"Life and its building blocks are way too complicated to have evolved." [moved]

[-57]

No, but yours was tampered with in the old-fashioned way.

Well we can know for sure that's not correct. The fossil is to friable to have been tampered with in the old fashion way.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Here's a footprint of a dino stepping into a humans footprint.View attachment 182732

This would indeed be amazing, if authentic; but, as paleontologist Glen Kuban said in July 2013:

"Young-earth creationists Carl Baugh, Don Patton, Ian Juby, and Jeremey Auldaney have been promoting the Delk print for several years, but as far as I know, still have not published any rigorous paper supporting its authenticity. Perhaps in view of this, and their own recognition of serious problems with the print, major creationist groups have not supported it, or even said much about it. For an interesting blog discussion on the Delk print, see: StonesBones Blogspot. In 2010 David Lines, who initially supported the Delk print claims, removed the photos and related CT scans of the print from his website."​

He goes on to investigate the available evidence in detail, before concluding that, "The Alvis Delk Print is not a convincing human footprint in ancient rock. Its advocates have failed to present the necessary data and details to adequately support their assertions."

See 'The Alvis Delk Print'.

 

[sfs]

I have already pointed out you can't compare the mutation rate of bacteria to humans.

And I've pointed out that comparing the mutation rate of bacteria to humans has absolutely nothing to do with any of my estimates. Would you also like to point out that you can't compare the weight of kumquats and pine trees?

Which is kind of beside the point, since we weren't talking about my mutation rate estimates. Are you reading the thread you're replying to, or are you just posting random comments?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Then why did you use the DELETE key?

I used "he" when referring to god when talking to you, for that is what I figured you use. But why we should refer to a being without a penis, sperm, y chromosomes, testoserone or testicles as "he" is beyond me. I use "he" where people are used to nature's god being called "he", but other times I don't use "he".

 

[-57]

This would indeed be amazing, if authentic; but, as paleontologist Glen Kuban said in July 2013:

"Young-earth creationists Carl Baugh, Don Patton, Ian Juby, and Jeremey Auldaney have been promoting the Delk print for several years, but as far as I know, still have not published any rigorous paper supporting its authenticity. Perhaps in view of this, and their own recognition of serious problems with the print, major creationist groups have not supported it, or even said much about it. For an interesting blog discussion on the Delk print, see: StonesBones Blogspot. In 2010 David Lines, who initially supported the Delk print claims, removed the photos and related CT scans of the print from his website."​

He goes on to investigate the available evidence in detail, before concluding that, "The Alvis Delk Print is not a convincing human footprint in ancient rock. Its advocates have failed to present the necessary data and details to adequately support their assertions."

See 'The Alvis Delk Print'.

So, it's been disqualified on what people think?

Then again the CT scans did show compression.

 

[-57]

And I've pointed out that comparing the mutation rate of bacteria to humans has absolutely nothing to do with any of my estimates. Would you also like to point out that you can't compare the weight of kumquats and pine trees?

Which is kind of beside the point, since we weren't talking about my mutation rate estimates. Are you reading the thread you're replying to, or are you just posting random comments?

So far you have failed to demonstrate why your estimates are accurate. That should be obvious from reading your post.

 

[Speedwell]

So, it's been disqualified on what people think?

Then again the CT scans did show compression.

There is nothing to do but "think." Nothing has been published, no access to the object is allowed.
It is telling that the major Creationist ministries don't want anything to do with it.

 

[sfs]

So far you have failed to demonstrate why your estimates are accurate. That should be obvious from reading your post.

Estimates of what? Do even you know what you're asking about? Because I have no idea at this point.

You asked for an estimate of the beneficial mutation rate. I responded by asking if you had any questions about the estimates that I gave you of that quantity twice before -- months ago. Since then your posts seem to have nothing to do with anything.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So, it's been disqualified on what people think?

In principle, the jury's still out; but, as the article suggests, there appear to be a number of problems with the piece, and those, together with the lack of details about it, the lack of any published papers for review, and the lack of domain-expert investigation or verification, means that in practice it is suspected of being a hoax.

Given that this piece, if authentic, would be a major coup for creationists and all those who feel the current consensus of evolutionary timescales is wrong, and would cause a major disturbance in that consensus, one can't help but be suspicious at the apparent lack of enthusiasm for a thorough investigation and authentication by domain experts - as if they know it wouldn't pass muster...

