#21 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 02 November 2009 - 08:12 AM

It still comes down to what you choose to accept.

Intelligent, educated people can accept that dinosaur bones with heme and now blood (the 2nd one from Ms. Sweitzer) are above 65 million years. Even though blood would indicate carbon 12 and probably carbon 14 which should not at all be in existence at 65 m.

These same people fight the evidence of an apparent footprint adjacent to a theropod track in limestone--even when it goes through a CT scan.

CT of Delk track

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lXDBX99qePA&hl=en&fs=1&%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lXDBX99qePA&hl=en&fs=1& type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

If this is a carving, there should be no evidence of greater density around the footprint, obviously caused by pressure in soft material. This would have been impossible to do by a carver. I really can not understand how this is not conclusive.

#22 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2009 - 08:52 AM

It still comes down to what you choose to accept. 

Intelligent, educated people can accept that dinosaur bones with heme and now blood (the 2nd one from Ms. Sweitzer) are above 65 million years.  Even though blood would indicate carbon 12 and probably carbon 14 which should not at all be in existence at 65 m.

These same people fight the evidence of an apparent footprint adjacent to a theropod track in limestone--even when it goes through a CT scan.

CT of Delk track

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lXDBX99qePA&hl=en&fs=1&%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lXDBX99qePA&hl=en&fs=1& type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

If this is a carving, there should be no evidence of greater density around the footprint, obviously caused by pressure in soft material.  This would have been impossible to do by a carver.  I really can not understand how this is not conclusive.

View Post


It probably comes down deeper, to why a person will or wont accept something.




We see endless complaints about C 14 dating, and in this case tho, the indication is that it is good if it supports creationism? (not that it ever once has)

Not sure where you are going with this statement... blood would indicate carbon 12 and probably carbon 14 which should not at all be in existence at 65 m.

Of course carbon will be present. C 12. Why "probably" C14? That is kind of saying "probably what is believed to be impossible is true".

Carbon 14 is good for about 60K years. No dating of dinosaur material with C14 is possible.

I dont know what the story on the video is. Dont have a chance to w atch it right now tho.

IF there is proof that there is a real human footprint from dinosaur days, that is a discovery of earth shaking significance. Have not seen any sci revolution going on tho... why would that be?

Ask this. If you were on trial for your life, and the prosecution presented a youtube video such as that, would you be satisfied if your attorney didnt kinda check it out real carefully?

Due diligence and all.

The claim of humans and dinosaurs coexisting is an extraordinary one.
If its true, proof beyond any reasonable doubt should be possible.

#23 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 02 November 2009 - 09:25 AM

[/I]
Not sure where you are going with this statement... blood would indicate carbon 12 and probably carbon 14 which should not at all be in existence at 65 m.

Of course carbon will be present.  C 12.   Why "probably" C14?  That is kind of saying "probably what is believed to be impossible is true".

View Post


Are you going to take time to read this and watch the video?

Dr. Russel Humphreys PhD Physics : "With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old."

Dr. John Baumgardner PhD Geology---"The big surprise, however, was that no fossil material could be found anywhere that had as little as 0.001% of the modern value! Since most of the scientists involved in applying this new technique took for granted the standard geological time scale was correct, the obvious explanation for the 14C they were detecting in their samples was contamination from some source of modern carbon with its high level of 14C. Therefore a major campaign was mounted to discover and eliminate the source or sources of such contamination. Although a few relatively minor sources of 14C contamination were identified and corrected, there still remained a significant level of 14C -- typically about 100 times the ultimate sensitivity of the instrument -- in samples that should have been utterly '14C-dead', including many from the deeper levels of the fossil-bearing part of the geological record."

[/I]Carbon 14 is good for about 60K years.  No dating of dinosaur material with C14 is possible.

View Post

You would preclude the possibility because you have already decided the geologic timescale is absolute. C-14 has been found in fossil bearing strata, and fossils. If you read the excerpts you can see.

