Jump to content


The Human Foot Prints....


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

#1 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 February 2006 - 01:30 AM

Chance said:

Although I am more familiar with the Paluxy foot prints than the Burdick foot print, if the claim was “a dinosaur contemporary” then firstly alarm bells start to ring because this is goes against current theory and thus invites scrutiny. A quick search of the web shows that it was a rather clumsy fraud (two monumental mistakes – evidence of carving not erosion, and the carving was done on the underside of the slab!).


You know, everytime I hear the story as to why these prints are frauds, the story is always different. And no evidence to back it up. Only hearsay.

Stories in the order I have heard them. But this may not be all of them, or in the order they came out. Have not research it that far. But it would be an interesting subject to gather information about.

1) The foot prints were faked. Not much of an explaination about how or why, or evidence.
2) They were craved and faked. Accusations that a creationist named Baugh, went out into a state park at night, and carved them. No evidence of this.
3) The foot prints under the slab that weighed over a ton. I am sure Baugh was able to move slab, carve it, move it back etc... before day break. No evidence of this.
4) His family admits in an interview, that can't be produced by any of the accusers, that Baugh did this.
5) One evolutionist even made the statement that the prints were there because a dino had human feet. And now I hear there's even a theory out saying we evolved from dinos. I wonder if this is evolutionists attempt to explain every human foot print that has been found among dino prints. It would allow some timeline changes :D .

You talk about alarms. Well when the accusations can't produce evidence, and keep changing, and still don't produce evidence. What kind of alarm does that produce? And one more thing. The accusations of defacing federal owned property is a federal offense. Carving those foot prints in the river bed, as some have accused, should put Baugh away in jail for a very long time. Then defrauding people, and making money off it is also a federal offense. And this is taking care of by the Federal Trade Commision.

In fact, here's the web page where the complaint about fraud can be placed about Carl Baugh: https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.sta...Z_ORG_CODE=PU01

Now, because it takes provable evidence to make such a claim. I dare anyone to file it. Why? All claims against Baugh are assumptions, and have always been. And some are even lies. So if the evolutionist who believe this, or say they have enough evidence. Take action.

If you really want to know what the truth is, then here's your chance. Because if the FTC deems this maybe true, they will require that the accusing side to present evidence. Then they will ask the accused to present their's. I have made this challenge at another forum once before. There were no takers then, and I doubt there will be any this time either. Why? When it comes down to truth, there are two types of evidence. One is assumed, and one is provable beyond doubt. I have yet to see any that is provable beyond doubt. But if anyone has it, the link is above. And you can post the progress of your complaint here.

But as I am so often reminded by evolutionists about evidence or information on the web. Anyone can say anything. And when you only want to hear and believe one side of a story, only a one sided decision can be made. But the FTC is required, by law, to listen to both. So unlike the treatment Baugh gets on the internet by so many, it will be on a fair playing field with the FTC.

#2 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 February 2006 - 02:37 PM

You know, everytime I hear the story as to why these prints are frauds, the story is always different. And no evidence to back it up. Only hearsay.

Stories in the order I have heard them. But this may not be all of them, or in the order they came out. Have not research it that far. But it would be an interesting subject to gather information about.



There is quite a lot to read at this LINK but it does record the history (from 1920) of the Burdick Print quite well plus a detailed description of the investigation performed on them, i.e. the were sectioned and inspected with microscope more than once.

During the 1970's the track was sectioned longitudinally near the left edge, and diagonally through the ball. In 1990 the track was sectioned twice across the toes, and once through the heel. These five sections would expose 10 surfaces.


Posted Image

Although it is uncertain exactly where the slab on which the Burdick print originated, its general composition is typical of various limestone beds in the Glen Rose area. Moreover, one can deduce from certain algal features that the slab was already detached from its host formation when the print was carved. Indeed, as will be explained further below, the algal features seem to indicate that the "print" occurs on what was originally the underside of the original slab--providing still further evidence of carving.



