I love it (Paluxy tracks)

[Mallon]

http://genesisweek.com/

(Watch the video)
I love the way they talk about all these footprints and trackways, and yet we never get to see any of them in situ.

The only ones we do get to see in situ are collapsed theropod prints.

I also love the way no expeditions besides creationist expeditions are able to find these tracks, with preserved toe prints and all.

More on the hoax here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

 

[vossler]

http://genesisweek.com/

(Watch the video)
I love the way they talk about all these footprints and trackways, and yet we never get to see any of them in situ.

The only ones we do get to see in situ are collapsed theropod prints.

I also love the way no expeditions besides creationist expeditions are able to find these tracks, with preserved toe prints and all.

More on the hoax here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

Why is it when something comes along to scientifically disprove evolution we wish to claim the evidence to be fraudulent?

After watching the video I have no reason to believe that this evidence is fraudulent in nature. As a matter of fact it appears to be very credible. Yet so called scientists, who will jump all over any evidence that may back their own presuppositions, immediately claim fraud for something that counters their preconceived notion of what something should be.

There certainly wasn't anything there that should make me take notice and question the findings. Yet you won't even give them the benefit of the doubt, probably because you too don't want the findings to hold up; not all that surprising I guess, but it sure is discouraging coming from a fellow brother.

It's rather sad that this is how you and so many others wish to discredit actual scientific findings. This is especially troublesome considering how much stock so many people actually put onto the sciences.

Yeah, science and the scientists are all about gathering the facts, nothing but the facts. Pure baloney

 

[Donkeytron]

Why is it when something comes along to scientifically disprove evolution we wish to claim the evidence to be fraudulent?

After watching the video I have no reason to believe that this evidence is fraudulent in nature. As a matter of fact it appears to be very credible. Yet so called scientists, who will jump all over any evidence that may back their own presuppositions, immediately claim fraud for something that counters their preconceived notion of what something should be.

There certainly wasn't anything there that should make me take notice and question the findings. Yet you won't even give them the benefit of the doubt, probably because you too don't want the findings to hold up; not all that surprising I guess, but it sure is discouraging coming from a fellow brother.

It's rather sad that this is how you and so many others wish to discredit actual scientific findings. This is especially troublesome considering how much stock so many people actually put onto the sciences.

Yeah, science and the scientists are all about gathering the facts, nothing but the facts. Pure baloney

Vossler, I hate to break this to you, but even other creationists think the paluxy tracks are a hoax:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/whatbau.html

They shouldnt get a free pass or "benefit of the doubt" just because the "researchers" are christians. If anything, they should be held to a higher standard, right?

 

[KerrMetric]

As a matter of fact it appears to be very credible.

Of course it does vossler. You seem to know very little science and it appeals to your preconceived views. What more proof than that could we dare ask for?

Yeah, science and the scientists are all about gathering the facts, nothing but the facts. Pure baloney

Actually that is what we are about. You just don't like it because you hate the results and you cannot yourself make a credible response to them.

 

[Willtor]

Vossler, nothing was presented in the video. Some people told some stories and there were a few grainy pictures. Given that AiG thinks it's fraud (and if it supports anybody's case, it's AiG), why should we think otherwise?

 

[LoG]

This site has some better pics. http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm

 

[KerrMetric]

This site has some better pics. http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm

Just a very sad testament for the 21st century. Of course its in Texas, go figure.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Paluxy footprint

An actual human's footprint in the sand (does it even look the same?)

Not even close. The first one would not fool any tracker. Ha

Just for fun, a Big-Foot footprint.

He he. It looks even more like a proper human foot print - and this is an admitted hoax.


Anybody still care to claim that the Paluxy track is human???

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Before anybody cares to make even more a fool of themselves, maybe they should check out the creationist website called answersingenesis.com and specifically look on the page named [URL="http://www.christianforums.com/"]arguments creationists should not use [/URL]

Here I will save you the trouble and show you the part where YEC's council other YECs not to use the Paluxy tracks as evidence for creationism

‘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

Sorry to burst your bubble. Hint: don't give people the opportunity to laugh at your expense.

 

[LoG]

Before anybody cares to make even more a fool of themselves, maybe they should check out the creationist website called answersingenesis.com and specifically look on the page named [URL="http://www.christianforums.com/"]arguments creationists should not use [/URL]

Uhm, well since Evolutionists are always claiming AIG site is always wrong, that would make the Paluxy tracks factual. Oh wait, because they're agreeing with you they're right on this aspect.

Yep, evolutionists are obviously descended from monkeys. Predictable and comical.

 

[Donkeytron]

Uhm, well since Evolutionists are always claiming AIG site is always wrong, that would make the Paluxy tracks factual. Oh wait, because they're agreeing with you they're right on this aspect.

Yep, evolutionists are obviously descended from monkeys. Predictable and comical.

See above post about not making a fool of yourself.

 

[Mallon]

After watching the video I have no reason to believe that this evidence is fraudulent in nature.

Do you have enough background in the field to know if you were being lied to? It's easy to fool someone who doesn't know better.

There certainly wasn't anything there that should make me take notice and question the findings.

First thing that stood out to me was Baugh's mention that when he was in grad school as an archaeology student, he was sent to dig up some dinosaur tracks. Rookie mistake: archaeologists don't study dinosaurs; palaeontologists do.

 

[shernren]

I was just about to say "to be fair, most creationists don't use the Paluxy tracks as evidence any more." And suddenly one just did. -_-;;

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I never said AIG is always wrong. Please show me where I said that.