Jump to content


Photo

Proving Prints In Paluxy River Are Frauds.


  • Please log in to reply
161 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 31 October 2009 - 11:14 PM

This is a response to a claim made by another member. So let's see if anyone can back up all the claims and accusations made about all the human foot prints found or removed from the paluxy river....

#2 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 01 November 2009 - 04:43 AM

The interesting thing is that the river goes around a bend and there should be more tracks under the ground. Whenever you here an evolutionist say "proving evolution wrong would get you a Nobel prize!" it's just a lie. If scientists really believed that they would be looking for the rest of that tracks that go under the bank.

Also, it seems these tracks follow the river. If that is so, they should wonder why the river is still there and mostly going in the direction it has for all those millions of years.

#3 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2009 - 08:10 AM

The interesting thing is that the river goes around a bend and there should be more tracks under the ground. Whenever you here an evolutionist say "proving evolution wrong would get you a Nobel prize!" it's just a lie. If scientists really believed that they would be looking for the rest of that tracks that go under the bank.

Also, it seems these tracks follow the river. If that is so, they should wonder why the river is still there and mostly going in the direction it has for all those millions of years.

View Post



There no doubt are more tracks around the bend and and beneath the overburden on either side of the river, extending to unknown distances. The tracks are found of course, where the river exposed that layer of rock.

With regard to the tracks following the river, the rock is a type formed in shallow marine environments such as a bay or estuary. The tracks that are parallel to where there is now a river are logically going to be parallel to the river. Not all of them are pararllel.

I think it is unsuitable in the extreme to say that my statement about evolution and the Nobel prize is a lie.

This statement:

If scientists really believed that they would be looking for the rest of that tracks that go under the bank.

Is like what I said about the Nobel, a statement of opinion. Tho i must say, my opinion has considerably more basis. The greatest scientific discovery possibly of all time surely would get the Nobel.

I think a more accurate statement about the tracks would be something like this:

If any scientist thought any tracks found to date were human then there would be great interest in finding more.

I did note in a bit of reading that some of "human" trackways show side toes in some of the prints. I also found that a lot of research papers have been done on the Paluxy trackways.

In shallow marine water of course, you get tidal action, and when an animals is partly floating you will get shallower prints. There are dino tracks to be found that clearly show that only the front of the toes touched bottom as the animal half paddled, half walked along.

I noticed btw in looking at a few pictures that there are at least 3 clear photos showing drastically differently shaped "human" footprints. How does this seem to you?

Regardless of specifics of what you or others think has "falsified" evolution, or, what scientists would do etc, I think there is a general concept that you have expressed. I am going to guess at it, and invite you to state in your own words what it is you think.


This is my guess: That you believe scientists are out to protect and prove a preconceived "dogma" about evolution. That they ignore or hide evidence that would refute their dogma.

Is that accurate? If not, my apologies; If it is, then could you please state this concept as clearly and completely as you can?

Oh... one more thing. Do you think that creationists are out to prove and protect a preconceived dogma?

#4 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 01 November 2009 - 08:29 AM

There no doubt are more tracks around the bend and and beneath the overburden on either side of the river, extending to unknown distances.  The tracks are found of course, where the river exposed that layer of rock.

View Post

It has been a while since I read anything on this extensively, but if I remember correctly some of the human tracks were found after digging. Also the famous track found adjacent to a theropod track was not at first apparent as it was covered by clay.

 
With regard to the tracks following the river, the rock is a type formed in shallow marine environments such as a bay or estuary. The tracks that are parallel to where there is now a river are logically going to be parallel to the river.  Not all of them are pararllel.

View Post

Yes, The ichnofossils are in limestone. Interesting that at one point in time the limestone mud had plasticity--it was not hard when the dinosaur stepped on it.

Question--why did the print not weather away after 65 m? Why are the stream and the nearby banks so shallow? Looks like its relatively fresh--not alot of erosion, weathering, nor deposition.

 
Oh... one more thing.  Do you think that creationists are out to prove and protect a preconceived dogma?

View Post

One thing that seems to escape the debate are the stakes involved. If the truth is in evolution's corner--then we all die and that's it. If it is that the Bible can be verifed historically and that there was a flood--then we die and there is judgment.

It is therefore out of motivation to protect the doctrine of Christ--which is either true or a lie.

#5 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2009 - 08:29 AM

This is a response to a claim made by another member. So let's see if anyone can back up all the claims and accusations made about all the human foot prints found or removed from the paluxy river....

View Post



Since i am the one who is responsible for starting this, I'd like to at this point modify a statement i made. i said that the "human' foot prints were fake.
Fraud.