A slight aside from the AiG web site

‘Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’ Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. However there is much evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed—see






Re – taking legal action, under American law I would suspect that the statute of limitation applies by now.

#3 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 February 2006 - 09:58 PM

Re – taking legal action, under American law I would suspect that the statute of limitation applies by now.


If said fraud is still being used to fraud, then it is a law being broken on a daily bases.

Example: If I write a book on the foot print and defraud people about creation and evolution. And it is a provable fraud. And my book still makes me money, and people are still being deceived, then the fraud is on going (no time limitations).

If I wrote my book, but it was out of print. And I no longer make money off the idea. Then the statue of limitations would apply because it was done such a long time ago. And the fraud becomes a thing of the past, and not on going.

Also, the link you leave. Glen J Kuban is a well known hater of Carl Baugh, and creation. Going to Baugh, as he did, to act as if he wanted to see a print on the grounds of the park. And act as if he would work with Baugh on this. But then, after Baugh leaves, sneak a plaster mold of foot print and hide it? Then take it to a non-neutral person and have it debunked as being fake? Is that the scientific method?

http://hometown.aol....bss3/paluxy.htm

As you read this, you will notice that Kuban just "happens" to be there the same time Dr. Murray is. And they leave together to examine the mold Murray makes. All without the knowledge of Baugh. My questions are:

1) Why are they so afraid of Baugh to not include him, or even let him know?
2) Could Baugh stop them? That would be funny. He has no authority in a state park.
3) Was it because Baugh would have suggested they use a neutral person, and tell them nothing, so the examination would have been non-bias?

Sneaking the mold only shows there was a plan set in place the whole time. It was already set forth by Kuban and Murray to discredit the creation evidence that was giving the evolution world headaches. Taking it to their own known place to have it examined and discredited, shows a bias examination was the intent.

If Murray and Kuban were going to do this, why even include Baugh in the first place? To make him part of the plan, makes him part of the bias out come of the test performed. So if you think it's all ok, let's turn the tables.

Let's say there was the total missing links found all in one area. Let's say it's before evolution was accepted in schools. So one creationist shows up to let the evolutionist show him the evidence. Now the evolutionist has to leave for some reason. So the creationist takes pics, and molds of the evidence. Just happens to meet with another creationist that was there. They take their evidence to another creationist, all unknown to the evolutionist, they know will debunk the evidence as real. Have it tested. Then post all this info all over the web, and creation magazines as fraudulent.

Now because the evolutionist pics are included, and he is always referred to in negative tones. And even some legal dispute over land, that really has nothing to do with said evidence, is included. A very negative picture of the evolutionist can be drawn. So he is made out to be a liar, and a fraud that picks on people to take their land all because of what reason? And would you ask the same questions I did about why was he treated this way?

1) Why was not the evolutionist allowed to know about what the creationists did?
2) Why did the creationist have to sneak the evidence?
3) Why was not the evolutionist included in the knowledge of the testing?
Do you see the bias?

So do you think the evolutionist treatment was fair and just?
Or was the creationist treatment fair and just?

They were both treated the same.

Like Hitler said: If you tell a lie loud enough and long enough. People will soon start to believe it. Such as the case with this story. It has been told loud enough and long enough that even AIG and ICR believes it.

#4 willis

willis

    Member

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

Posted 14 February 2006 - 12:56 AM

I read somewhere that Baugh and his staff were not allowed to excavate the river bank because it would, "deface public land," but there may have been more prints underneath. Any truth to that, Admin3?

#5 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 01:33 AM

I read somewhere that Baugh and his staff were not allowed to excavate the river bank because it would, "deface public land," but there may have been more prints underneath. Any truth to that, Admin3?

View Post


After the foot prints were found and debunked to the scientific method of being bias. The creationists in the area wanted to remove the rest of the slab of rock, that had not been broken. Why? The human foot prints ran up to that point. Removing the slab would have uncovered the prints untouched by anyone. So the evolutionists had to scramble together to stop the creationists. So they convinced the eviromentalists in the area to get a "hurt the river" law past. That would stop this.

