• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Human Foot Prints Next To Dino's? How so?

chesswarsnow

Banned
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
501
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sorry bout that,

1. There goes that evolution theory.:lol: :2wave:
2. Sad day that some humans walked through that river bed in Glen Rose , Texas right after a dinosaur did.
3. Man wasn't supposed to be standing erect yet.
4. Man was supposed to be some gorilla that was waiting for some strange evolutionary miracle.
5. Fun to see how all the scientist ignore these foot human foot prints.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
 


You are a very silly man.
 
This is so completely ridiculous it really does not belong in the Science/Technology forum.

chesswarsnow said:
Sorry bout that,

1. There goes that evolution theory.:lol: :2wave:
2. Sad day that some humans walked through that river bed in Glen Rose , Texas right after a dinosaur did.
Click to expand...

And who told you that the man and the dinosaur walked through the area at the same time?

chesswarsnow said:
3. Man wasn't supposed to be standing erect yet.
4. Man was supposed to be some gorilla that was waiting for some strange evolutionary miracle.
Click to expand...

"Man" was not a gorilla 65 million years ago. "Man" was something resembling a large rodent.

chesswarsnow said:
5. Fun to see how all the scientist ignore these foot human foot prints.
Click to expand...

Fun to see how you idiots ignore carbon dating, natural selection, and the fossil record.
 
tecoyah said:
You are a very silly man.
Click to expand...

Sorry bout that,

1. Does that mean you too ignore these foot prints in stone as proof?
2. I have personally put my foot into these foot prints.
3. Its not a secret.
4. They are there right next to Dinosaur foot prints. Or Tracks.
5. Explain them away if you can?

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
 
chesswarsnow said:
4. They are there right next to Dinosaur foot prints. Or Tracks.
5. Explain them away if you can?
Click to expand...

Many million years ago, a dinosaur made some footprints. A few thousand years ago, a human made some footprints in the same place.

Now was that so difficult to figure out?
 
Kandahar said:
Many million years ago, a dinosaur made some footprints. A few thousand years ago, a human made some footprints in the same place.

Now was that so difficult to figure out?
Click to expand...


Sorry bout that,

1. But it is in the very same layer of sediment.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
 
chesswarsnow said:
Sorry bout that,

1. But it is in the very same layer of sediment.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you're willing to use scientific "evidence" when you (falsely) believe it supports your case, but you're unwilling to consider the same evidence when it overwhelmingly points to the opposite conclusion.

You're a hypocrite and a moron. Don't pollute the science/technology forum with your pseudoscientific nonsense.
 

Sorry bout that,

1. So you ignore this proof I see?
2. Explain how that this same sediment went back to being soft enough for a human being to make an impression in it, side by side in the same river bed as the dinosaur foot prints.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
 
1. no source/link.
2. What do you think happens when you make an imprint into sediment? One print in a few millimeters perhaps?
3. Sorry, however it's obvious you're blantantly ignorant on this subject.
4. Go back and re-read some geology.
 
jfuh said:
1. no source/link.
2. What do you think happens when you make an imprint into sediment? One print in a few millimeters perhaps?
3. Sorry, however it's obvious you're blantantly ignorant on this subject.
4. Go back and re-read some geology.
Click to expand...

Sorry bout that,

1. I saw them myself. I'm a witness to the fact.
2. 65 million years, and 3 millimeters later huh? No.
3. These prints are in same stone, side by side.
4. Goggle it, its no secret.
5. Sorry about that, seems I have over turned all your education in one post.
6. Well try to refute me. Atleast find out if I'm a liar.
7. Maybe you can figure out how rock can turn back into sediment so we humans could of steped on this river bottom 65 million years later.
8. Think!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
 
Last edited:
4. No, the burden of proof rests with you.
5. Thus the statment, ignorance.
6. You haven't prooved anything yet, what's to disproove?
7. Q, if the stone was on the river bottom, did you go diving?
 
jfuh said:
4. No, the burden of proof rests with you.
5. Thus the statment, ignorance.
6. You haven't prooved anything yet, what's to disproove?
7. Q, if the stone was on the river bottom, did you go diving?
Click to expand...

Sorry bout that,

1. Your Q,7. The Puluxy River is a dry river bed unless its rainy.
2. I am an actual eye witness.
3. My proof is of an eye witness. Take my word for it then.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
 
chesswarsnow said:
Sorry bout that,

1. Your Q,7. The Puluxy River is a dry river bed unless its rainy.
2. I am an actual eye witness.
3. My proof is of an eye witness. Take my word for it then.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Click to expand...
If you're going to refute science then you're going to need to use science to refute it. Unlike the court which puts eye witness accounts above everything else, science places eye witness accounts at the bottome of any reasoning. So you're going to need to do a lot better.
For starters, why do you think that the two footprints would be together? Perhaps dinosaurs and humans co-existed?
 
Fine....lets just put this to bed...shall we:

"Following are extracts from a letter in Scientific American, June, 1983.
from Wm. Stansfield, Biological Sciences Department, Cal. Polytechnic State
University.

"Creationists would like to demonstrate that certain fossils are in the
wrong order...one of their prime pieces of 'evidence' in this regard has
been the alleged existence of human footprints and the tracks of dinosaurs
side by side ...[at the] Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas.

"Some of the dinosaur footprints were of such poor quality and/or so exten-
sively eroded that they could be mistaken by lay people for 'giant man
prints.' Some of these 'man prints' have distinct claw marks protruding
from what creationists call their 'heel.' Wann Langston, Jr., a Texas
paleontologist, noted that these so-called human footprints have their instep
along the outside edge rather than in the middle.

