Jump to content


The Human Foot Prints....


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
41 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 February 2006 - 08:18 PM

Where is this picture taken from, please.

View Post


Paluxy river. I had it in my creation pic archive (over 4,000 pics and counting). I might be able to find the website. Don't know if it's still up.

#22 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 15 February 2006 - 11:49 PM

Convenient! such laws are enacted to prevent destruction.

Such laws are very necessary, however, when done properly do excavations cause serious harm? Would a secular anthropologist face the same resistance if he wanted to study the river bed?

Which suggests that if the proper permits can be obtained they should allow excavation but not removal

Was there anything illegal about this particular dig? And did the laws already exist or were they passed just because of the occasion? I still think the possibility of finding human and dinosaur tracks together would be given special consideration.

#23 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 February 2006 - 12:14 AM

Such laws are very necessary, however, when done properly do excavations cause serious harm? Would a secular anthropologist face the same resistance if he wanted to study the river bed?
Was there anything illegal about this particular dig? And did the laws already exist or were they passed just because of the occasion? I still think the possibility of finding human and dinosaur tracks together would be given special consideration.

View Post


Not if the judge is an evolutionist.

#24 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 16 February 2006 - 02:27 AM

Not if the judge is an evolutionist.

View Post

So were the laws put into place just because of this possibility?

#25 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 February 2006 - 09:00 AM

So were the laws put into place just because of this possibility?

View Post


Well, I never said that I knew for sure. But I can tell you this. Which way do you think a judge will more than likely rule if he is evolutionist?

Same way goes with the subject of creation, abortion etc... You cannot be human and not have what you believe effect a decision.

Here's the way I look at it. To be truly neutral, is to be truly confused. Because to be neutral is not to know what to believe. Been there done that.... But, to be for one side, and never even give the other side a look over. Is to be totally closed minded to any truth that might be there. To what would you gain if your goal is to find truth, but you don't listen? A person who listens learns. A person who always has to speak their mind, only wants to show what they know. And are more than likely to be friends with those who will exalt them for their knowledge. When they don't realize that the opposing side can actually make them push towards finding more truth, because of the questions they ask.

#26 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 16 February 2006 - 12:57 PM

Well, I never said that I knew for sure. But I can tell you this. Which way do you think a judge will more than likely rule if he is evolutionist?

Same way goes with the subject of creation, abortion etc... You cannot be human and not have what you believe effect a decision.

Here's the way I look at it. To be truly neutral, is to be truly confused. Because to be neutral is not to know what to believe. Been there done that.... But, to be for one side, and never even give the other side a look over. Is to be totally closed minded to any truth that might be there. To what would you gain if your goal is to find truth, but you don't listen? A person who listens learns. A person who always has to speak their mind, only wants to show what they know. And are more than likely to be friends with those who will exalt them for their knowledge. When they don't realize that the opposing side can actually make them push towards finding more truth, because of the questions they ask.

View Post

I agree with you, the only reason I ask is because if it is true that the laws were passed specifically for this dig a red flag should go up for everyone. However, even with the laws in place such a dig should be allowed because thepossible impact.

#27 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 February 2006 - 01:38 PM

Imposters as well as moles. We can relate to that here :D . And I don't blame them for that. But everytime I e-mail them, it's always the same attitude. It's almost as if I feel I'm being judged just for asking the question. And their answer is also mixed with a political type dodge. Like when politicians debate, and you can't tell whether the question asked was ever answered. But yet they move on like it was, and the people are left with a HUH? look on their faces.

The last e-mail I sent, I was asked to write a paper for them to peer view on the subject. And "they" would determine whether it was worthy of what ever course was to be taken. I thought to myself: They are now judgeing people's complaints, or interpetations of God's word through peer views? That's like the catholics do. The Pope has to approve things before they can be presented, or things changed.

If I wrote the paper, and it was convincing enough for them to take a second look. And possibly change their ideas about creation. I very seriously doubt they could make such a change. Why? They are very committed into the direction they are currently going. And have claimed to have debunked many things along the way. Things they would have to take a second look at. Things they would have to recant.

This is why I don't ever commit to a certain view about creation totally. As new things come out, I keep an open mind. Even on things where science is concerned. I have changed my mind almost ten times on creation. And I don't throw anything out just because it comes from an OEC believer etc... And is why I was able to find those verses I have posted about age without time. I never would have found that if I was closed minded about creation only fitting into one spectrum of thought.

View Post


One can only be impressed with the honesty it must have took to write this. I and others often criticises YEC (in general) for just “towing the party line”, it’s rather refreshing to see this is not so at an individual level, and that inquisitiveness is not stifled.

I would make this observation about organisations in general – The bigger they get the more bureaucratic they become (it’s inevitable), as you observed with your comparison to the catholic church a big organisation requires rules, administrators, accountants, lawyers, and the most insidious of all …the…human relations facilitator…..[runs screaming from the room], just to keep the wheels turning All this infrastructure creates ‘political’ inertia an it is hard for new ideas to be heard as one battles the chain of command. This sort of situation IMO is partly responsible for the popularity of the small community church.