When you can't face up to the truth, you get a law passed to stop it from being uncovered. For if the evolutionists were really interested in finding truth, they would not have sneaked the plaster, and had a law past by the enviromentalists in that area. To stop what was being found. 99% of all the websites that claim those prints are fake, the owners have never been there to see them. I plan on going on my next vacation.

#6 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 February 2006 - 02:15 PM

If said fraud is still being used to fraud, then it is a law being broken on a daily bases.

Example: If I write a book on the foot print and defraud people about creation and evolution. And it is a provable fraud. And my book still makes me money, and people are still being deceived, then the fraud is on going (no time limitations). If I wrote my book, but it was out of print. And I no longer make money off the idea. Then the statue of limitations would apply because it was done such a long time ago. And the fraud becomes a thing of the past, and not on going.


Possibly, but that’s a very broad definition you are using, so broad in fact it think every religious text would qualify if it held a different POV to the national (if such existed in a country) standard. e.g. in a strict Muslim country, some individuals might consider the Bible a fraud, and conversely the Koran in your country (although not at a legal level). If the Book in question is offering a different POV on the evidence, I doubt any law in the land would be able to make a conviction if it is what the author believes, as he is just exercising his free speech.



Also, the link you leave. Glen J Kuban is a well known hater of Carl Baugh, and creation. Going to Baugh, as he did, to act as if he wanted to see a print on the grounds of the park. And act as if he would work with Baugh on this. But then, after Baugh leaves, sneak a plaster mold of foot print and hide it? Then take it to a non-neutral person and have it debunked as being fake? Is that the scientific method?


I was not aware of any personal animosity between the two.

As you read this, you will notice that Kuban just "happens" to be there the same time Dr. Murray is. And they leave together to examine the mold Murray makes. All without the knowledge of Baugh. My questions are:

1) Why are they so afraid of Baugh to not include him, or even let him know?
2) Could Baugh stop them? That would be funny. He has no authority in a state park.
3) Was it because Baugh would have suggested they use a neutral person, and tell them nothing, so the examination would have been non-bias?

Sneaking the mold only shows there was a plan set in place the whole time. It was already set forth by Kuban and Murray to discredit the creation evidence that was giving the evolution world headaches. Taking it to their own known place to have it examined and discredited, shows a bias examination was the intent.

If Murray and Kuban were going to do this, why even include Baugh in the first place? To make him part of the plan, makes him part of the bias out come of the test performed. So if you think it's all ok, let's turn the tables.



I’m not sure I understand your objection, he took a mould, and what? He could have done that any time past or present with or without Baugh, yes? Unless the claim is that the mould has been doctored I don’t see why this is relevant.
Aside – how can it be a secret if there is a photo of it on the web page you posted?



Let's say there was the total missing links found all in one area. Let's say it's before evolution was accepted in schools. So one creationist shows up to let the evolutionist show him the evidence. Now the evolutionist has to leave for some reason. So the creationist takes pics, and molds of the evidence. Just happens to meet with another creationist that was there. They take their evidence to another creationist, all unknown to the evolutionist, they know will debunk the evidence as real. Have it tested. Then post all this info all over the web, and creation magazines as fraudulent. <snip>


While all this intrigue is interesting, I fail to see the scientific relevance, e.g. I’ll make a hypothetical worse case: creationist claims to have human print alongside a dinosaur on his own land, but refuses all to see it. Evolutionist sneaks in, cuts the print away and has it examined and tested. Evolutionist sent to jail. Print examined declared a fake by experts on both sides. Deplorable tactics still don’t change the scientific evidence.



Which was partially why I included AiG’s and the ICR links on my last post, to which this is another AiG text on the subject. LINK

Some extracts

It is with heavy heart that we criticise others who are presenting themselves as spokesman for creationism, but who are doing damage to the cause of Christ through ill-founded claims.


