% that accept evolution per state

[Gracchus]

possibly to turn over a new leaf? turn change bad habits? to repent? none of these things appeal to the criminal eh?

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.

 

[mzungu]

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:

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.

 

[createdtoworship]

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.

well then make a case for it, provide sources and documentation , with names, dates etc. Otherwise it's just opinion not evidence. Thanks for the comment.

 

[createdtoworship]

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.

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

 

[createdtoworship]

If one wishes to publish GEOLOGY then one must give all the details about the rocks from which they are get their materials.

what details were missing exactly, they sound fairly complete.

more info here:

"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]. This was his reason for issuing a challenge to any scientist to prove that Precambrian basement rocks could be formed, with Polonium 218 halos within them, from the elements that comprised it. In his book, he details this statement:

"The experiment being proposed is quite straight forward. The basic chemical elements of a granite, which are well-known, are to be melted, and then allowed to cool to form a synthetic rock. If my colleagues do this experiment so the synthetic rock reproduces the mineral composition and crystal structure of granite, then they will have duplicated or synthesized a piece of granite. By doing this they would have confirmed a major prediction of the evolutionary scenario – they would have demonstrated that granites can form from a liquid melt in accordance with known physical laws. I will accept such results as falsifying my view that the Precambrian granites are the primordial Genesis rocks of our planet. Furthermore, if they were successful in producing a single 218Po halo in that piece of synthesized granite, I would accept that as falsifying my view that the polonium halos in granites are God's fingerprints."[8]

The challenge has yet to be successfully met."

above section from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_V._Gentry

 

[mzungu]

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

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.

I stand by my previous post. As for the "American" issue; you have not commented on it.

 

[MikeCarra]

what details were missing exactly, they sound fairly complete.

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.

"Gentry states that his critics are not able to supply actual scientific evidence to combat his work.

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.

This causes Gentry to conclude that there is no real scientific evidence against Polonium Halos proving creation by fiat

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)

, so his critics resort to character assassination and insults [citation needed]

^^^^^"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.

– they would have demonstrated that granites can form from a liquid melt in accordance with known physical laws.

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.

 

[createdtoworship]

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:

by snelling:

Radiohalos—startling evidence of catastrophic geologic processes on a young earth - creation.com

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.

 

[createdtoworship]

There are a lot of generic websites of pictures of drawings and not pictures found at the source (berea college and museams). Please don't waste time with these as they are simply sketches and not the documentation of evidence.

Sources on this page from Michael cremo and a blog entitled: 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.

Genetic studies show that primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago in the Late Cretaceous period, and the earliest fossils appear in the Paleocene, around 55 million years ago.- wikipedia
why is it that there is evidence of 300 million year old footprints (10 times older than expected). Seems to contradict K-AR dating.