Then again the CT scans did show compression.

Kuban's article gives several reasons to doubt this.

 

[-57]

There is nothing to do but "think." Nothing has been published, no access to the object is allowed.
It is telling that the major Creationist ministries don't want anything to do with it.

So, you really expect to see a modern evolutionary based journal post something that destroys evolutionism?

 

[-57]

In principle, the jury's still out; but, as the article suggests, there appear to be a number of problems with the piece, and those, together with the lack of details about it, the lack of any published papers for review, and the lack of domain-expert investigation or verification, means that in practice it is suspected of being a hoax.

Given that this piece, if authentic, would be a major coup for creationists and all those who feel the current consensus of evolutionary timescales is wrong, and would cause a major disturbance in that consensus, one can't help but be suspicious at the apparent lack of enthusiasm for a thorough investigation and authentication by domain experts - as if they know it wouldn't pass muster...

Kuban's article gives several reasons to doubt this.

Perhaps the jury is still out....but you posted as if it were an open and shut case...based upon what a guy thought an impression of a big toe would look like.
Here's and experiment...take off your shoe and socks and go walk through some mud. Turn to look back. Carry something...and tell me if all of the toes produce the same likeness.

 

[VirOptimus]

So, you really expect to see a modern evolutionary based journal post something that destroys evolutionism?

If it was scientificaly sound, oh yes. Every scientists wet dream is to disprove a well established scientific theory. Fame, fortune and a place in history would be assured.

 

[Speedwell]

And, of course, the YECs don't understand science well enough to know that overturning a current theory does nothing to rehabilitate old, already discredited theories.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Perhaps the jury is still out....but you posted as if it were an open and shut case...based upon what a guy thought an impression of a big toe would look like.

Nope, I simply posted extracts and a link to an article that expresses a number of specific doubts about the item's authenticity and suggests that the available information is insufficient to substantiate it.

 

[loveofourlord]

I don't disagree...I think the "self correcting" process in some instances were damaged due to harmful mutations caused by the fall.

explain how the fall and sin and such created perfection? Yes animals now a days have issues, but funny we see few animals like deer eat meat, or have tools that are 100% useless to them, how is it that sin and the fall created many of the things in this world like lions tigers and such?

Don't know if you subscribe to the idea, but if sin and the fall created meat eaters and such how did it not mess that up? Give the desire to eat meat to something that can't? Or change something physically to a meat eater like body but still crave and eat plants? This whole idea of sin and the fall creating what we see is just so rediculous, it's ad hoc reasoning that causes more problems. The fall and sin and such don't explain what we see, unless you want to say that sin and satan or such are capable of creating perfection in nature, or that when sin happened god made lionesses become meat eaters, or changed them to eat meat wich seems to go against the things you guys believe.

Creationism fails because it can't even keep it's story straight or make sense of what we see.

 

[joshua 1 9]

My picture wasn't photoshopped.......so why did you post a photoshopped picture?

That is what evolutions have to resort to when they can not produce any artifacts or any real evidence. They draw a picture and try to pass off a product of their imagination as evidence. The conclusion is my evidence if fake so your evidence must be fake also. People know that they are not creditable so that is all the evidence they need to claim that no one is creditable.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Nope, I simply posted extracts and a link to an article that expresses a number of specific doubts about the item's authenticity and suggests that the available information is insufficient to substantiate it.

You may have doubts, but you have no evidence to support those doubts. If the human like footprints were fake then the patina would be different from the dino print.

 

[-57]

If it was scientificaly sound, oh yes. Every scientists wet dream is to disprove a well established scientific theory. Fame, fortune and a place in history would be assured.

WOW....yet another atheist speaks.

 

[-57]

Nope, I simply posted extracts and a link to an article that expresses a number of specific doubts about the item's authenticity and suggests that the available information is insufficient to substantiate it.

Dude, they're evolutionist. They have never stepped in mud and draw conclusions from what they simply think. And....you bought into it.

 

[SteveB28]

Dude, they're evolutionist. They have never stepped in mud and draw conclusions from what they simply think. And....you bought into it.

Whereas, you spend a lot of time playing in mud, do you......?