Some of Carl Baugh's more outlandish claims, contained in his videotape Panorama of Creation, are as follows:


1. Before the Flood, the earth was surrounded by hydrogen which was so cold it was metallic and this collapsed when God shouted. This is nonsense. It is impossible that such a surrounding cloud of hydrogen could ever be cold enough, especially in such proximity to the earth.
2. People could hear the 'singing' of the stars before the Flood. Apparently the metallic hydrogen (which could not have existed) enabled this to happen.
3. People could 'feel' the time before the Flood.
4. People can affect radioactive decay rates with their minds. There is absolutely no evidence for this.
5. Eggs do not hatch outside the earth's magnetic field. Baugh claimed that NASA did an experiment demonstrating this. Absolute nonsense.
6. Granites (which contain radioactive elements) are not exploding because they are in 'perfect balance'. However, radioactive elements do not normally 'explode' of course - that requires very special conditions which are not easy to arrange (if it were otherwise, every terrorist group would have atomic bombs!). Even pure radioactive elements will not 'explode', so the fact that granite does not has nothing to do with 'perfect balance' of the granite.
7. He argues that, in some way, radioactive minerals align themselves with the magnetic field, which is nonsense.
8. He says that people were smarter before the Flood, attributing this to a supposedly higher oxygen pressure. There is absolutely no evidence that high oxygen levels would make people more intelligent. He talked nonsense about 'four molecules of oxygen', linking this to his subsequent theories about oxygen saturation. Furthermore, there is no basis for his extravagant claims about the curative effects of high oxygen pressures - if it worked as he claims, paraplegics would be lining up to be treated (many hospitals have suitable hyperbaric chambers).


I think this where I will leave the non scientific aspects of the Burdick Print claim, suffice to say AiG do not hold Baugh in high regard, and with so many scientific and Biblical/creation mistakes (and false academic claims) to his credit, his reputation has been irrevocably damaged IMO, and will take some scholarly work to repair.

#7 willis

willis

    Member

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

Posted 14 February 2006 - 03:46 PM

After the foot prints were found and debunked to the scientific method of being bias. The creationists in the area wanted to remove the rest of the slab of rock, that had not been broken. Why? The human foot prints ran up to that point. Removing the slab would have uncovered the prints untouched by anyone. So the evolutionists had to scramble together to stop the creationists. So they convinced the eviromentalists in the area to get a "hurt the river" law past. That would stop this.

When you can't face up to the truth, you get a law passed to stop it from being uncovered. For if the evolutionists were really interested in finding truth, they would not have sneaked the plaster, and had a law past by the enviromentalists in that area. To stop what was being found. 99% of all the websites that claim those prints are fake, the owners have never been there to see them. I plan on going on my next vacation.

View Post

Is there anything published on this topic I can find? This seems very interesting and I would like to get to the bottom of it. Also, Chance, what do you think of this? All of a sudden the tracks are not allowed to be excavated because of environmental reasons.

#8 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 10:36 PM

Is there anything published on this topic I can find? This seems very interesting and I would like to get to the bottom of it. Also, Chance, what do you think of this? All of a sudden the tracks are not allowed to be excavated because of environmental reasons.

View Post


Do you think the evolutionists went to all that trouble to have it point directly to them, when they had someone else do it? There's no trail to point at anyone, only the timing. And what it stopped upon this being passed. I have several creation films. Some are on the spot finds, and others are reports about things. I do not remember exactly which one this was on. But my guess would be the one of the Carl Baugh films had this report.

All his films are copy and broadcast protected by the film company that produced them. So Baugh has no legal say in how they are used. I know, I already asked. When I go to Glen Rose Texas, I plan to get documents such as this. Plus pics etc...

#9 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 February 2006 - 10:47 PM

<snip>  Chance, what do you think of this? All of a sudden the tracks are not allowed to be excavated because of environmental reasons.

View Post


It’s certainly common practice for a national park or heritage site to ban all bar specialists into such areas, and/or restrict their investigations to the use of non-destructive techniques.

The same sort of rules apply across may disciplines, like trail bike riding, 4 wheel drive vehicles, rock climbing, cave paintings, to name a few.

