% that accept evolution per state

[MikeCarra]

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.

I would like to thank you for consistently ignoring all the detail I've put in my posts for your benefit.

Well, how about Creationists FORMER favorite: Paluxey RIver tracks.

(SOURCE which also contains ACTUAL PHOTOS AS WELL)


Think for a minute here.

You start out with a question about Polonium halos. Now you are onto Carboniferous footprints? Do you see what you are doing here?

You are wandering around a field you have no earthly idea about spreading little seeds of DOUBT for DOUBT'S SAKE.

I know you'll ignore all of what I type here as well because, well, creationist. But just for a second let's think about what your "young earth" buddies are proposing.

1. Polonium halos which may or may not be polonium halos (you clearly had to drop that line when the science got a bit deeper) indicating, somehow, instantaneous crystallization of a molten crust of the earth (not sure how that works considering the crust is many miles thick and if you cool the outside of a molten rock it takes a LONG time to conduct the heat out of the body of the rock, but that part isn't really "important" is it? Oh sure we know a lot about how heat conducts from cooling bodies, but why not just throw all that out the window? I mean we have to make Genesis LITERALLY TRUE!

But the outcome of a young earth is that you now only have 6000-10000 years to work with. That isn't going to help you much when looking at:


2. "Carboniferous" human tracks. Well, now somehow you've got humans leaving footprints in rocks that are, in the state of Kentucky alone, associated with huge deposits of plant material that clearly accumulated in still, anoxic water and were buried and aged slowly in such a way that they couldn't be from a global flood, and in fact show ample evidence of NUMEROUS TIMES of water encroachment on land followed by land above water followed by water encroachment on land. This is something you've probably never heard of called a CYCLOTHEM SEQUENCE and is quite common in the mid-continent US in the Carboniferous strata.

So, sure, why not just IGNORE THE FACT THAT YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW that such things exist? Why would you? Non-geologist don't normally know this stuff.

But now you've got a HUGE question to answer:

How many Noachian (Genesis) Floods were there? Because if you point to the coal seams in nearby formations in Kentucky you will have to explain why there are many, many, many, many different "flood" events.

None of which of course actually align with how coal actually forms.

If you'd like to take a JUMP over to coal for a while, that IS my area of geochemistry. Would you like to LEARN some actual geology or are you only interested in doubt for doubt's sake?

Because I can do this all day long.

 

[createdtoworship]

Please provide actual 'elongated human like print photos' for us to even consider. Here, I'll overlay an actual human foot over the cast from your website so you can see just how un-human-like and how un-elongated your 'footprints' are.

The wax cast has been edited only to remove most of the black outline.

The human foot has been sized up, in proportion to its original size and angled so that the big toe and pinkie toe are in line with the the 'outside' 'toes' of the 'footprint'. Lets note how the other three toes aren't anywhere close to where the 'footprint' 's 'toes' are. Lets also note how that 'displaced mud by the heel' is actually only about half down where a human foot would be and that the whole thing looks *nothing* like an actual human foot or like it could even have been made by a human foot.

looks similar to me, but who am I? Like I stated before the wide toes are from stepping into soft material as well as not wearing shoes (as primitive humans didn't). Thats the only difference.

 

[createdtoworship]

I would like to thank you for consistently ignoring all the detail I've put in my posts for your benefit.

thank you for the post, I see you have not found what you are looking for, namely human like elongated tracks to substitute for human tracks. I guess me premise stands, namely that these are genuine bipedal human tracks way older than any human prints found before. Could it be a problem with evolutionary history, or a problem with Kar dating itself? Which will it be? I refuted your arguments that they are carved due to a geologist testimony of the fact there are no tool markings. I refuted the fact that they are not human footprints by acknowledgement that you have no other suitable fit for these feet. I also dismissed the wide toes as being set in mud and due to the fact that these are ancient peoples who probably didn't wear shoes. Also the lack of an arch, is very typical of flat footed people. (wikipedia states the occurrence is 20-30% of people) IS there anything I missed? Oh yeah, the Peluxy river tracks. I presume these were not analyzed by a professor of geology. But that doesn't matter as you are effectively poisoning the well here with fallacy. You cannot state that because one track was found in error, that therefore all tracks from then on discovered are thus in error. That is poisoning the well and is an informal fallacy not suitable to this style of debate (or any conversation for that matter). Thanks for the comment.