IF there is proof that there is a real human footprint from dinosaur days, that is a discovery of earth shaking significance.  Have not seen any sci revolution going on tho... why would that be?

View Post

I'm not sure. Maybe you would have an answer, since you have seen the tracks and have decided they are frauds. Now multiply this reaction by the majority of "reputable" scientists.

Ask this.  If you were on trial for your life, and the prosecution presented a youtube video such as that, would you be satisfied if your attorney didnt kinda check it out real carefully?

View Post

1.Blurry videos from convenience stores are computer enhanced and submitted as evidence all the time.

2. Because you did not watch the video--you might not be aware that there was a CT scan done of the Delk track that showed higher density material around the human print. Impossible if it was a fraud. The density was caused around the human print for the same reason there was higher density material around the theropod track--they were both made authentically in soft material.

The claim of humans and dinosaurs coexisting is an extraordinary one.
If its true, proof beyond any reasonable doubt should be possible.

View Post

Watch the video. If evolution is true then we should have the same rule apply as you just gave for creationists. There is plenty of reasonable doubt for it.

#24 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2009 - 09:50 AM

From the other thread.
It's like you said about proving things by announcement only.
I have not seen anything that is better than proof than my pictures on the subject. Have yet to see better proof on being fraudulent against those pics.
This I have seen an example of, but I do not see creation being refuted in the same manner. That is because everyone in science respects Einstein. No one in science respect Christian creation. So therefore to critize it means no lash back from any peers. What peer is going to defend it when their jobs could end up on the chopping block?
Then we will see.
Well sterotyping is not what I usually do unless I feel someone else is attempting it as well.
If there were no excuses, evolution would have already been disproven on standing evidence. Because when you remove all the logic and reason required to address every problem, and just stick the evidence out there and say: It's proven. It's not really that much there. Because every peice of evidence takes a 2 hour long explanation on the interpretation. And 75% of what is claimed through each interpretation cannot be proven through observation. The only thing that can be proven is: What layer it was found it. It's age according to how the geologic column is supposed to work. And maybe what it is. The rest is interpetations based on that evolution is already true. So no other interpretation will fit. So no other idea are even pondered.
You would not have asked that question about Kuban sneaking a plaster on the print, if you knew. He bragged about it on his site.
After researching this again on Kuban sites, I see he has revised them and removed the page where he made a plaster and sneaked it off. But I did find that he was still using some photo shopped (altered) pics that were made to make evidence look more fake.



The picture on the left is from his site: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm
The picture on the right is the original.

Why alter it? It's like every other creation picture I can find on evolutionists sites. To make their announcments (to use your term) more believable, they made the pics look old, non-detailed, blurred, etc... Anytime someone has to distort one evidence to make another look better, means there are lies and deception going on.

Here are some examples of real and altered pics I have gathered over the years off evolutionists sites.








Etc...

I can find altered pics for just about any creation evidence that exists. So what makes altering evidence scientific to prove one evidence is better than another? Is deception now a part of science?

Here are examples:

http://images.google...s&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

http://images.google...2&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

http://images.google...q=f&oq=&aqi=g10

http://images.google...tart=80&ndsp=20

I guess if this is supposed to be how scientific debunks are done. Maybe I should also take my collection of evolution pics and alter them with the same intent? And when someone asks, I'll just claim I'm debunking evidence by example from another scientific site.

I found the site with the sneaking of the plaster. Instead of Kuban, it was Dr. Arlton Murray.

http://www.bibleands.../footprints.htm

View Post


Not that I necesasrily agree with any of the rest of what you said, but in the interests of not



I think the main ideas in your post are in these sentences:



and just stick the evidence out there and say: It's proven.

....can we Please put this to bed? Science doesnt talk about proof and truth.
Ok? Please? nobody says "irs proven".

That is because everyone in science respects Einstein. No one in science respect Christian creation. So therefore to critize it means no lash back from any peers. What peer is going to defend it when their jobs could end up on the chopping block?