#10 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 11:11 PM

Possibly, but that’s a very broad definition you are using, so broad in fact it think every religious text would qualify if it held a different POV to the national (if such existed in a country) standard.  e.g. in a strict Muslim country, some individuals might consider the Bible a fraud, and conversely the Koran in your country (although not at a legal level).  If the Book in question is offering a different POV on the evidence, I doubt any law in the land would be able to make a conviction if it is what the author believes, as he is just exercising his free speech.


This is because it takes evidence beyond doubt to make a case. As far as the prints being a fraud, the only evidence is hearsay.

The facts to make a fraud case:
1) Has any evolutionist tested the Burdick prints for weight impressions that would be similar to the way a human walks? Nope.
2) Has a non-bias examination taken place by an expert that has no knowledge of what the prints are? Nope.
3) Are all former accusations about Mr Burdick provable? Nope.

Evolutionists can gather all the information they want about something like this, and devise theories as to what happened. What Mr Burdick thought etc... But as a lawyer would point out, unless you have actual evidence, or an eye witness. It all becomes hearsay and gets thrown out. The reason evolutionists to this day have never taken any of this to court, is because all their accusations, about all this evidence, would have to fall into another law of reasoning between right and wrong. Which means the fraud accusations would not have held up.

I was not aware of any personal animosity between the two.


I guess you were not around reading this stuff when Kuban had several accusations about Baugh defacing government owned property on his website. Accusations he has since removed because several people were challenging these accusations by asking for proof. Kuban did not have it. But as anyone knows, regardless of what happened, people will believe what they want. And even though Kuban had no evidence that Burdick print, or the taylor trail had been carved as a hoax. The rumors started, and because Kuban had aimed them at Baugh's family, and Burdick's surviving family, they backed off. To bring kids, their mother into a circle of lies? To what point except to cover up another lie.

It becomes personal when your family gets dragged into some thing that has nothing to do with them. As accusations are made about fake interviews where family members supposedly admit to things that were never done. Whether true or not, the damage was to much. Which was the whole point of Kuban's personal attack. Besides, I don't see Kuban saying why He had to sneak the mould. What I do see is more of a gloat as to say: see how I went around a creationist to debunked his evidence.

I’m not sure I understand your objection, he took a mould, and what? He could have done that any time past or present with or without Baugh, yes? Unless the claim is that the mould has been doctored I don’t see why this is relevant. 
Aside – how can it be a secret if there is a photo of it on the web page you posted?
While all this intrigue is interesting, I fail to see the scientific relevance, e.g. I’ll make a hypothetical worse case:  creationist claims to have human print alongside a dinosaur on his own land, but refuses all to see it.  Evolutionist sneaks in, cuts the print away and has it examined and tested.  Evolutionist sent to jail.  Print examined declared a fake by experts on both sides.  Deplorable tactics still don’t change the scientific evidence.[
Which was partially why I included AiG’s and the ICR links on my last post, to which this is another AiG text on the subject. LINK


So what your saying is, that you would accept a creationist doing the same thing to debunk evolution evidence? Chance, I've been debating evolutionists for a few years. There's not much trust between the two to ever allow one side to control evidence. And if so, can you show me the latest evidence that was tested by a creationist, that was accepted by science? There is none? :D And we are supposed to trust scientist who are taught to make their own reality through relativism?

Some extracts
I think this where I will leave the non scientific aspects of the Burdick Print claim, suffice to say AiG do not hold Baugh in high regard, and with so many scientific and Biblical/creation mistakes (and false academic claims) to his credit, his reputation has been irrevocably damaged IMO, and will take some scholarly work to repair.

View Post


AIG is not the foremost authority on creation. If they were, they would have all the answers. But they don't, no body does. But they have become judgemental of others because they think they are.

If AIG is wrong about Baugh, God will judge them on it. But AIG has decided to become judge and jury here on earth. And many suffer because of their claim to know so much, that they have some said authority over all in the creation field.

Note: This is my personal opinion about AIG. May not be opinions of the forum owner.