 

[mark kennedy]

There are better develop surveys available:

In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

 

[MikeCarra]

thank you for the post, I see you have not found what you are looking for, namely human like elongated tracks

So the link didn't show you elongate tracks and how they can be confused with human foot prints?????

Because it sure did look like they did!

Could it be a problem with evolutionary history, or a problem with Kar

It's "K-Ar" (because it's Potassium (K) and Argon (Ar), those are two chemical elements.)

I refuted your arguments that they are carved due to a geologist testimony

And as pointed out these apparently convince OTHER experts that they ARE carvings when compared to known carvings in nearby locations.

Oh yeah, the Peluxy river tracks

Paluxy River. It is quite easy to check the spelling on this.

But that doesn't matter as you are effectively poisoning the well here with fallacy

"poisoning the well"? You mean by providing alternative explanations that don't require the complete destruction of all the OTHER sciences?

You cannot state that because one track was found in error, that therefore all tracks from then on discovered are thus in error.

The reason I brought up the Paluxy River tracks because it shows the necessary concept of "elongate" non-human footprints that can be mistaken for actual human footprints.

That is poisoning the well and is an informal fallacy not suitable to this style of debate (or any conversation for that matter). Thanks for the comment.

Creationist Bag of Tricks:
1. Whack-a-mole
2. Ignoring the information presented by others
3. Ignoring almost all of science in order to elevate one data point to "god status"
4. Ignoring all the IMPLICATIONS from your various gambits.
5. Failed attempts to "sound" scientific

 

[Aureus]

looks similar to me, but who am I? Like I stated before the wide toes are from stepping into soft material as well as not wearing shoes (as primitive humans didn't). Thats the only difference.

I suggest in full sincerity, that you schedule an appointment with an optometrist. And just because you state something does not make it true. The type of imprint left behind by the "Toes" cannot be created by stepping into soft material.

Here, have a high contrast outline of the edge only of the foot, completely ignoring things like arches and such. Your 'foot print' doesn't fit human anatomy at all. Even if the toes were not an issue, the size and shape of the 'print' doesn't fit the size and shape of a human foot at all. It would need to be twice as long, at least, to even begin to resemble a human foot.

 

[The Barbarian]

Compare the evolution map to the U.S. Literacy Map, showing the percent of adults at Literacy Level 1 (lowest).

Is anyone surprised?

 

[createdtoworship]

Compare the evolution map to the U.S. Literacy Map, showing the percent of adults at Literacy Level 1 (lowest).

not a sound argument do to the factors involved. but interesting

 

[CabVet]

not a sound argument do to the factors involved. but interesting

And what factors would those be?

 

[createdtoworship]

And what factors would those be?

looks to me that the lowest literacy rates are where the highest evolutionary followings are, am I wrong?

I was helping you out by noting the flaws of external factors involved- crime, housing costs, unemployment rates etc all play a part. But I was looking at california where I live where it was a grey area (as to the fact that is was low on literacy and high on evolution). Anyway, it can go either way. Then you have oklahoma that has only about half who believe in evolution and a yellow literacy rate. (so it's here and there, spotty data). But then again I traced out the graphic on the evolution data, and it has no citations involved with it, nor the site it's located. So we really don't know who put that together.

 

[CabVet]

looks to me that the lowest literacy rates are where the highest evolutionary followings are, am I wrong?

Yes, you are. Red/orange in the top graph is low literacy. Red/orange in the lower graph is low acceptance of evolution.

I was helping you out by noting the flaws of external factors involved

You should learn how to read graphs before you try to help me out.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, you are. Red/orange in the top graph is low literacy. Red/orange in the lower graph is low acceptance of evolution.



You should learn how to read graphs before you try to help me out.

anyways only four states are realy supportive of the low evolution/low literacy rate. the rest of the continental us, especially oaklahoma and california are not indicative of said theory at all. unless I am missing some states?

 

[Aureus]

anyways only four states are realy supportive of the low evolution/low literacy rate. the rest of the continental us, especially oaklahoma and california are not indicative of said theory at all. unless I am missing some states?

Its a literacy map based on English. Hmm, I wonder what could cause California to have a relatively lower English literacy rate... I mean... certainly the large numbers of native Spanish speakers wouldn't have anything to do with that...