....No! i said not even Einstein is safe from data. prove him wrong on something make a big name for yourself, Make a big advance in science.
If you wish to falsify something that Einstein said, well, show the data.

Regards what you said about the chopping block. Please explain exactly what you mean. I think maybe I know, but, best if I dont guess.


The rest is interpetations based on that evolution is already true. So no other interpretation will fit. So no other idea are even pondered.


.......You are again making opinions into statements of fact.

This is not at all how science is done. If anyone did this it would simply mean that dont know the first most basic thing about how to do their work, or, are profoundly dishonest with themselves and everyone else.

For this to be an accurate statement on your part it would require that all of the tens of thousands of scientists around the world working in biology, geology, physics, anything related to geological age etc is guilty of fraud and incompetence. Or so it seems to me. Please explain what your exact position on this is.

#25 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 02 November 2009 - 11:01 AM

The claim of humans and dinosaurs coexisting is an extraordinary one.
If its true, proof beyond any reasonable doubt should be possible.

View Post

What's "extraordinary" about the claim? Do you think there has ever been any evidence indicating otherwise?

#26 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2009 - 11:12 AM

What's "extraordinary" about the claim? Do you think there has ever been any evidence indicating otherwise?

View Post



It seems to me extraordinary in the extreme to make a claim that at once falsifies and overturns the work of many thousands of scientist working all over the world for the past hundred and some years! Taking in biologists of all sorts, geologists, physicists of various sorts etc.....

Basically it would be the piece of evidence to prove God and creationism. So that ios really quite extraordinary.

Even aliens landing from outer space would hardly be more or even as extraordinary.

Not sure what evidence indicating otherwise is... otherwise than what?

#27 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 02 November 2009 - 11:39 AM

It seems to me extraordinary in the extreme to make a claim that at once falsifies and overturns the work of many thousands of scientist working all over the world for the past hundred and some years!  Taking in biologists of all sorts, geologists, physicists of various sorts etc.....

Basically it would be the piece of evidence to prove God and creationism.  So that ios really quite extraordinary.

Even aliens landing from outer space would hardly be more or even as extraordinary.

Not sure what evidence  indicating otherwise is... otherwise than what?

View Post

You reason from implications. That the evidence challenges your belief system is not sufficient to demonstrate it is extraordinary.

Neither is it the least bit extraordinary for the mainstream to be grossly mistaken, so even if we were to reason from implication your argument wouldn't be convincing.

Try reasoning from evidence. Extinction cannot be easily proven. It is a conclusion based upon lack of evidence. To maintain that things must not exist in the presence of evidence that they do is beyond the bounds of extraordinary and into absurdity.

When we compare the standards of evidence accepted and evidence rejected by evolutionists; it's a joke. These are matters of history, and the documentation behind many evolutionist icons is extremely thin.

#28 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 02 November 2009 - 02:09 PM

It seems to me extraordinary in the extreme to make a claim that at once falsifies and overturns the work of many thousands of scientist working all over the world for the past hundred and some years!  Taking in biologists of all sorts, geologists, physicists of various sorts etc.....

Basically it would be the piece of evidence to prove God and creationism.  So that ios really quite extraordinary.

Even aliens landing from outer space would hardly be more or even as extraordinary.

Not sure what evidence  indicating otherwise is... otherwise than what?

View Post

The majority is always perceived right by the majority. Why would any of this prove God? What it would do is give credibility to creationists, which we all know is the real game here.

You did not comment on the Delk track video. Are you going to look at it?

#29 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2009 - 02:58 PM

You reason from implications. That the evidence challenges your belief system is not sufficient to demonstrate it is extraordinary.

Neither is it the least bit extraordinary for the mainstream to be grossly mistaken, so even if we were to reason from implication your argument wouldn't be convincing.

Try reasoning from evidence. Extinction cannot be easily proven. It is a conclusion based upon lack of evidence. To maintain that things must not exist in the presence of evidence that they do is beyond the bounds of extraordinary and into absurdity.