"Some ten years ago a film titled 'Footprints in Stone' was made about the
Paluxy River tracks by Films for Christ Assoc. of Elmwood. Ill...the film-
makers decided to highlight the less obvious features such as 'toes' and
'sides'...Laurie R. Godfrey, a physical anthropologist at the University
of Massachusetts at Amherst, has shown that the 'man prints' all but dis-
appear when the superimposed images are eliminated. She observes that in
other frames the 'man print' was only a part of a larger depression, or that
the shellac seemed to connect erosional depressions...

"According to Fredrick Edwords (sic?), editor of the journal _Creation/Evol-
ution_, 'Last summer Dr. Godfrey led a research team to the site and dis-
covered that the alleged human trackway showed no consistancy. Many of the
creationists' 'best' trackways featured irregular stride lengths and
'prints' that changed size and even direction with every step...Geologist
Steven Schafersman discovered that worm burrows were largely responsible
for the 'toes' on some of the prints...'"

The mere fact this is even considered as a possible scenario, considering the extensive Data accumulated by hundreds of scientists over many decades pointing to the likely timeline of Human evolution shows a misunderstanding of theoretical science.
 
But...but....he's an eyewitness!!!! Surely you are not dismissing one who types text on the web in a forum claiming to be an eyewitness to this! Just like those who have dismissed the eyewitness accounts of the Loch Ness monster, BigFoot and alien abduction, you have no faith in the words of a layman who saw for himself..../end sarcasm
I seem to recall this matter being brought up many years ago and even then was dismissed as evidence of what Sir has claimed. Thanks, Tecoyah...unfortunately, though there will be too too many who will shrug off actual data collected in favor of their own misguided ideologies.
 

Sorry bout that,

1. If an eye witness is of no avail, then all science is as well, unless an eye witness's word is believed, then every thing you have read or heard or read by braille is suspect.
2. These foot prints have no hooks, claws or deformations, they are perfect human foot prints, I have put my foot into them, though my foot is a size 11 these foot prints are perhaps a size 9, and appear to be of a woman's or a small man I would suppose.
3. Perhaps I can go back there and take some pictures of them for you all, or perhaps you can goggle for them?
4. If it were me and I heard about this just now after years of education to the contrary I would be sarcastic as well, and a skeptic.
5. I have seen them, and I believe that the evolution theory is dead. My opinion.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
 
1. That's simply not true. Science is not about eye witness account. But the ability to proove that the account is accurate beyond simple reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt whatsoever. What you're doing here is anything but proof beyond doubt.
Since you fail to bring up any source whatsoever in support of your claims nor provide any explaination of what the foot prints mean. Here're your footprints. Source
 


Sorry bout that,

1. Sure its proof, is that source you posted proof?
2. I was there, why would I lie?
3. I felt these foot prints and examined them myself.
4. Maybe you should go there and check them out.
5. I can tell you right where they are.

Regards,
SirJameodTexas
 


So, is that "Chess Wars Now", or "Chess War Snow"? Just curious.

As for the rest, I'd apologize for the forum members that jumped on you with the ad hominem attacks, but I've no authority.

How about posting a picture of these alleged footprints. You don't have any good photos of those pottery shards showing South American indians riding stegosaurs, do you?
 


Sorry bout that,

1. Rock's don't lie.
2. Rock's are solid witnesses.
3. Rock's that were mud can't de-rock and allow others to imprint on it, then re-rock.
4. No better proof on earth that reveals, The Evolution Theory, is bogus.
5. Solid as a rock proof.
6. Rock on!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
 


Sorry bout that, lets ask?,

1. Its CWN. :smile:
2. Well I could go there or I could send some one.
3. Who lives near to Glen Rose, Texas?
4. I can give exact directions.
5. Then you can see it for yourself, take pictures, and post them here.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
 

source
Its official. In the mind of a centrist, evolution is dead.

I take it CWN, it was the Taylor Trail right?
 
My_name_is_not_Larry said:
source
Its official. In the mind of a centrist, evolution is dead.

I take it CWN, it was the Taylor Trail right?
Click to expand...


Sorry bout that,

1. This foot print is not the Taylor set.
2. Its a single foot print as far as I know.
3. Its within four feet of some huge Dino tracks.
4. Its a perfect foot print.
5. Shows the heel, arch area, ball, and toes. About a size 9 foot American male.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
 

My, what a surprise. Another discredited claim from the realm of creationism/ID. This one discredited over 20 years ago.

"Glen Kuban has been investigating the Paluxy River tracks since 1980. In 1982, Kuban noted that the prints of the principal trail in "Footprints in Stone" (called the "Taylor trail" after Reverend Stan Taylor, producer of the film) have gradually turned a reddish color. The colored areas represent the material which filled the original prints. Extending beyond the visible depressions, the markings clearly delineate three-toed dinosaur prints. The three other "manprint" trails on the site exhibit the same phenomenon.

Stan Taylor is deceased, but his son Paul now runs Films for Christ. Last fall, Kuban persuaded Paul Taylor to revisit the site and see the evidence for himself. Taylor was so impressed that he withdrew "Footprints in Stone" from circulation. He also repudiated the "mantracks" in a two-page statement which was supposed to be sent to those requesting the film." (from: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html).

Or, if you'd like to read about the Glen Rose site directly, how about going directly to the source: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/color.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…