Oh wait, it would.

 

[createdtoworship]

I suggest in full sincerity, that you schedule an appointment with an optometrist. And just because you state something does not make it true. The type of imprint left behind by the "Toes" cannot be created by stepping into soft material.

Here, have a high contrast outline of the edge only of the foot, completely ignoring things like arches and such. Your 'foot print' doesn't fit human anatomy at all. Even if the toes were not an issue, the size and shape of the 'print' doesn't fit the size and shape of a human foot at all. It would need to be twice as long, at least, to even begin to resemble a human foot.

without trying to sound rude: how on earth do you know for a fact that it's not human. please submit pictures of said animal that these prints entail.

 

[Aureus]

without trying to sound rude: how on earth do you know for a fact that it's not human. please submit pictures of said animal that these prints entail.

I don't have to know what 'animal' they came from. I can tell by looking at that 'print', assuming its a 'foot print' at all, it was almost certainly not made by a human.

As has already been pointed out, the most likely answer is that they are native american carvings, much like the other known examples that they resemble. Whatever bleating you wish to do about tentative explanations offered from cursory onsite study that amounted to "hey buddy, those looks carvings?"- "nah man, totally not carvings."

You are holding these up as if they are some kind of magical bullet "There goes Evolution!" thing. Now you're relying on "how do you know for a fact that its not human", how about *you* make the case that they *are* human. You know, like trying to explain how that 'foot' doesn't fit human proportions at all.

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't have to know what 'animal' they came from. I can tell by looking at that 'print', assuming its a 'foot print' at all, it was almost certainly not made by a human.

this coming from a non geologist, and taking his word over other professors of geology is not very scientific, folks. He has nothing but "his word for it". And now he is not sure if it is a "foot print at all." I guess this discussion is over. Unless He can post something of a citation, a fact, or a geologist.

 

[createdtoworship]

I suggest in full sincerity, that you schedule an appointment with an optometrist. And just because you state something does not make it true. The type of imprint left behind by the "Toes" cannot be created by stepping into soft material.

Here, have a high contrast outline of the edge only of the foot, completely ignoring things like arches and such. Your 'foot print' doesn't fit human anatomy at all. Even if the toes were not an issue, the size and shape of the 'print' doesn't fit the size and shape of a human foot at all. It would need to be twice as long, at least, to even begin to resemble a human foot.

I missed your hand drawing, I mean wow. How very (unscientific) I mean nice. Well lets give it a shot. What is the inch size of the footprintfound, and what is the inch size of the typical human foot. Lets start here.

 

[Aureus]

this coming from a non geologist, and taking his word over other professors of geology is not very scientific, folks. He has nothing but "his word for it". And now he is not sure if it is a "foot print at all." I guess this discussion is over. Unless He can post something of a citation, a fact, or a geologist.

Now? I've never said that they were foot prints and have always questioned whether or not they were foot prints. That's not a new statement of mine so I find it rather suspicious you are deciding it is suddenly of monumental importance. Rather what I see from you is a complete inability to deal with the reality that these markings do not correspond to or look like actual human foot prints.

I missed your hand drawing, I mean wow. How very (unscientific) I mean nice. Well lets give it a shot. What is the inch size of the footprintfound, and what is the inch size of the typical human foot. Lets start here.

Actually its a tracing of the outlines of the earlier overlay to highlight the differences that you refuse to recognize, I mean uh, cannot see.

According to Burroughs himself

"Brad Steiger writes that Dr. Burroughs of Berea College in KY "announced that he had discovered 10 humanoid footprints in carboniferous sandstone on a farm belonging to Mr. O. Finnell in the hills in the southern part of Rockcastle County. The prints were 9 1/2 inches long and 6 inches wide."

Alleged Carboniferous Human Footprints in Kentucky

9.5 inches long, 6 inches wide... which creates a ratio of length to width of 1.583

The suggested ratio for length to width of human feet for proper proportion by artists is 2.5... but that's just artists, how about we go to the commercial world where they make shoes for real people.

Tennis Warehouse

And the shoes you can get tend to be in the 2.3 to 3.5 range. Also interesting to note of course is that there are no sizes available at all for a 6 inch width. Indeed the widest shoe you can get for a foot that is 9.5 inches long is 3.8 inches wide.