When we compare the standards of evidence accepted and evidence rejected by evolutionists; it's a joke. These are matters of history, and the documentation behind many evolutionist icons is extremely thin.

View Post



Please avoid personal remarks telling me what I do / how I think. You dont know.

Rreasoning from evidence is what is done in science. Show me data, and i will be able to do something with it. Its not about a belief system at all. A belief system (preconceived ideas) is the thing that any scientist knows he has to avoid.

I will have to stick with what i said about extraordinary in the extreme. its got nothing to do with what is or isnt "mainstream". It has to do with the lifetime achievements of thousands of people all over the world, countless millions of data points gained thro' very detailed and intelligent work, all of which confirm geologic time / evolution. Not one (1) to contradict or falsify.

This is quite an unbalanced score. Yes, I think it would be extraordinary if one guy came along and picked up a rock and it all went out the window. Not
impossible, but extraordinary. if all evolution had going for it, as I noted elsewhere, was a rock and a youtube video, and it purporeted to overturn an equal imbalance in fa vour of crationism it would be, and rightly so, an object of ridicule. And it would have to do an real good (extraordinary) job of proving it was real.


You say we cant prove extinction? In a sense, that is true. All the great dinosaurs wooly mammoths and whatnot may yet live somewhere. Montana maybe.

The rather extensive exploration that has been done, tho, makes it a vanishingly small chance that they live on. If anyone thinks it has not been proven beyond areasonable doubt, fine. Their deal.

This statement "When we compare the standards of evidence accepted and evidence rejected by evolutionists; it's a joke. is a statement of opinion, not of fact.

Didnt I just see a youtube video about a rock presented as some sort of valid evidence?

It seems improbable on the face of it, that so many thousands of intelligent dedicated people in a wide variety of academic fields would be so simple minded as that. A person who read some original research papers would not be so quick to come to such a conclusion.

I personally think that trying to slander a group of professionals is a poor substitute for some actual data.

#30 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 02 November 2009 - 04:05 PM

Rreasoning from evidence is what is done in science.  Show me data, and i will be able to do something with it.

View Post

Fine, did you watch the delk track video?

I will have to stick with what i said about extraordinary in the extreme.  its got nothing to do with what is or isnt "mainstream".  It has to do with the lifetime achievements of thousands of people all over the world, countless millions of data points gained thro' very detailed and intelligent work, all of which confirm geologic time / evolution.  Not one (1) to contradict or falsify.

View Post

You seem like a fair minded person. Do you realize the creation movement is a young movement? It neither has the personnel, funding, nor duration of research that standard geology or evolutionary theory does. Evolutionary theory took over the university leadership in the late 1800's and has never since been challenged. Old earth theory has been around longer than that.

So to say creationism is wrong because of "data points," is ignoring the dynamics of the situation.

Can we perhaps get a data point by you watching the Delk track video?

#31 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2009 - 07:20 PM

Fine, did you watch the delk track video?

You seem like a fair minded person.  Do you realize the creation movement is a young movement?  It neither has the personnel, funding, nor duration of research that standard geology or evolutionary theory does.  Evolutionary theory took over the university leadership in the late 1800's and has never since been challenged.  Old earth theory has been around longer than that.

So to say creationism is wrong because of "data points,"  is ignoring the dynamics of the situation.

Can we perhaps get a data point by you watching the Delk track video?

View Post



ok, fair is fair, I watched it. Its a pretty decent presentation.

If it is a real specimen and is what it is purported to be, then, that is a tremendously exciting and significant find.

I have sat in a courtroom (unfortunately, about me) for several days and heard a story from the defense that was just so real and convincing that i just really didnt see how anyone could not be convinced! And heard what i had to say taken apart and proven wrong. Weird.

