Human foot print tells a story.

[ikester7579]

Here's a foot print I display as my avatar. Some say it's a dinosaur foot print that has been eroded by water. Others say it don't exist. This foot print was found along side some dinosaur foot prints in the same dried up water bed in Glen Rose Texas Dinosaur Valley State Park. Notice the toes and the arch of the foot. Water would have to be intelligent to carve such a design in such detail. The foot was later sectioned to make sure that it was real. They found that the impressions left by the weight of the person could not have been falsified.

The reason for all the hoopla over this print is because it messes up the evolution time line of when man and dinosaur existed. This puts both in the same time line and if you notice it is not ape like. Proving something else all together. This is why all these web sites and people go on record saying this is false. But yet no science program has ever gone out to this park and done a special on these foot prints. They are there for who ever wants to see them. Printed in stone(like written in stone).

If science were to admit these prints were real it would pose a big problem. They would have to try to explain how this could happen and try to make it fit into the evolution theory to save face. Because they would never admit their is a God!

 

[kaotic]

Today at 05:38 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #1 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658143#post658143)

Here's a foot print I display as my avatar. Some say it's a dinosaur foot print that has been eroded by water. Others say it don't exist. This foot print was found along side some dinosaur foot prints in the same dried up water bed in Glen Rose Texas Dinosaur Valley State Park. Notice the toes and the arch of the foot. Water would have to be intelligent to carve such a design in such detail. The foot was later sectioned to make sure that it was real. They found that the impressions left by the weight of the person could not have been falsified.

The reason for all the hoopla over this print is because it messes up the evolution time line of when man and dinosaur existed. This puts both in the same time line and if you notice it is not ape like. Proving something else all together. This is why all these web sites and people go on record saying this is false. But yet no science program has ever gone out to this park and done a special on these foot prints. They are there for who ever wants to see them. Printed in stone(like written in stone).

If science were to admit these prints were real it would pose a big problem. They would have to try to explain how this could happen and try to make it fit into the evolution theory to save face. Because they would never admit their is a God!

Well nice little story you have there. Well it would have been if you would've backed up your story with links, but that's just my opinion.

You have a few problems; science can't admit something is real unless something is real. hehe

So because a foot print was found close to a dinosaur's foot print it means that humans and dinosaurs lived together? Do you see the error in your logic? It's like the Big Foot; foot prints which are now known to be false.

And you seem to think that science cares if there is or isn't a god. Well science has no say on god. If god exists, or doesn't exists it doesn't change anything in science right now. So science would never admit that there is a god or that there isn't a god. It's as simple as that.

 

[ikester7579]

Man you just really crack me up sometimes. Your poor attempt to explain something you do not want to believe nor would ever believe. And you do know where these foot prints are because we have already had this discussion. But just for your sake I'll put it here again.
http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html
Link look fimilar? Thought it would. Now do what you always do and post all the links that have opinions of others but no real pictures or real evidence to refute or disprove and try to sell it as truth. lol

 

[Arikay]

One thing I do notice about the foot print is that the big toe and the second toe arent the same length. I believe it is common in many people for those toes to be similiar length. Also I noticed that the pinky toe is similiar in length to the other toes.

It doesnt really mean anything, just uneducated ramblings about the picture
and its not a very close up picture, so details are hard to make out.

 

[Arikay]

Ikester: if its not too much trouble, do you think you could find a link about this that isnt on a creationist, or evolutionist website (kind of like a non biased article)?

 

[Vorkosigan]

Can we get some details? Which formation and track section was it found in? By who? Who is the "they" who sectioned it? As is well known, the Paluxy and Glen Rose tracks are fakes, misunderstandings, or modifications.

http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/paluxy.htm

As Kuban says

"Although genuine dinosaur tracks are abundant in Texas, claims of human tracks have not withstood close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been largely abandoned even by most creationists."

You claim
But yet no science program has ever gone out to this park and done a special on these foot prints.

But this is patently false, as numerous researchers from many different disciplines have worked on the thousands of tracks in Glen Rose and nearby areas. If you look in Kuban's references, you will find dozens of scientific papers on this site.

Basically, this idea has long been disproved and has been rejected even by places like ICR.

Vorkosigan

 

[LewisWildermuth]

The pictures and casts of the Glen Rose tracks were not nearly as well defined as the picture in your avatar. They were more like vauge ovals rather than clearly defined tracks.

There are also some odd things about the picture you have...

The curve of the foot seems unnatural, to sharply curved to one side to be human. The toes are clear, sharp and seemingly as deep as the rest of the track. Having walked barefoot on beaches of all types and mud flats it just does not seem right to be a walking track.

Is there a link to your print and the more common Glen Rose tracks that you can provide?

I also vaugely remember something about the native peoples of that area being known to carve hand and foot prints much like the one in your picture, are you sure it is not one of those carved prints you have there?

