Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Christians' businesses used to put the ICTHYS in their windows to attract customers. Prisoners have been known to get religion just before they are up for parole. It's an amazing series of coincidences. A cynic might mistrust religion that trumpets itself.possibly to turn over a new leaf? turn change bad habits? to repent? none of these things appeal to the criminal eh?
I could not fail but to notice the "American", "American Indian", "Dutch", "German", etc. The part that astounds me is the "American". This reminds me of the famous Bush quote: "Most of our imports come from abroad".While not entirely true, this is certainly a factor. also not that most African Americans in the south are Christians, and also not that most of the white Americans are concentrated in the same region:
Christians' businesses used to put the ICTHYS in their windows to attract customers. Prisoners have been known to get religion just before they are up for parole. It's an amazing series of coincidences. A cynic might mistrust religion that trumpets itself.
I could not fail but to notice the "American", "American Indian", "Dutch", "German", etc. The part that astounds me is the "American". This reminds me of the famous Bush quote: "Most of our imports come from abroad".
Just what is an American and how is he different from Americans of other than Red Indian descent?
By the way, it is the WASPS who are the most dangerous creationists for they are the ones pushing for religion to be taught as science in schools.
If one wishes to publish GEOLOGY then one must give all the details about the rocks from which they are get their materials.
English may not be my mother tongue but, "more and more of our imports come from overseas" is no different in meaning to what I posted. Where do IMPORTS come from if not from outside the USA? Bush made a silly quote that makes no sense. Unless you consider the internal movement of goods as "Imports" then there is no other way but to consider Bush to have been wanting in the understanding of the English language.your quote is actually a misquote of bush and a quote out of context as well. For one, the quote is as follows : "more and more of our imports come from overseas" . So you pretty badly misquoted him. and secondly as per snopes it is a quote out of context as snopes states: "he was specifically referring to a foreign oils imports." So you would have to quote the entire speech and thus document this quote. So you can pull that one out of your satchel as a bad quote mine (oops did I use the evolutionary term quote mine?) Sorry.
source:
snopes.com: John Kerry or George W. Bush Misquotes
what details were missing exactly, they sound fairly complete.
"Gentry states that his critics are not able to supply actual scientific evidence to combat his work.
This causes Gentry to conclude that there is no real scientific evidence against Polonium Halos proving creation by fiat
, so his critics resort to character assassination and insults [citation needed]
they would have demonstrated that granites can form from a liquid melt in accordance with known physical laws.
Gentry apparently claims his Polonium Halo Study rocks are "primordial", however as I understand it the rocks he chose actually intrude into (in the case of a pegmatite) another rock or overlie a sedimentary rock. Indicating that these rocks came later than previous rocks.
From what I've been able to gather he fails to have any detailed information about the matrix rocks from which these samples come and their detailed geologic setting. Hopefully that should raise some SERIOUS red flags. Without that information drawing larger conclusions on the origins of those rocks would be very difficult. Certainly rendering the paper impossible to verify by any other researchers.
Further, apparently Wakefield (1988) found that one of the rock samples Gentry got his samples from was a metamorphic rock, obviously not a "primordial" rock but rather a rock that has now been extensively changed!
Beyond this most basic problem (which would be enough to get most reviewers to simply toss it back and say "try again, only this time provide some geology") there are various debates which can reasonably be undertaken as to the validity of Gentry's assumptions around Po halos. I see no problem with the debate, but that does not guarantee that Gentry will wind up "winning" just because he put it on paper.
His foundational point is almost completely undercut by his failure at the geology. Perhaps he should have focused his research on the Po halos specifically and the detailed discussion around the mica crystal structure rather than trying to draw some larger conclusion that is gutted by his failure at the geology.
Well, as noted at least Wakefield in 1988 found that the rocks Gentry was relying on did not represent what Gentry thought they did. But moreover, it apparently took ANOTHER RESEARCHER to dig up the DETAILS of those rocks.
If Gentry was a geologist he would have known to include that information and likely he would have not even developed his hypothesis.
You cannot claim LATER rocks as being "primordial" to the crust. Especially if they are clearly YOUNGER than other rocks nearby.