Below from Michael Cremo:
“ 6.3.2 Human Footprints from the carboniferous

Our final examples of anomalous pre-Tertiary evidence are not in the category of fossil human bones, but rather in the category of fossil humanlike footprints. Professor W. G. Burroughs, head of the department of geology at Berea College in Berea, Kentucky, reported (1938, p. 46): “during the beginning of the Upper Carboniferous (Coal Age) Period, creatures that walked on their two hind legs and had human-like feet, left tracks on a sand beach in Rockcastle County, Kentucky. This was the period known as the Age of Amphibians when animals moved about on four legs or more rarely hopped, and their feet did not have a human appearance. But in Rockcastle, Jackson and several other counties in Kentucky, as well as in places from Pennsylvania to Missouri inclusive, creatures that had feet strangely human in appearance and that walked on two hind legs did exist. The writer has proved the existence of these creatures in Kentucky. With the cooperation of Dr. C. W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Smithsonian Institution, it has been shown that similar creatures lived in Pennsylvania and Missouri.”
The Upper Carboniferous (the Pennsylvanian) began about 320 million years ago (Harland et al. 1982, p. 94). It is thought that the first animals capable of walking erect, the pseudosuchian thecodonts, appeared around 210 million years ago (Desmond 1976, p. 86). These lizardlike creatures, capable of running on their hind legs, would not have left any tail marks since they carried their tails aloft. But their feet did not look at all like those of human beings; rather they resembled those of birds. Scientists say the first appearance of apelike beings was not until around 37 million years ago, and it was not until around 4 million years ago that most scientists would expect to find footprints anything like those reported by Burroughs from the Carboniferous of Kentucky.
Burroughs (1938, p. 46) stated: “The footprints are sunk into the horizontal surface of an outcrop of hard, massive grey sandstone on the O. Finnell farm. There are three pairs of tracks showing left and right footprints. . . . Each footprint has five toes and a distinct arch. The toes are spread apart like those of a human being who has never worn shoes.” Kent Previette (1953) wrote: “Scientists and travelers who have seen the tracks which he [Burroughs] proved to be genuine, or studied photographs of them, state that they resemble those of the most primitive people of the Andes, the aboriginal Chinese, and the South Sea islanders—all being people who have never worn shoes.”
Giving more details about the prints, Burroughs (1938, p. 46) stated: “The length of the foot from the heel to the end of the longest toe is nine and one-half inches though this length varies slightly in different tracks. The width across the ball of the foot is 4.1 inches while the width including the spread of the toes is about six inches. The foot curves back like a human foot to a human appearing heel.” These humanlike tracks are thus quite distinct, unlike the more famous but indistinct Paluxy “man tracks” reported in Biblical creationist literature.
David L. Bushnell, an ethnologist with the Smithsonian Institution suggested the prints were carved by Indians (Science News Letter 1938a, p. 372). In ruling out this hypothesis, Dr. Burroughs (1938, pp. 46–47) used a microscope to study the prints and noted: “The sand grains within the tracks are closer together than the sand grains of the rock just outside the tracks due to the pressure of the creatures’ feet. Even the sand grains in the arch of one of the best preserved tracks are not as close together as in the heel of the same track, though closer together than the sand outside the track. This is because there was more pressure upon the heel than beneath the arch of the foot. In comparing the texture of sandstone only the same kind of grains and combinations of grains within and outside of the tracks are considered. The sandstone adjacent to many of the tracks is uprolled due to the damp, loose sand having been pushed up around the foot as the foot sank into the sand. The forward part of one track is covered by solid Pottsville sandstone only a few days or weeks younger than the sandstone in which is the track. Another track nearby is also partially covered by solid Pottsville sandstone of the Coal Age.” These facts led Burroughs to conclude that the humanlike footprints were formed by compression in the soft, wet sand before it consolidated into rock some 300 million years ago.”
-Michael Cremo


an online blog, provides pictures and quotes of Geologist:

***************************************************************************
below is from an online blog that tracked down photos and quotes, blog is from link:
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.


3) Special report #1: The strange fossil footprints of Berea, Kentucky
Several years back, with the help of friends in high places, I had managed to track down (pun intended) an article from 1940 documenting the Berea, Kentucky fossil human footprints inCarboniferous rocks. Allegedly 250 million years old, fossil footprints in such rock are a huge problem for evolutionists who claim that humans had not evolved until the last 500,000 years or so, and our allegedly ancient hominid ancestors some 5 million years ago.
These footprints had been cited by creationists for years, and fossil human footprints being one of my specialties, I of course wanted to follow up on it. The article was in Scientific American, January issue. It contained four photos of which I took one quick glance, and with disappointment said “Nope, those are carvings, not genuine fossil footprints.”
In fact, it was this very article from which many of you will have undoubtedly heard the quote by author Albert Ingalls, saying:
“If man, or even his ape ancestor, or even that ape ancestor’s early mammalian ancestor, existed as far back as in the Carboniferous Period in any shape, then the whole science of geology is so wrong that all the geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving.

Hence, for the present at least, science rejects the attractive explanation that man made these mysterious prints in the mud of the Carboniferous Period with his feet.”
Apparently I was not the only one to reject the Berea tracks as carvings, based on the photos provided in SciAm. The story that unfolded over the next year surprised me. A gentleman I had met via the internet, David Willis, had wanted to go to Berea to investigate these tracks. David turned out to be an incredible sleuth, finding out all kinds of details about the tracks and the archives at the college in Berea, as well as another alleged fossil human footprint in Tennessee which I had only seen on television.
I was in Ohio in 2009, and had a couple of days to spare before heading back to Canada. David’s schedule also permitted him time, so we set out to Berea.
Professor Burroughs was the gentleman who originally studied the Berea tracks. A geologist who founded the geology departmentand taught at Berea college, there is now a small museum named after him in the college. I would dare say that little museum is well worth the visit. About the Department - W. G. Burroughs Geology Museum