#28 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 February 2006 - 01:54 PM

Convenient! such laws are enacted to prevent destruction.


Such laws are very necessary, however, when done properly do excavations cause serious harm? Would a secular anthropologist face the same resistance if he wanted to study the river bed?


I doubt he would. I know this sounds a little unfair, but one must be realistic with regard to the situation as it currently stands i.e. reputation. E.g. If NASA said I want some money to build a rocket, and submitted 5kg of supporting documentation, and the competitor was AiG, I’m certain I know who would get the grant.

Sometimes being right is not enough, one must be perceived to be right. This is just human nature, it works in reverse as well. e.g. political situation X, TV station interviews Brittney Spears for her POV! “like wow man the situation is like so really gross, and like why can’t we all just get along”. :)


Which suggests that if the proper permits can be obtained they should allow excavation but not removal


Was there anything illegal about this particular dig? And did the laws already exist or were they passed just because of the occasion? I still think the possibility of finding human and dinosaur tracks together would be given special consideration.


Sorry, don’t know, most of this stuff is from the 70’s, and I’m an ocean away, with the internet and a library as my only source.

#29 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 16 February 2006 - 03:24 PM

I doubt he would. I know this sounds a little unfair, but one must be realistic with regard to the situation as it currently stands i.e. reputation. E.g. If NASA said I want some money to build a rocket, and submitted 5kg of supporting documentation, and the competitor was AiG, I’m certain I know who would get the grant.

Well lets investigate who is right instead of relying on reputation, this is science after all. For all of the talk of how, "The data agrees with our theory," something like this smacks of elitism.

#30 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 February 2006 - 07:13 PM

Well lets investigate who is right instead of relying on reputation, this is science after all. For all of the talk of how, "The data agrees with our theory," something like this smacks of elitism.

View Post


I prefer to stick to the science, which was why I posted the links to the investigations performed on the Burdick Print.

The other aspect of reputation and elitism is a separate but inseparable fact of the realities of life. Its regrettable that such situations will arise and it’s very obvious that YEC is the underdog and is at significant disadvantage in this situation. My only advise in such a situation is to go into partnership with the devil, perhaps offer to partly fund such a dig if they will allow you to participate and observe.

#31 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 February 2006 - 11:25 PM

One can only be impressed with the honesty it must have took to write this.  I and others often criticises YEC (in general) for just “towing the party line”, it’s rather refreshing to see this is not so at an individual level, and that inquisitiveness is not stifled.

I would make this observation about organisations in general – The bigger they get the more bureaucratic they become (it’s inevitable), as you observed with your comparison to the catholic church a big organisation requires rules, administrators, accountants, lawyers, and the most insidious of all …the…human relations facilitator…..[runs screaming from the room], just to keep the wheels turning All this infrastructure creates ‘political’ inertia an it is hard for new ideas to be heard as one battles the chain of command.  This sort of situation IMO is partly responsible for the popularity of the small community church.

View Post


If you really want to know, I actually stand alone on most of my ideas. But, they have turned some heads. And left some people speechless because I come out of left field. But to be like everyone else, when it seems to be not working. Is not really doing much for the cause. More than 50% of what I do is stepping on new ground. And it's scary at times because it's like leaving your laundry out for everyone to see.

I look at all sides and figure out what is not working, ponder it. And wait for God to lead me. I know that part is hard for some to understand. But when you don't have the mind of Albert E, then you need to rely on what's available. Albert can't lend me his wisdom, but God can. And the more I rely on it, without abusing what has been given, I receive more. That's is about the best as I can explain it.

#32 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 16 February 2006 - 11:26 PM

I prefer to stick to the science, which was why I posted the links to the investigations performed on the Burdick Print.

The other aspect of reputation and elitism is a separate but inseparable fact of the realities of life. Its regrettable that such situations will arise and it’s very obvious that YEC is the underdog and is at significant disadvantage in this situation.  My only advise in such a situation is to go into partnership with the devil, perhaps offer to partly fund such a dig if they will allow you to participate and observe.

View Post

Well how do you go about doing such a thing? 'Excuse me I disagree with the fundamental basis of your theory and I would like to contribute to your research it hopes of disproving evolution. Interested?'
As far as we have come I don't think we have found anything definitive in Glen Rose, however, why stop? especially with such an amazing possibility. Tell me, Chance, what would you think if they found, to everyone's satisfaction, proof of dinosaurs and man together? Would you simply have to reformat the theory or would you give creation another look?

#33 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 February 2006 - 02:07 PM

Well how do you go about doing such a thing? 'Excuse me I disagree with the fundamental basis of your theory and I would like to contribute to your research it hopes of disproving evolution. Interested?'


Well, if one wrote it like that I think the application would be found in rubbish bin, nevertheless free money for a dig is still something hard to turn down provided there are no strings attached. I don’t for a moment pretend that there will be some obstacles, and one of those will be adverse publicity, especially after the backlash caused by the Smithsonian hireling out their facilities to show “The privileged planet” incident. One will need to be diplomatic and build some trust.