Actually there appears to be a LOT of scientific debate about these Po halos. I am not a radiochemist, nor is that the type of geochemistry I did. Here's a description of many of Gentry's errors as well as the debate (and references) around the Po halos --> (HERE)
^^^^^"Citation Needed"^^^^ might be a clue. In fact if you read the link I provided you will see PLENTY of non-character-assassination disagreements.
Unless it is a "character assassination" to tell a non-geologist that what he's scribbled on the paper is not geology.
The thing I find funny here is that my first paper that I submitted for publication got excoriated by one reviewer. He compared it to a "high school science fair project" and he questioned why my advisor would be willing to put their name on such a paper.
It hurt! And I was writing a pretty bland paper on one aspect of coal chemistry!
If Dr. Gentry can't take criticism he is in the wrong field (science). Science reviews can be brutal.
Is anyone questioning that granites form from a melt?
And might I point out that the crystals in a granite are large precisely because they cooled SLOWLY. If they cool quickly we get a different type of rock called a RHYOLITE. It's largely the same mineralogy but much smaller crystals.
thankyou, it looks like he didn't follow protocol on some of the details of his discoveries. However the general idea of some types of polonium halos as support of young earth is still not refuted as wikipedia states and also as I browse talk origins. So how do you answer pictures of said halos found here:
secondly, I have been waiting for a geologist to browse these threads. I have a question for you in my next post, please take your time responding.
Burroughs (1938, p. 46) stated: The footprints are sunk into the horizontal surface of an outcrop of hard, massive grey sandstone
My first question was: what was the lithology in which these were preserved? Sandstone. Now, while I did go to school in Kentucky I did not go to this particular outcrop but my first gut feeling is:
There are two hypotheses:
1. (generally accepted) these are native american carvings if they are anything vaguely human-like
2. This means that humans walked in whatever sediment this was 250 million years ago but somehow no contemporary human (or even hominid type primates) have ever been found anywhere of that age and no other evidence exists of hominids at this time
Then I think of walking on the beach. How well preserved are your footprints in sand? (Usually mine aren't very well preserved and are gone within a short time).
Sand is a PARTICLE SIZE. Muds, on the other hand, are usually made up of smaller particles (clay, silt, etc.) which can hold a shape better.
But this is just first level "gut feel".
(Also there are apparently known indian carvings from Illinois that look somewhat similar to these feet in Kentucky. I don't have the article but it is referenced to Wagner (2003).
If these prints had not been stolen (rendering this mostly a game of guesses) it might be a different story.
But again, we are left with two choices:
1. A vague thing which looks like a known set of native american carvings in a neighboring state is, indeed, NOT a set of carvings but actually overturns everything ELSE on the planet in one fell swoop, including the stunning lack of anything even remotely like this type of animal at the time
or
2. This is either a carving similar to those in the neighboring state or it is a rough feature that kinda-sorta looks like a footprint
When I was a little kid growing up in Illinois my neighbor and I had read some ghost stories that were about Satan's hoofprints in the snow. Cloven hooves. So when we wandered in the rain-soaked corn fields near our houses we'd see what looked like "cloven hoof prints". Now of course there are two very solid possible explanations OTHER than the fact that clearly the devil was wandering through Illinois corn fields:
deer tracks
random divots in the mud
Deer tracks or DEVIL TRACKS?
Which is more likely?
Should we have published our findings? Would we be right in saying we were "censored" by the peer review panels who might reject our evidence that satan walked in Illinois in the summer of 1974?
There were impressions of compressed dirt/sand. I think this clip speaksa little about it, here:
"While some are the strangest human footprints I have ever seen, I was shocked at what I saw. Namely, there was displaced mud surrounding the prints. This one fact alone convinced me the tracks were genuine, and Burroughs pointed this out repeatedly in his correspondence. Burroughs and others who examined the tracks also pointed out that the grains of sand in the sandstone were more compacted under the tracks, and this compaction was visible under a magnifying glass. One of those persons was an artist and a sculptor by the name of Frank Loug (sp? The signature is difficult to read). Obviously Burroughs was seeking Loug's opinion as to whether these were carved tracks or not. Loug made an interesting observation to which he wrote in an undated, signed letter (transcribed exactly as written, spelling mistakes are in the original):
"It is my opinion as artist and sculptor and from careful examination with magnifying glass, the impressions in the stone at [the Finnell farm] was made by imprint pressure in the substance before this hardened into stone. There is no logical, artistic argument to sustain an opinion that those marks are carved, chiseled, or made by hand. In the first place the prints are scattered aimlessly over the rock with no apparrent design; secondly there are no tool marks visible; thirdly the prints so closely resemble those made by human feet in a soft substance that a manual production so faithful could be, not only, almost beyond human skill, but is inconceivable since an artistic motive for such work would be lacking.