#11 willis

willis

    Member

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

Posted 14 February 2006 - 11:18 PM

It’s certainly common practice for a national park or heritage site to ban all bar specialists into such areas, and/or restrict their investigations to the use of non-destructive techniques. 

The same sort of rules apply across may disciplines, like trail bike riding, 4 wheel drive vehicles, rock climbing, cave paintings, to name a few.

View Post

How convenient. You'd think the opportunity to investigate a discovery that could change the scientific world forever would be allowed, but apparently I am wrong. Aren't you the least bit interested what's under that river bed?

Do you think the evolutionists went to all that trouble to have it point directly to them, when they had someone else do it? There's no trail to point at anyone, only the timing. And what it stopped upon this being passed. I have several creation films. Some are on the spot finds, and others are reports about things. I do not remember exactly which one this was on. But my guess would be the one of the Carl Baugh films had this report.

All his films are copy and broadcast protected by the film company that produced them. So Baugh has no legal say in how they are used. I know, I already asked. When I go to Glen Rose Texas, I plan to get documents such as this. Plus pics etc...

When you get back share some of your findings if you please. :D

#12 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 11:26 PM

It's like the print here:

Posted Image

It's pretty clear what it is. But then again someone will say it was a dino with human feet. :D

#13 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 11:35 PM

How convenient. You'd think the opportunity to investigate a discovery that could change  the scientific world forever would be allowed, but apparently I am wrong. Aren't you the least bit interested what's under that river bed?


Na, an evolutionist is not interested in finding truth about the creation controversy. I have ask the same question at a number of forums about them going out there to see for themselves. Most are content with what they see on the internet. And have decided a long time ago on who they wish to believe. And who always lies.

When you get back share some of your findings if you please. :D

View Post


It's the main reason I'm going. Even though I doubt any evolutionist will believe what I find, or even the pics I take. It will give those who have chosen to believe more faith. And that's the point of going.

Most evolutionists that have been at it for a while, are in pretty deep into what they believe. Most are unreachable by their own choice. My goal is to give those who still have an open mind, something to think about. They can choose what they want to believe, because God gives everyone a choice. A forced belief is a forced faith. And the love that comes from it is fake. This is the reason salvation cannot be forced, it is an acceptance with an open heart and a open mind. Forced love is not true love. And God knows the difference.

It's like the saying goes: If you love something, you let it go. If it comes back, it's yours. If it does not, it never was.

This is the same reason we as Christians are often tested as if God has left. When all that's being done is God being silent. He is testing to see if we will turn to Him and seek Him. Or just go our own way.

#14 willis

willis

    Member

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

Posted 15 February 2006 - 01:08 PM

Na, an evolutionist is not interested in finding truth about the creation controversy. I have ask the same question at a number of forums about them going out there to see for themselves. Most are content with what they see on the internet. And have decided a long time ago on who they wish to believe. And who always lies.

Certainly seems that way which is strange because I thought we were supposed to be the religious bigots who want to fool everyone into believing our story.
:D

It's the main reason I'm going. Even though I doubt any evolutionist will believe what I find, or even the pics I take. It will give those who have chosen to believe more faith. And that's the point of going.

That's okay, if they are willing to ignore the evidence, if it indeed is there, for the sake of their view of origins. We cannot do it all only offer an alternative.

#15 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 February 2006 - 02:26 PM

chance>
Possibly, but that’s a very broad definition you are using, so broad in fact it think every religious text would qualify if it held a different POV to the national (if such existed in a country) standard.  e.g. in a strict Muslim country, some individuals might consider the Bible a fraud, and conversely the Koran in your country (although not at a legal level).  If the Book in question is offering a different POV on the evidence, I doubt any law in the land would be able to make a conviction if it is what the author believes, as he is just exercising his free speech.

Admin3>
This is because it takes evidence beyond doubt to make a case. As far as the prints being a fraud, the only evidence is hearsay.


No, the evidence re the prints is the conclusions from the investigations that were carried out (i.e.. sectioned and examined). I’m not sure that I understand your objection here, are you saying the investigations did not take place, and all that stuff on the net is a fabrication?