Tell me, Chance, what would you think if they found, to everyone's satisfaction, proof of dinosaurs and man together? Would you simply have to reformat the theory or would you give creation another look?


I think evolution would be dead in it’s tracks (pun intended), but I would like a little more than a print or painting, a single fossil would be good.

#34 Christopher_John

Christopher_John

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Interests:Messianic Prophecy.<br /><br /> I work very odd hours, I will eventually get back into the discussion with you, just be patient I'm not avoiding any topic.
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 19 February 2006 - 02:59 PM

  Albert can't lend me his wisdom, but God can.

View Post


Hey Admin3,
I would at least call these words of wisdom :)


"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details".-Albert Einstein


“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".- Albert Einstein



#35 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 February 2006 - 07:40 PM

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".- Albert Einstein

I agree to a certain level. And it makes me wonder if Albert knew the direction science was heading upon making that quote?

Chance:

I would make this observation about organisations in general – The bigger they get the more bureaucratic they become (it’s inevitable), as you observed with your comparison to the catholic church a big organisation requires rules, administrators, accountants, lawyers, and the most insidious of all …the…human relations facilitator…..[runs screaming from the room], just to keep the wheels turning All this infrastructure creates ‘political’ inertia an it is hard for new ideas to be heard as one battles the chain of command. This sort of situation IMO is partly responsible for the popularity of the small community church.


Chance, you know all that what you say can also be applied to how big science has become. For them to also require views to be peer viewed is taking the individual idea, and being able to destroy it before it even has a chance. All because the peer viewers might disagree. How much information has science really lost out on because an individual idea was stifled at it's begining?

#36 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 February 2006 - 08:18 PM

Chance, you know all that what you say can also be applied to how big science has become. For them to also require views to be peer viewed is taking the individual idea, and being able to destroy it before it even has a chance. All because the peer viewers might disagree. How much information has science really lost out on because an individual idea was stifled at it's begining?


Absolutely true, a recent example is this years Nobel prize winners who proved that stomach ulcers are caused by bacteriuria and not stress/stomach acid. This fact (i.e. pre-conceived ideas can be wrong) is recognised, and a culture of challenging the status quo is encouraged, but it can still be a very difficult thing to do. The best one can do is be aware that the problem exists and be alert to clues.

Entire societies have suffered as a result of this problem, by rights the Chinese empire should have been 1000 years in advance of the west, yet a political ‘isolation’ decision crushed the enterprise and scientific achievements, and allowed renaissance Europe to steal a march. IMO the underlying factor seems to be the need for a society to tolerate irreverence.

#37 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 19 February 2006 - 09:03 PM

Well, if one wrote it like that I think the application would be found in rubbish bin, nevertheless free money for a dig is still something hard to turn down provided there are no strings attached.

Forgive me I was being quite cynical because I think it is a very unrealistic proposition. I honestly don't feel very many scientists are interested in finding such a thing. As far as free money goes, the government provides all that at our expense. :)

I think evolution would be dead in it’s tracks (pun intended), but I would like a little more than a print or painting, a single fossil would be good.

A little of a side question, what do you think of the case that creationists present to support their views? I would like to know since I have an idea of what you would accept.

#38 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 February 2006 - 09:48 PM

A little of a side question, what do you think of the case that creationists present to support their views? I would like to know since I have an idea of what you would accept.


I can answer that one. There is nothing an evolutionist can accept about creationist evidence and still be an evolutionist. And some people wonder why they are always at odds with one another.

#39 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 19 February 2006 - 09:55 PM

I can answer that one. There is nothing an evolutionist can accept about creationist evidence and still be an evolutionist. And some people wonder why they are always at odds with one another.

View Post

Well maybe so, but I would like to hear his prespective on the subject.

#40 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 20 February 2006 - 02:04 PM

Well, if one wrote it like that I think the application would be found in rubbish bin, nevertheless free money for a dig is still something hard to turn down provided there are no strings attached.

Forgive me I was being quite cynical because I think it is a very unrealistic proposition. I honestly don't feel very many scientists are interested in finding such a thing. As far as free money goes, the government provides all that at our expense.


Yes I know there was a bit of tongue in cheek, with the way you wrote it, but in fairness I still think the idea of a duel funded dig is not beyond the imposable, it would take some serious ‘bridge mending’ to be sure.

As for the scientists not wanting to find ‘something’, I disagree, I can assure they would not fear finding a human foot print, because such a thing in the Mesozoic strata is an impossibility.

The money for such digs is no doubt prioritised amongst many projects competing for the same cash.

I think evolution would be dead in it’s tracks (pun intended), but I would like a little more than a print or painting, a single fossil would be good.


A little of a side question, what do you think of the case that creationists present to support their views? I would like to know since I have an idea of what you would accept.


Not sure I understand the question, if you mean “give me an example” I would answer an “out of sequence fossil” this would falsify evolution.
If you mean ‘how the evidence is presented’, I personally only require one rule, and that is honesty. I.e. If you present evidence, and I examining it and find it erroneous, or that the source is questionable, or is based on a false premise, I expect one to concede the point and not leave the debate hoping that all will be forgotten. Examining the claim in detail will find the error.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users