I can testify that the sand grains within the tracks are in closer combination than those on the rest of the surface of the stone. They have many appearances of having been compressed by a weight pressure, as the stone surface bulges upwards and outward around the tracks. Then our track, half of which is visible on the surface of the stone, the other half concealed beneath the partly cracked away, overlying layer of newer stone would seem to disprove any argument that these marks were around. All of the marks present an appearance singularly like that of human tracks."
Indeed, Loug brings up a significant point about a particular track which became exposed over time, of which the heal is only visible in this early photo:"
above from :Radaractive: Human footprints from 250 million years ago? Ian Juby follows up on a mystery from the 1930's, and another Delk situation is discerned.
(Berea College archives www.berea.edu)
more from the site:
" such proofs being the uproll of the sandstone adjacent to each track where the sand was pushed upward by the pressure of the creature's foot, the closer texture of the sand within than outside the tracks due to pressure of the feet, the fact that two tracks are distinctly seen to pass beneath solid Pottsville sandstone in situ.
Yours very truly, signed, W.G. Burroughs, M.R. Burroughs, G. Pruitte Sentt(?), Mark H. Clark, W. A. Finnell.
June 28, 1939"
There are a LOT of possibilities with this aren't there? Lot of faith being put into tracks which can no longer be verified as to anything about them using modern understanding of much of this.
Remember that alternative hypotheses must also be considered. And there are a number of them.
1. Let us assume these are "humanoid" in shape (in that they are generally elongate); there ARE other animals from the time that could have left prints. These prints could be elongate in shape and could have further been altered as they sat there in this state.
2. Let us assume that these are simply OTHER ANIMAL PRINTS from the Carboniferous which later native americans carved to be more like the carvings in Illinois.
Again, what you are asking me to do is literally overturn every bit of evidence that we have about when hominids first showed up (stunning isn't it that there are absolutely NO primate-type fossils before about 65 million years ago. And they were more like squirrel-sized creatures. So isn't it fascinating that not one bit of evidence of anything even REMOTELY like a modern day primate (ape or man) was preserved for 185 MILLION years? And then primates that would make humanoid type footprints don't show up until for more than 10 million years or so later.
And I'm going to throw out ALL of paleontology based on a few photographs of something that could more prosaically be explained by much more mundane means?
I am not saying that these are NOT human footprints, but in order for them to be what creationists want them to be means I have to reject all the more OBVIOUS hypotheses which more adequately explain the data and do not require me to overturn all OTHER science.
This is obviously very interesting, but in no way convincing at this time.
Part of being a scientist is to be skeptical of claims that wish to destroy MORE knowledge than they create.
do you have documentation and evidence of animals leaving human footprints?
not sure what your implications are here.
secondly, no one else seems to hold your alternate theories:
even a well established site by geologists has little to say to refute the find:
thirdly, as with the link above, most will state that there were no pictures of the prints to examine. Well creationists tracked down some at berea archives, and were posted in my last few posts. They are obviously human by the definition of human footprints. Trackers etc would all agree with me and disagree with you that these were anything but human. This is fanciful at best.
"OK, Grady, I give up. I haven't seen the specimens, and don't care to go any further with this without being able to examine the specimens, which is impossible. The outcrop was no doubt destroyed by doubting geologists."
yes, the specimens were taken by doubters but the pictures are locked under safe and key for all of use to see.
thirdly, as with the link above, most will state that there were no pictures of the prints to examine. Well creationists tracked down some at berea archives, and were posted in my last few posts. They are obviously human by the definition of human footprints. Trackers etc would all agree with me and disagree with you that these were anything but human. This is fanciful at best.