The facts to make a fraud case:
1) Has any evolutionist tested the Burdick prints for weight impressions that would be similar to the way a human walks? Nope.
2) Has a non-bias examination taken place by an expert that has no knowledge of what the prints are? Nope.
3) Are all former accusations about Mr Burdick provable? Nope.


If I were to make a similar argument as yourself, i.e. the non appearance of fraud as a means of proving the prints genuine. I can counter your fraud claims with this: If all the stuff about Carl Baugh is not true, then why did he not bring this to court with ‘slander’ charge? The fact that he did not, proves he is guilty, yes?



Evolutionists can gather all the information they want about something like this, and devise theories as to what happened. What Mr Burdick thought etc... But as a lawyer would point out, unless you have actual evidence, or an eye witness. It all becomes hearsay and gets thrown out.


I maintain that the evidence alone shows the prints to be a fraud.

The reason evolutionists to this day have never taken any of this to court, is because all their accusations, about all this evidence, would have to fall into another law of reasoning between right and wrong. Which means the fraud accusations would not have held up.

Why, there is no legal obligation to bring a case of fraud to court, if you can take it on the chin, you certainly are not compelled to make a legal case out of it, it is your prerogative.


I was not aware of any personal animosity between the two.


I guess you were not around reading this stuff when Kuban had several accusations about Baugh defacing government owned property on his website. Accusations he has since removed because several people were challenging these accusations by asking for proof. Kuban did not have it. But as anyone knows, regardless of what happened, people will believe what they want. And even though Kuban had no evidence that Burdick print, or the taylor trail had been carved as a hoax. The rumors started, and because Kuban had aimed them at Baugh's family, and Burdick's surviving family, they backed off. To bring kids, their mother into a circle of lies? To what point except to cover up another lie.


Is there some still some record of these exchanges on the internet to read? Nevertheless no matter the personal disputes between these two persons, it has no baring on the facts of the print and their authenticity.




It becomes personal when your family gets dragged into some thing that has nothing to do with them. As accusations are made about fake interviews where family members supposedly admit to things that were never done. Whether true or not, the damage was to much. Which was the whole point of Kuban's personal attack. Besides, I don't see Kuban saying why He had to sneak the mould. What I do see is more of a gloat as to say: see how I went around a creationist to debunked his evidence.


It is truly regrettable that innocent parties are affected in such matters.


I’m not sure I understand your objection, he took a mould, and what? He could have done that any time past or present with or without Baugh, yes? Unless the claim is that the mould has been doctored I don’t see why this is relevant. 
Aside – how can it be a secret if there is a photo of it on the web page you posted?
While all this intrigue is interesting, I fail to see the scientific relevance, e.g. I’ll make a hypothetical worse case:  creationist claims to have human print alongside a dinosaur on his own land, but refuses all to see it.  Evolutionist sneaks in, cuts the print away and has it examined and tested.  Evolutionist sent to jail.  Print examined declared a fake by experts on both sides.  Deplorable tactics still don’t change the scientific evidence.
Which was partially why I included AiG’s and the ICR links on my last post, to which this is another AiG text on the subject. LINK


So what your saying is, that you would accept a creationist doing the same thing to debunk evolution evidence? Chance, I've been debating evolutionists for a few years. There's not much trust between the two to ever allow one side to control evidence. And if so, can you show me the latest evidence that was tested by a creationist, that was accepted by science? There is none?  And we are supposed to trust scientist who are taught to make their own reality through relativism?


What I am saying is what has all that got to do with the subsequent investigation of evidence? Does the method of obtaining the evidence alter the findings of the evidence? E.g. if you had the print in your house, I broke in a stole it, then had it examined and declared a fraud. Would any of the legal/moral issues have any baring on the facts of the print being a fraud (poised fruit arguments not withstanding)?


chance>
Some extracts
I think this where I will leave the non scientific aspects of the Burdick Print claim, suffice to say AiG do not hold Baugh in high regard, and with so many scientific and Biblical/creation mistakes (and false academic claims) to his credit, his reputation has been irrevocably damaged IMO, and will take some scholarly work to repair.