Thing is tho I actually was there and I actually do know exactly what those three guys did and who they were. Its a werid feeling to have someone talking a story that sounds so real but is so false and is so totally taken out of the twilight zone. i developed a hatred for that attorney that really isnt good for me, and I hope to get over it.

Well that is too much personal stuff but its just by way of saying that one good presentation is a one good presentation. Lets hear the rest of the story.

I'd really like to hear what someone who wasnt from a creationist group says and how they would analyze it. Fair is fair.


Now regarding the creation movement. In one sense its new, in another is thousands of years old. Not so long ago evolution and deep time were radical departures from the accepted beliefs. People seeing things that just didnt jive with the old stories....

Would you say that the creation movement has a specific agenda? What do you think it would be? Does having a specific goal or agenda in any way affect the quality and credibility of someone's work?

.....think maybe pharmaceuticals / tobacco / global warming (either side).....


Do you think that the community of scientists who do work that bears on the age of the earth and evolution all have an agenda? The same agenda as eachother? What might it be?

Do you think that if a physicist saw that the old earth stuff that the geologists were talking about was obvious hooey that he would not with some possibly mean joy make a laughing stock of them?

Do you think that if anyone in any field of science found data that would serve to contradict the main concepts of evolution / deep time, that he would either bury the data, or be kept from publishing?

Do you think that all data is force fitted as needed into the theories?

Dont mean to make a document dump of questions. I dont like it when someone posts a dozen rhetorical questions and acts like I am supposed to spend three hours answering them.

These are some ideas to consider, which i hope you will, and then get back to me.

#32 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 02 November 2009 - 07:59 PM

You reason from implications. That the evidence challenges your belief system is not sufficient to demonstrate it is extraordinary.

Please avoid personal remarks telling me what I do / how I think. You dont know.

View Post

Please pay attention. You told me, and everyone else who chances to read.

Check it out:

It seems to me extraordinary in the extreme to make a claim that at once falsifies and overturns the work of many thousands of scientist working all over the world for the past hundred and some years!  Taking in biologists of all sorts, geologists, physicists of various sorts etc.....

Basically it would be the piece of evidence to prove God and creationism.  So that ios really quite extraordinary.

Even aliens landing from outer space would hardly be more or even as extraordinary.

Not sure what evidence  indicating otherwise is... otherwise than what?

View Post

Not a thought about the evidence in there - implications are your exclusive focus. Perhaps in time you will come to understand how dangerous evolutionism is, and the serious threat it poses to one's capacity to reason.

#33 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2009 - 08:23 PM

[quote name='CTD' date='Nov 2 2009, 07:59 PM']
Please avoid personal remarks telling me what I do / how I think. You dont know.

View Post

[/quote]Please pay attention. You told me, and everyone else who chances to read.

Check it out:

Not a thought about the evidence in there - implications are your exclusive focus. Perhaps in time you will come to understand how dangerous evolutionism is, and the serious threat it poses to one's capacity to reason.

View Post

[/quote]


There may be a rule about ad homs to consult.

Let me know if you wish to discuss some actual issue related to the "human" tracks at Paluxy.

#34 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 02 November 2009 - 08:37 PM

Rreasoning from evidence is what is done in science.  Show me data, and i will be able to do something with it. Its not about a belief system at all.  A belief system (preconceived ideas) is the thing that any scientist knows he has to avoid.

I will have to stick with what i said about extraordinary in the extreme.  its got nothing to do with what is or isnt "mainstream".  It has to do with the lifetime achievements of thousands of people all over the world, countless millions of data points gained thro' very detailed and intelligent work, all of which confirm geologic time / evolution.  Not one (1) to contradict or falsify.

This is quite an unbalanced score.  Yes, I think it would be extraordinary if one guy came along and picked up a rock and it all went out the window.  Not
impossible, but extraordinary.  if all evolution had going for it, as I noted elsewhere, was a rock and a youtube video, and it purporeted to overturn an equal imbalance in fa vour of crationism it would be, and rightly so, an object of ridicule.  And it would have to do an real good (extraordinary) job of proving it was real.