I think it is unsuitable to state opinion as fact, I complain about it when others do it.

Fair is fair. I will try not to again state opinion as fact.

Modified statement.

-It is my opinion that there are no human footprints associated with dinosaur tracks.

-There are impressions in the rock that resemble human footprints. (there is also a formation on mars that resembles a human face)

-I believe that all of the tracks that do so closely resemble human footprints as to be unmistakable are in fact carved frauds.

-I find that the photos of what are purported to be human tracks show a wide variety of shapes / proportions. What would be a reasonable explanation for this?


The request was made that I or someone back "accusations" made about the paluxy tracks.

Two questions first tho..

What would be considered a reliable authority to settle the matter?

Do you think some of the tracks might be fake?

#6 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2009 - 08:39 AM

It has been a while since I read anything on this extensively, but if I remember correctly some of the human tracks were found after digging.  Also the famous track found adjacent to a theropod track was not at first apparent as it was covered by clay.

Yes, The ichnofossils are in limestone.  Interesting that at one point in time the limestone mud had plasticity--it was not hard when the dinosaur stepped on it. 

Question--why did the print not weather away after 65 m?  Why are the stream and the nearby banks so shallow?  Looks like its relatively fresh--not alot of erosion, weathering, nor deposition.

One thing that seems to escape the debate are the stakes involved.  If the truth is in evolution's corner--then we all die and that's it.  If it is that the Bible can be verifed historically and that there was a flood--then we die and there is judgment.

It is therefore out of motivation to protect the doctrine of Christ--which is either true or a lie.

View Post




The mud would be from silt carried out into the shallow water by rivers and / or dust storms. The lime portion is contributed by organisms such as forams, plankton floating about in the water. The bottom of the bay would be soft, as anyone is welcome to test for themselves in a similar environment today.

As for the prints not weathering away, there was a massive flood in i think it was 1908 that uncovered a lot of fine clear prints. In the normal course of the limestone slowing dissolving in the rain and the river flow, the tracks would disappear about as fast as they were being weathered out.

If they had been exposed for 65 million, or for even perhaps a few score years they would of course be weathered away. Especially in that type of soft muddy limestone... it would make terrible building stones.

#7 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 01 November 2009 - 09:59 AM

The mud would be from silt carried out into the shallow water by rivers  and / or dust storms.  The lime portion is contributed by organisms such as forams, plankton floating about in the water.  The bottom of the bay would be soft, as anyone is welcome to test for themselves in a similar environment today.

View Post

You mean the calcium carbonate CaCO3 portion don't you? Forminerfera and most (not all) other phytoplankton make aragonite shells(a polymorph of CaCO3).

Lime is CaO processed by man through calcination, and interestingly used as cement in concrete.

As for the prints not weathering away, there was a massive flood in i think it was 1908 that uncovered a lot of fine clear prints.  In the normal course of the limestone slowing dissolving in the rain and the river flow, the tracks would disappear about as  fast as they were being weathered out.

View Post

This scenario fits nicely into the deluge model, as sediment deposition would have preserved the prints.

But technically, a uniformintarian view would have continued water erosion or rain weathering (depending on the environment at the time) on the soft prints. Either that or slow sedimentation would have filled and blended with the soft prints if it was a bay.

It doesn't make sense if it happened under uniform circumstances. Basically an ooze like geology was forming-- the dinosaur steps on it and then clay suddenly begins to deposit--what happened to the plankton--they suddenly stopped reproducing?

A sudden deposition is apparrent.

Under uniform. if a landslide covered the prints, there should still be subsequent sedimentation after 65 m. A small flood in 1908 would not justify removing 65 million years of sedimentation.

#8 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2009 - 12:11 PM

Zana Douglas, the granddaughter of the man who used to sell the footprints, admitted the footprints were fake. The ones that might not be fake aren't even convincingly human tracks.

#9 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 November 2009 - 11:19 PM

Zana Douglas, the granddaughter of the man who used to sell the footprints, admitted the footprints were fake.  The ones that might not be fake aren't even convincingly human tracks.

View Post


Hearsay. There was a lot of who said this or that going on when the tracks were found. I saw no convincing evidence one way or the other. Some were saying this because of the harassment they were getting just because they were related to someone who owned the prints, sold them for profit, or discovered them. If anyone around that area had positive information towards those prints supporting creation, they became a target of the evolution spin doctors and the local media.

If you wanted the harassment to stop, and you had nothing to lose by recanting. what would you do so that people would leave you alone?

#10 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 November 2009 - 11:21 PM

From the other thread.