Burroughs began his study of the tracks in 1930. These footprints were so remarkably human, that upon suggestion and discussion with Dr. Frank Thone (Science Service, an organization for the popularization of science associated with the Smithsonian) he gave the tracks the latin name “Phenanthropus mirabilis,” which means“looks human; remarkable.”

thieves have subsequently removed the prints and cut them out of the rock, but the original pictures are genuine: All one needed to do was date the rock of the bed where they exist, apparently that has been done, and critics simply dismiss the tracks because the rock dates are accurate. But here is the pictures:

 

[MikeCarra]

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:

There are a number of debates on this topic. There is some question as to Gentry's early work actually being on polonium halos.

His hypothesis is based on research from 1917 (Joly) and even Gentry was flummoxed by some of the larger sized halos found. He proposed new elements or new types of alpha decay (now considered unlikely)

The core of this hypothesis as I understand it is a relationship between the energy of the alpha decay and an idealized solid. It sounds like Gentry may have also glossed over the variations in the crystal structure of mica in which the alpha-producers is set.

As I said this is not my area of geochemistry but it also sounds like there are questions as to whether these halos are all induced by alpha decay form Po. Apparently both Joly and Gentry dismissed beta decay, but there are high energy betas that can cause damage either alone or in combination with alphas.

It sounds as if Gentry has compounded a variety of assumptions (not bad in and of themselves) but also done poor geology and come up with a "finding" that, if true, would require just about everything else we know about reality and geology and physics and chemistry to be absolutely wrong.

Remember: the deep time idea of an old earth isn't built on Po halos or lack thereof. It is an hypothesis built out of century upon century of basic common sense type of observational science.

So we are faced with a conundrum: Is Genty's hypothesis (based as it is on poor geology, bad identification of rocks and geologic setting, compiled assumptions from about 100 years ago, avoidance of alternative hypotheses based on more recent information) right? If so we are going to throw out just about everything we know about how physics and chemistry works because all that stuff goes into making huge piles of rocks that speak to an OLD EARTH.

WHich is it? A few centuries of solid physics and chemistry vs some bad geology and possibly flawed assumptions?

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.

Will do.

 

[MikeCarra]

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?

 

[createdtoworship]

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"

 

[MikeCarra]

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.

 

[createdtoworship]

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:

http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=183

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.

fourthly: one geologist gave up debate with me regarding submittal of the sites provided here. here is what HE said:

"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.

 

[MikeCarra]

do you have documentation and evidence of animals leaving human footprints?

I 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.

not sure what your implications are here.

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.

secondly, no one else seems to hold your alternate theories:

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.

even a well established site by geologists has little to say to refute the find:

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.

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.

I have provided ample alternate hypotheses which explain the data as it exists without relying on overturning all of paleontology.

"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.

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?

 

[Aureus]

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.

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

 

[createdtoworship]

"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

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.

 

[createdtoworship]

I 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?

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.

 

[Aureus]

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.

Firstly, supposedly compacted based on on site study with a magnification glass, not exactly the best method.

Secondly, we have little to no reason to believe they are foot prints of any kind and since they do not match up with human physiology at all we have no reason at all to "accept" that they are human foot prints

Thirdly, Toes do not spread out to the degree that we see in these 'foot prints', no matter the mud or conditions. These 'toes' are spread out such that they are beyond the capabilities of human feet. These 'toes' are also not arranged at all like human toes, they form a straight level line that is 90 degrees off set from the length of the 'foot'. Human toes, as you can rather easily see by looking at your foot are arranged along something of a curve. These "foot prints" show no such morphology... rather leading us to believe that if they are prints at all, they cannot be human.

Fourthly, tools are needed to carve anything, but examination of potential carvings by a single artist with a magnifying glass on site and that have been weathered by hundreds or thousands of years of exposure to the elements is rather inconclusive and not a claim worth considering. But then you want to claim its "As per the geological" when actually its "As per some random dude whose expertise is entirely unknown other than the claim of being a sculptor."

 

[Aureus]

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.

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.