The dude hucking his travelling creation museum said:While some are the strangest human footprints I have ever seen, I was shocked at what I saw. Namely, there was displaced mud surrounding the prints. This one fact alone convinced me the tracks were genuine
"Displaced Mud" or um, natural variation in the surface of the stone that was intentionally used by an artist. Or accidental. Or entirely aside from the point. Also interesting is he wants us to pay attention to this "displaced mud", but he doesn't want us to pay any attention to the lack of an arch in his wax casting, the lack of a ball, the very very oddly positioned toes that both stick out at strange angles and have a length that makes them present a very straight line in their strangely spread out position.
I'd also be very worried about your tracker if they saw those as human foot prints. They're all rather... squat. Very short and very wide. Far, far outside the range of human feet. Our only good overhead shot is of the wax casting and it gives us a length to width ratio of around 1.4 or so. The typical ratio for human feet is 2 to 2.5
And of course then there's photos of actual carvings that look rather much the same as these "fossil footprints" of yours
please provide elongated human like print photos that are not in fact human, as you sayI didn't say "human footprints". Do I have documentation of animals in the Carboniferous that would leave elongate footprints? I'm guessing that is a possibility.
My implications are that:
1. There has NEVER been found something that even REMOTELY looks like a hominid type primate in the Carboniferous. There are NO ANIMALS that have EVER been found at that time frame that would even be remotely like that.
2. The earliest primates start showing up IN THE FOSSIL RECORD more than 180 MILLION YEARS LATER and even then they are small about the size of squirrels.
3. These Berea fossils look, according to some researchers, very much like native american CARVINGS (from more recent times, NOT carboniferous) in the neighboring state of Illinois.
4. These prints which you are seemingly putting so much faith into appear to be rather indistinct at best when you can find the photos. And when they are more distinct as "human feet", they look a lot like Native american carvings.
Again, if you wish for me to destroy ALL of what we know from Paleontology on this basis then that leave almost nothing standing.
Except for
Wagner, Mark J., The Living Museum, Summer/Fall 2003, Illinois State Museum, Volume 65, Nos. 2 and 3: 3-11
Ingals, Robert G. 1940. The Carboniferous Mystery.
And this site: Alleged Carboniferous Human Footprints in Kentucky
But why do I need to have a bunch of people "agreeing" with these hypotheses? You seem to be quite happy to throw out >100 years worth of paleontological research based on a few fuzzy photographs that could easily be other things.
Please don't appeal to authority.
But is your metric that if one cannot definitively refute something that only exists as fluzzy old photos in a copy of Sci Am from the 1940's then it MUST be true?
You keep overlooking the bigger picture: we KNOW a LOT about when primates first show up in the rock record. And it is NO WHERE NEAR this time horizon. Not even CLOSE.
We DO know various other explanations which CAN explain these which don't require believing in things without evidence.
I have provided ample alternate hypotheses which explain the data as it exists without relying on overturning all of paleontology.
The pictures are good as evidence. But, again, you are asking me to do throw out EVRYTHING ELSE IN PALEONTOLOGY to accept that they are NOT the alternative hypothesis.
The other poster you ran into was feeling what I'm starting to feel. That you are more than willing to slash and burn all science you don't know about if it serves to elevate one potential piece of data to "god status".
It is a recipe for doing science completely wrong.
Yes, these prints might be a major revolution which turns everything on its head. But that is amazingly doubtful considering that perfectly mundane explanations exist for them.
I understand you don't do geology and you are more than happy if all of geology were destroyed tomorrow and that paleontology never darkened your door so you couldn't care less that some people have expended countless careers doing it. And you are OK with it being tossed.
But you don't even begin to know what you'd lose (try turning off all your lights and shutting down the computer...those things will have to go if we lose all of geology and paleontology. Along with your car and the heat in your home.)
Go ahead, set fire to it all. In the end you've got a couple of photos.
Is it worthwhile?
thank you for the post
however displaced and compacted graneuls prove it was not a carving
secondly you know of nothing that makes prints like this accept hunan. thirdly toes spread out if one sinks into bed as well as not wearing shoes for the majority of ones life. fourthly, tools are needed to carve, and there are no tooling marks as per the geological reports of the find. so you have left no points.
please provide elongated human like print photos that are not in fact human, as you say
so I may address the rest of your post. thanx.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?