 

[ikester7579]

Today at 06:10 AM Arikay said this in Post #4

One thing I do notice about the foot print is that the big toe and the second toe arent the same length. I believe it is common in many people for those toes to be similiar length. Also I noticed that the pinky toe is similiar in length to the other toes.

It doesnt really mean anything, just uneducated ramblings about the picture
and its not a very close up picture, so details are hard to make out.

Right click on the pic. Save it to your pic folder. Then right click on the pic from your pic folder, go to open with and open with paint program. From here you can select stretch/skew and you can enlarge it. It made the pic smaller so it would fit in avatar so it should enlarge about 150-200% without major distortion.

 

[kaotic]

Today at 06:06 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #3 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658153#post658153)

Man you just really crack me up sometimes. Your poor attempt to explain something you do not want to believe nor would ever believe. And you do know where these foot prints are because we have already had this discussion. But just for your sake I'll put it here again.
http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html
Link look fimilar? Thought it would. Now do what you always do and post all the links that have opinions of others but no real pictures or real evidence to refute or disprove and try to sell it as truth. lol

Ok... I don't see why I would crack you up. And no I haven't been here I have been gone for a while so we haven't had this discussion. Nope it doesn't look familiar at all because I don't go to sites like that.

So just because a website has pictures it means that what they are saying is true? Well believe that if you want. You want truth; well something doesn't become truth (tm) just because you believe it to be. You will have to one day learn that science isn't a god "hater".

Well you say the foot prints are real; well find a link from a non creationist website. That website is bias.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8211_dinosaur_and_quothumanquot_6_5_2001.asp

After a quick search here are som actual pictures of the tracks at the site in place, again these are the vauge ovals I remember are you sure that your picture is of an actual track or a carving?

 

[ikester7579]

Well I found a very interesting link. It's a history of fossilized human foot prints. Some where huge just like the ones at Glen Rose but were determined to be human.

http://www.subversiveelement.com/FossilizedHumanFootprints.html

 

[ikester7579]

For a bigger clearer pic go here: http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html
Then click on museum displays at the right. then click on the picture and you will get a bigger one.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Here is an article from the ASA, an orginisation of scientists who are christians, debunking the "man" tracks in the area...

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1989/PSCF3-89Armstrong.html

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Today at 03:40 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #11 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658178#post658178)

Well I found a very interesting link. It's a history of fossilized human foot prints. Some where huge just like the ones at Glen Rose but were determined to be human.

http://www.subversiveelement.com/FossilizedHumanFootprints.html

Do you get all your scientific info from conspiracy web sites? Do you agree with the alien and UFO stuff also on this site?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

The following is from the Burdic family website...

http://www.burdickfamily.org/trivia.html

Seems that his family admits that they are fakes... What does that say about a museum that claims them to be real?


Creationist/Evolution Debate -- The debate between creation and evolution has gone on for some time and will probably go on for a while longer. Back in the 1930s strange fossilized footprints of humans began turning up in various parts of the American Southwest. What made these tracks, that were set in stone, strange was that they were located adjacent to those of dinosaurs. They were also big, really big, for human footprints. But to creationists they proved that man, or at least a man-like predecessor, walked the earth with dinosaurs. Therefore, the theory of evolution and scientific geologic timetables showing the earth to be millions or billions of years old were wrong.

The most famous set of these human prints were discovered in the Paluxy Riverbed near Glen Rose, Texas. A principal proponent of these tracks was a man named Clifford Burdick. In 1950 he published an article claiming the authenticity of the fossils, which became know as the Burdick Print. Well, as time went on the tracks were proven to be forgeries, chiseled by a few artisans (or chieslers.) A full account of the history of the Burdick Print and Clifford Burdick's rather dubious scientific methods are detailed in Glen Kuban's excellent article on the subject. Unfortunately, Clifford is no longer with us, but his name will live on, "in stone" so to speak.

Ohhh and here is the Glem Kuban article if you are interested...


http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/wilker5.htm

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 05:53 AM seesaw said this in Post #2 

It's like the Big Foot; foot prints which are now known to be false.

Some have been proven to be false, some Big Foot accounts have NOT been proven to be false.

 

[kaotic]

Today at 07:18 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #16 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658211#post658211)

Some have been proven to be false, some Big Foot accounts have NOT been proven to be false.

Nope. All of them have been shown to be false.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 08:30 AM seesaw said this in Post #17

Nope. All of them have been shown to be false.

That is not only not true, it would be impossible to prove all of them wrong. I am beginning to be a bit concerned about you seesaw, it is beginning to look like everything you say is in error.

 

[Zadok001]

Lewis scores. ikester7579, can you present us with a non-bias article that show where YOUR footprint was found? Saying "It was found next to dinosaur tracks!" is not evidence thereof. Are there images of this particular footprint anywhere else?

 

[Zadok001]

John:

"it would be impossible to prove all of them wrong."

How is it not possible to disprove all examples of a given idea? That's irrational in the extreme.