To keep within the range of human proportions and keep a 6 inch width, you need a foot that is going to be anywhere from 15 inches to 19 inches long to fit within the standard proportions used for shoe manufacture.

 

[createdtoworship]

Now? I've never said that they were foot prints and have always questioned whether or not they were foot prints. That's not a new statement of mine so I find it rather suspicious you are deciding it is suddenly of monumental importance. Rather what I see from you is a complete inability to deal with the reality that these markings do not correspond to or look like actual human foot prints.



Actually its a tracing of the outlines of the earlier overlay to highlight the differences that you refuse to recognize, I mean uh, cannot see.

According to Burroughs himself

"Brad Steiger writes that Dr. Burroughs of Berea College in KY "announced that he had discovered 10 humanoid footprints in carboniferous sandstone on a farm belonging to Mr. O. Finnell in the hills in the southern part of Rockcastle County. The prints were 9 1/2 inches long and 6 inches wide."

Alleged Carboniferous Human Footprints in Kentucky

9.5 inches long, 6 inches wide... which creates a ratio of length to width of 1.583

The suggested ratio for length to width of human feet for proper proportion by artists is 2.5... but that's just artists, how about we go to the commercial world where they make shoes for real people.

Tennis Warehouse

And the shoes you can get tend to be in the 2.3 to 3.5 range. Also interesting to note of course is that there are no sizes available at all for a 6 inch width. Indeed the widest shoe you can get for a foot that is 9.5 inches long is 3.8 inches wide.

To keep within the range of human proportions and keep a 6 inch width, you need a foot that is going to be anywhere from 15 inches to 19 inches long to fit within the standard proportions used for shoe manufacture.

well say you are correct, that the human foot of breadth to lengh was stubbier in modern man. How do you know that the feet didn't microevolve from being shorter and stubbier to being longer and slender.

Ancient humans probably did more lifting and heavy labor, and without shoes. Than modern man even in aboriginal tribes of today. If this was one of the first humans and it probably was, I am sure they looked pretty rugged, thicker cheek bones and brow ridges, protruding jaws. There are a lot of differences between the ruff and tumble ancient man and the eloquent version of modern man. They are all humans, but microevolution would have to be rulled out if your theory was to stand.

secondly, I am still waiting for an alternate theory as to what animal this was. (if not human). I dont' think you know because deep down you know I am correct here.

 

[Aureus]

well say you are correct, that the human foot of breadth to lengh was stubbier in modern man. How do you know that the feet didn't microevolve from being shorter and stubbier to being longer and slender.

So now we're going with "they're human foot prints before man micro evolved a change in foot size"...... And of course your only piece of evidence for this microevolution to explain the so-called footprints are still human is.... the so-called footprints themselves yes?

Ancient humans probably did more lifting and heavy labor, and without shoes. Than modern man even in aboriginal tribes of today.

What now? What are you basing this "probably did more lifting and heavy labor" idea on? And how are you saying such a thing when comparing it to people that literally live the same lifestyle as ancient humans?

If this was one of the first humans and it probably was, I am sure they looked pretty rugged, thicker cheek bones and brow ridges, protruding jaws. There are a lot of differences between the ruff and tumble ancient man and the eloquent version of modern man. They are all humans, but microevolution would have to be rulled out if your theory was to stand.

This just isn't even worth replying to. Everything you state in it is nothing but groundless assumptions about "ancient man" that sounds like you're basing them on hollywood caveman movies. But do tell me, how does "its not actually a human print, its either a different animal or more likely a carving... just like the other carvings nearby" rule out microevolution?

secondly, I am still waiting for an alternate theory as to what animal this was. (if not human). I dont' think you know because deep down you know I am correct here.

We don't need to identify what Animal it came from. The position is not "Its either a specific other animal, OR IT MUST BE HUMAN!!!!!111!!!!". It doesn't work that way. No one has to identify it as being some other animal, assuming its even a print. The question of "Is it a human foot print?" is answered rather simply with "No, it does not fit into the anatomical proportions of human feet." This is furthered by that when we do find ancient human footprints... they actually look like they were made by humans and fit within human proportions, like so Ancient Human Footprints Uncovered in Australia

Also at the idea that you are correct. You are so hilariously wrong that I'm not sure why I'm writing any kind of reply. Though you managed to actually up the absurdity factor from what I was expecting to get.