As I noted in the other thread, I made a statement of opinion and presented it as a fact.  I dont approve of doing this, it was a mistake, and i will not try to defend it.  I will do my best to avoid doing this in the future.


It's like you said about proving things by announcement only.

Please note tho that you have made several statements of opinion yourself, and presented them as fact.
"not one shred of evidence can be produced.


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.

................oh?

"one person's word, whom all evolutionists take as golden
.............. Not how scientists think at all.  Data, my friend.  And nobody is safe from data.  Including Einstein. 


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 that will also speak volumes about claiming things no one wants to admit to."
...............opinion!


Then we will see.

"And you guys will laugh at that".

................nope.  I dont.  Swinin' too wide a loop, my friend!


Well sterotyping is not what I usually do unless I feel someone else is attempting it as well.

"but only one unobservable excuse is allowed, and the other denied

.............. its not an excuse to say that God is unobservable.  Science doesnt make excuses either.


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.

"If you knew about the controversy surrounding this print
................i do know about it.


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.

Not a big deal about the above opinions, just i would like it clarified what the goose / gander deal is on what is allowed to fly without backup.
With regard to citing references, it seems to me this just comes down to duelling websites.  Who would. what would you consider an authority?

You could phone the head of the paleo dept at the University of Texas at Austin, and ask him about the tracks at Paluxy.

Why dont you?

View Post


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.

Attached File  burd_toe1.jpg   37.92KB   129 downloadsAttached File  burdick_3_sectioned_toes.jpg   20.27KB   33 downloads

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.

Attached File  burdick1.jpg   19.14KB   11 downloadsAttached File  burdick_r1s_small.jpg   30.23KB   12 downloads


Attached File  Faking_20pics1.jpg   44.57KB   32 downloads

Attached File  hammer1c.jpg   33.81KB   14 downloadsAttached File  london_hammer.jpg   20.09KB   3 downloads

Attached File  meister1.jpg   32.94KB   3 downloadsAttached File  meister_box1b.jpg   70.32KB   26 downloads

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

#11 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 November 2009 - 11:49 PM

The interesting thing is that the river goes around a bend and there should be more tracks under the ground. Whenever you here an evolutionist say "proving evolution wrong would get you a Nobel prize!" it's just a lie. If scientists really believed that they would be looking for the rest of that tracks that go under the bank.

Also, it seems these tracks follow the river. If that is so, they should wonder why the river is still there and mostly going in the direction it has for all those millions of years.

View Post


Since they gave Obama the prize for making promises, I have lost all respect for the Nobel Prize.

Also when a evolutionist tells me that I could win the prize for doing this or that. I tell them that they too could get it if they can prove evolution as a true fact. No one has gotten the NP for that. But I guess if someone like Dawkins makes the promise to do so, he may get it like Obama did.

One more thing. I see no NP given out for anyone proving creation wrong.

#12 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 02 November 2009 - 12:18 AM

Polygraph Results

The questions were as follows with my answers in parentheses.

Regarding your statements about the Paluxy evidence, do you intend to answer my questions truthfully? (Yes)

Did you ever misrepresent Paluxy evidence? (No)

Did you alter in any way evidence to make false conclusions at the Paluxy site? (No)

Have you intentionally lied about the evidence you found at the Paluxy site? (No)



#13 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 02 November 2009 - 12:50 AM

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

#14 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2009 - 12:54 AM

Polygraph Results

View Post


I'm not getting into the accuracy or legitimacy of the tracks debate as I believe it to be pointless as I'm not going to change anyone's mind. ( believe them to be fraud).

What I do want to point out though is, there is a reason why polygraphs are not admisable in Court in many Nations and States.

It is generally accepted by most people in the legal and law enforcent communities that polygraphs are only accurate about 59-65% of the time, which is little more than chance.

#15 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 02 November 2009 - 03:13 AM

Using the word "believe" means you have doubt to them being proven as fraud. But by what "Actual proof" would you say you believe that they are fraudulent?

#16 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2009 - 03:34 AM

Using the word "believe" means you have doubt to them being proven as fraud. But by what "Actual proof" would you say you believe that they are fraudulent?

View Post


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.

#17 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2009 - 07:36 AM

Using the word "believe" means you have doubt to them being proven as fraud. But by what "Actual proof" would you say you believe that they are fraudulent?

View Post



The degree of doubt is vanishingly small. i have several reasons for that, which I wont take time to go into.

There would be various possible ways to show they were fraudulent, depending on how it was done. Tool marks would be one. Another would be if in a real track there was deformation of the substrate but not in the fake. Impossible anatomy, another. I dont have a specimen, or expertise.

