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

[joshua 1 9]

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.

If you want to disprove something then you need to get up and go out and get some new fresh evidence to work with. You can dream all you want to dream but somewhere along the way you got to get out and work for it.

 

[VirOptimus]

If you want to disprove something then you need to get up and go out and get some new fresh evidence to work with. You can dream all you want to dream but somewhere along the way you got to get out and work for it.

Sure, get on it. Write a paper for peerreview.

Its an open process.

 

[VirOptimus]

WOW....yet another atheist speaks.

And?

Is it more embarrasing to be corrected by an atheist then a beliver?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Sure, get on it. Write a paper for peer review.

Why? I get reviewed plenty on here already. People pick on every tiny little thing they can find to pick on.

 

[joshua 1 9]

And?

Is it more embarrasing to be corrected by an atheist then a beliver?

Is it more embarrassing to be corrected by someone that is blind folded than someone that can see?

 

[-57]

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

Why don't you stop mocking and answer post 3.

 

[fat wee robin]

Let me get this straight: If there is, say, a 50% chance of rain, but I still have a nice sunny day for my picnic, then I had better call that a miracle, or they will come for me?

And when I see fossil evidence for evolution, then I need to quick cover it up and pretend it isn't there or they will come for me?

Is that what this is all about for you? You would like to open your eyes to the evidence that is out there, but what would happen if you asked questions? Would they come get you?

Then the 'religion ' you had was false one .

With all due respect, I was once where you are now, and was scared to even question my religion for fear of what might happen. But after much hesitation--and fear--I started asking questions.

And then I started to find answers.

And they didn't come get me.

 

[VirOptimus]

Is it more embarrassing to be corrected by someone that is blind folded than someone that can see?

You tell me.

 

[VirOptimus]

Why? I get reviewed plenty on here already. People pick on every tiny little thing they can find to pick on.

Thats because, quite frankly, most of what you post is rubbish.

 

[bhsmte]

Is it more embarrassing to be corrected by someone that is blind folded than someone that can see?

Who is blindfolded? Would it be those people who disagree with you and and ask you to support your claims?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

Dude, I've seen a lot of the evidence first-hand; when multiple independent lines of evidence, across many domains of knowledge, tell the same story, a reasonable person should take them seriously.

 

[MasonP]

It strongly suggest their was a designer who coded the DNA to allow the process to happen.

But strangely there was no designer for the designer, perhaps the designer wasn't complicated enough to need a designer.

 

[MasonP]

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

Think what? one of our ancestors came from mud?

 

[bhsmte]

But strangely there was no designer for the designer, perhaps the designer wasn't complicated enough to need a designer.

We call that; "special pleading".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

The evidence to support those doubts is the object itself - read the article for details.

For me personally, not having expertise in the relevant fields, it's simply the apparent presence of a solitary human-like footprint, contemporaneous with what is said to be a dinosaur print - roughly 60 million years before the first fossils and imprints of the pre-human feet of the first partially bipedal hominins first appeared in the paleological record and slowly evolved over several million years into a recognisably human foot of the kind that had supposedly left a muddy print over 60 million years earlier... it's alone and out of time, a temporal Robinson Crusoe. If there was evidence of a temporal Man Friday, it might be interesting, but there isn't.

So it's the evidence we don't have, i.e. the complete absence of hominin fossils, prints, or artifacts earlier than this 'find' and in the 60+ million years supposedly between it and the first evidence of hominins, as much as the evidence we do have, i.e. a clear evolutionary path of hominin foot development some 60+ million years later, that persuades me it's not what it's claimed to be.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

Then again the CT scans did show compression.

Wait. We are not going to hear yet another diversion about scholars not being able to tie their shoes, Christians able to change the weather on demand, or threats that they will come for us if we don't believe what you believe? You decided to turn this thread to, uh, "evidence"? Interesting.

So far I haven't seen anything here to support the central thesis, that evolution is so complicated god himself couldn't do it. Now we find "evidence", the claim that a dinosaur supposedly stepped on a human footprint.

The fossil in question is the latest in the long line of fossils claimed by Carl Baugh. Baugh is famous for frauds ( see http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2014/05/carl-baughs-many-frauds.html ) , so the moment we see that name we should be suspicious. The stone has never been submitted for scientific review. There has been no lab report of the claimed CT scan, or any other analysis of the stone. We have only what Baugh--a man that has been shown to make fraudulent claims--and his friends say, and a few pictures that they have shared. Based on those pictures, an extremely convincing case can be made that this fossil is yet another fraud.

The CT scan was made in a medical center by medical people, who had no expertise in studying fossils, who made no lab report of what they found. Their claims of compression of the layers by the footprints has been shown to be false.

There are numerous problems with the fossil claim, as documented here: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/delk.htm .

 

[MasonP]

We call that; "special pleading".

There is nothing special about it it's just plain old pleading, they were raised to believe it so they think everyone should believe it, it doesn't work that way.

 

[USincognito]

Here's a footprint of a dino stepping into a humans footprint.

Man, Creationists will believe anything.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/delk.htm

 

[bhsmte]

Man, Creationists will believe anything.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/delk.htm

Another example, of ideology being more important than reality.

 

[USincognito]

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.

I know that actually thinking about things before posting is not a favorite past time of yours, but instead of doing some insipid home experiment, why don't you answer a simple question - Baugh claims the dinosaur footprint is an Acrocanthosaurus which were 11 ft. long and weighed 6 tons. The human footprint is the same depth as the dinosaur footprint. So, which is it, the human weighed 6 tons or and 11 ft. long dinosaur weighed 140 lbs.?