Admin3>
AIG is not the foremost authority on creation. If they were, they would have all the answers. But they don't, no body does. But they have become judgemental of others because they think they are. If AIG is wrong about Baugh, God will judge them on it. But AIG has decided to become judge and jury here on earth. And many suffer because of their claim to know so much, that they have some said authority over all in the creation field.

Note: This is my personal opinion about AIG. May not be opinions of the forum owner.


OK understood, I was under the impression AiG are held by most to be a reliable creationist authority.

#16 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 February 2006 - 05:39 PM

On a side note about AIG and ICR:

I have butted heads with AIG on more than one occasion, on more than one issue. Instead of getting a straight answer to the questions I pose about the things I had problems with. What I got was a run around. And the run around was usually also implying they were the foremost authority on everything to do with creation. I will admit, they have more information than most on creation. But even God's word says that we cannot ever know all, which also means they can be wrong. Even Albert E. made simuliar comments about ever gaining enough knowlege. God's word even says there are things that Christ does not know. Like the time of His coming. Why? Because only the Father God can make the decision as to when.

As far as ICR goes, I have not had much problem with them. And they try to be more polite, and are not afraid to admit they don't know about some thing, instead of a run around which leaves me with more questions than answers.

Some people probably have had a much better relationship with AIG than I have. I can only speak from my experience with them.

This view is not the view of the forum owner. It is just a personal opinion.

#17 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 February 2006 - 07:25 PM

On a side note about AIG and ICR:

I have butted heads with AIG on more than one occasion, on more than one issue. Instead of getting a straight answer to the questions I pose about the things I had problems with. What I got was a run around. And the run around was usually also implying they were the foremost authority on everything to do with creation. I will admit, they have more information than most on creation. But even God's word says that we cannot ever know all, which also means they can be wrong. Even Albert E. made simuliar comments about ever gaining enough knowlege. God's word even says there are things that Christ does not know. Like the time of His coming. Why? Because only the Father God can make the decision as to when.

As far as ICR goes, I have not had much problem with them. And they try to be more polite, and are not afraid to admit they don't know about some thing, instead of a run around which leaves me with more questions than answers.

Some people probably have had a much better relationship with AIG than I have. I can only speak from my experience with them.

This view is not the view of the forum owner. It is just a personal opinion.

View Post


A very interesting insight, I wonder if AiG is guarded because of the problems they are sure to have with, impostors, and obviously they would not know who you are. Or perhaps most of the employees used to work for the department of social security :D

#18 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 February 2006 - 07:40 PM

It’s certainly common practice for a national park or heritage site to ban all bar specialists into such areas, and/or restrict their investigations to the use of non-destructive techniques. 

The same sort of rules apply across may disciplines, like trail bike riding, 4 wheel drive vehicles, rock climbing, cave paintings, to name a few.


How convenient. You'd think the opportunity to investigate a discovery that could change the scientific world forever would be allowed, but apparently I am wrong. Aren't you the least bit interested what's under that river bed?


Convenient! such laws are enacted to prevent destruction.

All I could find on the matter in my original link is this

[14] Texas law forbids removal of dinosaur tracks from the public lands, which according to local authorities includes the Paluxy Riverbed, but there is some question as to whether the ledge along the riverbank from which the dinosaur track was removed is considered part of the riverbed.


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



When you get back share some of your findings if you please.

Seconded, sounds like a great holliday.

#19 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 February 2006 - 07:50 PM

It's like the print here:

Posted Image

It's pretty clear what it is. But then again someone will say it was a dino with human feet. :D

View Post


Where is this picture taken from, please.

#20 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 February 2006 - 07:56 PM

A very interesting insight, I wonder if AiG is guarded because of the problems they are sure to have with, impostors, and obviously they would not know who you are.  Or perhaps most of the employees used to work for the department of social security :D

View Post


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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users