IF someone has a real human footprint in Cretaceous limestone, then bring it forth. Show it. Let it be examined by the finest experts. If you dont trust Americans, take it to Beijing.

In the absence of a specimen to be examined all the blurry photos / good photos, stories, etc come to exactly nothing.

Side note here, that i would be as interested as anyone if a real track could be found.

#18 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2009 - 07:48 AM

Since they gave Obama the prize for making promises, I have lost all respect for the Nobel Prize.

Also when a evolutionist tells me that I could win the prize for doing this or that. I tell them that they too could get it if they can prove evolution as a true fact. No one has gotten the NP for that. But I guess if someone like Dawkins makes the promise to do so, he may get it like Obama did.

One more thing. I see no NP given out for anyone proving creation wrong.

View Post



Some Nobel prizes have been well earned and some not.

I wish you and others would quit talking about proving evolution to be a "true" fact. It will never be done, nor will any other scientific theory be proven more than beyond a reasonable doubt. it is pointless and a waste of time to talk about proving it.

Creation is a theory that also cannot be proven. Actually it doesnt technically qualify as a theory as it has no data to support it. Disprove it? make a specific claim that is part of creation and we can see if it could be disproved.

The bit about Nobel prize is beside the point anyway. If someone could falsify the ToE he would be have made the single greatest scientific discovery of all time, to date. The facts would get out even if there were an international conspiracy to try to suppress it. Maybe there is a place for a thread about the plausibility of there being such a conspiracy.

It would sure require the cooperation of a lot of very independent minded competitive people all over the world working in many different fields of science.

it would require a lot of other extremely improbable things.s but like I said, maybe a seperate thread would be the place for that.

#19 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 - 08:07 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

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.

#20 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2009 - 08:08 AM

You mean the calcium carbonate CaCO3 portion don't you?  Forminerfera and most (not all) other phytoplankton make aragonite shells(a polymorph of CaCO3).

Lime is CaO processed by man through calcination, and interestingly used as cement in concrete.

This scenario fits nicely into the deluge model, as sediment deposition would have preserved the prints.

But technically, a uniformintarian view would have continued water erosion or rain weathering (depending on the environment at the time) on the soft prints.  Either that or slow sedimentation would have filled and blended with the soft prints if it was a bay.

It doesn't make sense if it happened under uniform circumstances.  Basically an ooze like geology was forming-- the dinosaur steps on it and then clay suddenly begins to deposit--what happened to the plankton--they suddenly stopped reproducing?

A sudden deposition is apparrent.

Under uniform. if a landslide covered the prints, there should still be subsequent  sedimentation after 65 m.  A small flood in 1908 would not justify removing 65 million years of sedimentation.

View Post


Yes I mean calcium carbonate and yes I do know the difference between lime and limestone.

There are large numbers of fossil trackways of many sorts of organisms.
do you think they all are the product of the "deluge"?

A landslide would have a marvelously hard time making it across miles and miles of low swampy land and finally out into the bay. Texas now has some mountains in the far west, but it sure didnt have a source for a landslide back then, hundreds of miles away. sorry, no landslide.


I dont think your comments make a lot of sense. Sorry!
"Uniformitarianism' is not a word geologists use. We recognize that some processes are slow and more or less uniform, and some processes happen very quickly. Quick and slow in geology are not really in a human time frame anyway.

it would not be surprising if you had tracks deeply impressed in soft substrate remaining in good shape for a long time. What would disturb them?

They could fill with the same sort of sediment that they are made in, and be preserved; there could be a rain that brought a layer of silt that settled into them. If you look at an X section of limestone you will often see many many feet of alternating softer and harder stone, limestone with larger and smalelr amounts of silt in it. Its plain as can be that its not the product of a single event.

I dont know why you say that a flood could not uncover the footprints. it did!

Patient years of erosion took the ground level down close to the prints,

I dotn really know why you'd think there would be 65 million years of sedimentation. In general you get periods of sedimentation, and times of erosion. One of the complaints about geological dating is that its so seldom you get a continuous record in one place that extends for many millions of years. In the midwest I have seen where the seabed is 3000 feet below the wheatfiedls (as clearly shown by a drill bringing up bits of seashell and limestone) and other places where you can walk about on the old seabed picking up shells. or over here, if you just take off a bit of overburden there is the sea bed. Nothing mysterious at all about that.

Anyway, back to prints. They are formed in a variety of environments, and one would have to look at each indivudually to see what it is that happened.
No one theory like the 'flood" will be able to explain all of them. Each has its own story.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users