And you turn right around and reason from implications once again. If the evidence didn't imply a defect in the evostories, you'd have no problem with it.

You say we cant prove extinction? In a sense, that is true.  All the great dinosaurs wooly mammoths and whatnot may yet live somewhere.  Montana maybe. 

The rather extensive exploration that has been done, tho, makes it a vanishingly small chance that they live on.  If anyone thinks it has not been proven beyond areasonable doubt, fine.  Their deal.

Poor dodge. The issue of extinction is not a matter of making pejorative remarks.

The issue here obviously is not just present-day extinction. You need to demonstrate extinction in the past, right on evo-schedule, or you have nothing. You need to demonstrate humans and dinosaurs could not have lived at the same time. Did you not realize this? I hope I have not overestimated your capacity too much.

This statement "When we compare the standards of evidence accepted and evidence rejected by evolutionists; it's a joke. is a statement of opinion, not of fact.

It is a fact that a double-standard is employed. It is a fact that an objective observer of this double-standard would laugh, or at least crack a smile.

Didnt I just see a youtube video about a rock presented as some sort of valid evidence?

How would I know? I saw where a couple were posted, but knowing whether or not you watched them is a matter about which I have no evidence either way.

It seems improbable on the face of it, that so many thousands of intelligent dedicated people in a wide variety of academic fields would be so simple minded as that.  A person who read some original research papers would not be so quick to come to such a conclusion.

Don't know what you're talking about. Obviously you appeal to numbers, but in support of or opposition to what, I cannot say.

I personally think that trying to slander a group of professionals is a poor substitute for some actual data.

View Post

That is a statement of opinion, is it not? I think trying to slander anyone is lame and cowardly.

However, it's rather difficult to imagine how the amorality card might be played without resorting to lame and cowardly activities. Since one side has the exclusive claim on amorality, and little in the way of sound reasoning or other resource, it's not surprising that we see it. Neither should we overlook the blame shared by those who pretend to believe slanderers, or otherwise encourage the practice.

Not trying to sidetrack the discussion; just happy to see some potential for agreement here.

#35 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 02 November 2009 - 08:49 PM


Please pay attention. You told me, and everyone else who chances to read.

Check it out:

Not a thought about the evidence in there - implications are your exclusive focus. Perhaps in time you will come to understand how dangerous evolutionism is, and the serious threat it poses to one's capacity to reason.

View Post

There may be a rule about ad homs to consult.

Let me know if you wish to discuss some actual issue related to the "human" tracks at Paluxy.

View Post

There may indeed. I think you'll find that addressing an argument is not ad hom. Not by the rules here, and not anywhere else I've seen it defined.

You seem to miss the point that your objections to the evidence need to have a basis in reality rather than the implications the discovery might have. You have not even demonstrated the reasoning behind the implications you offer. I see you prefer to keep your reasoning private, but it's not working out very well, and should you succeed you just might end up not presenting an argument.

#36 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 02 November 2009 - 10:52 PM

ok, fair is fair, I watched it.  Its a pretty decent presentation.

If it is a real specimen and is what it is purported to be, then, that is a tremendously exciting and significant find.

View Post

I'm glad you think it was a good presentation, but what about the evidence Taikoo? What would account for the denser rock around the human footprint? How could a carver cause the rock around the print to become more dense?

#37 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 02 November 2009 - 11:20 PM

Posted Image
"Real" and "Fake"?

What are these clowns saying?

If they're saying dinosaur prints don't look just like the one labeled "fake", this is simply untrue.

Here's a print accepted as "officially authentic" and put on public display.
Posted Image

http://www.ntskeptic...january2003.htm

The "North Texas Skeptics" seem to be proud of it, in fact.

I anticipate some will argue that the comparison is not intended to communicate that the picture on the right is a fake dino print. Things are presumed to be apples-to-apples comparisons, are they not? The only apples-to-apples comparison available in the presented pictures is dino print to dino print.

Conclude what you must about

http://salon.glenros...w=plink&id=7951

View Post

Well, I was right: the scoffers are indeed claiming the dino print is a fake because it doesn't match their all-too-obviously cherry-picked example (which is a fairly poor example, at that).

http://scienceblogs....rent_fakery.php

#38 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 03 November 2009 - 01:18 AM

I wasn't really wanting to get into this, but, nevertheless, as I (in line with the general concensus) believe that the last of the dinosaurs died out millions of years before the emergance of Homo-Sapians, then logic dictates, to me, that the tracks are a fraud.

As I've said, there's no point me getting into this, as YEC'ers have their beliefs, and nothing I'm going to say wil change that, no matter how misguided I find that belief to be.

The only point in posting on this thread, as I wouldn't have bothered otherwise, was to address the evidence CTD gave in the form of a polygraph result.

As a LEO, I simply wanted to point out the error of trusting a polygraph.

View Post


To understand the YEC stance you first have to understand why they reject what you believe.

1) If we are to have faith in something, then it is taken as such from what we have faith in (God's word).
2) Science cannot prove that the timeline, and decay rates remained the same thourghout time and the origin of everything.
3) If all matter comes from one source, why does not all matter date the same to point back to it's source? Or why does not any matter date to it's source (the big bang)?
4) The main reason other dimensions will remain an idea that will never make it to being a theory is because when one ponders it, they soon start to see that to do so opens the door for areas of the supernatural. Because an eternal dimension, containing beings, equals eternal beings which equals Heaven. Which means God is not as hard to find, or ponder, as one might think.
5) An eternal dimension answers all questions concerning what existed before the begining. And where the matter came from to make the begining.

#39 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2009 - 08:17 AM

To understand the YEC stance you first have to understand why they reject what you believe.

1) If we are to have faith in something, then it is taken as such from what we have faith in (God's word).
2) Science cannot prove that the timeline, and decay rates remained the same thourghout time and the origin of everything.
3) If all matter comes from one source, why does not all matter date the same to point back to it's source? Or why does not any matter date to it's source (the big bang)?
4) The main reason other dimensions will remain an idea that will never make it to being a theory is because when one ponders it, they soon start to see that to do so opens the door for areas of the supernatural. Because an eternal dimension, containing beings, equals eternal beings which equals Heaven. Which means God is not as hard to find, or ponder, as one might think.
5) An eternal dimension answers all questions concerning what existed before the begining. And where the matter came from to make the begining.

View Post



!. If I had faith that there was a God, and that i had his word. then I would be immune to any "evidence' that might try to contradict it. The nearest I guess I could come to understanding that kind of faith would be in my Mom ior boyfriend. If someone had a video of him cheating on me it would be a fake.

2. Science cannot prove much of anything. One can get repeatable results, and show that if A then B......at least so far with no known exceptions in that experiment.

There may be a tempermental difference in people that leads them to one way or the other of dealing with the reality they see. some want absolutes, some are good a accepting the lack of same.

3. All matter is equally old, yes.
The dating is a bit of a different deal. You can make a new element out of pieces of other ones, in an atomic collider. Some will last only a fraction of a second, they are that unstable. Anyway, the components, the protons neutrons etc have old, but the atoms composed of them may be new; new atoms of every element are constantly being formed inside the sun.

4. Dimensions..there are two youtube videos, titled 'tenth dimension"
very cool, very interesting. Very highly reccomended. NOT an agrument against the supernatural, quite the opposite.

#40 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2009 - 08:22 AM

Well, I was right: the scoffers are indeed claiming the dino print is a fake because it doesn't match their all-too-obviously cherry-picked example (which is a fairly poor example, at that).

http://scienceblogs....rent_fakery.php

View Post


Present a fake, of course it will be seen as one. Not much predicting required.

As for the reason, " doesnt match example' that is of course just opinion stated as fact.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users