Spirituality
01 Oct 13
10 Oct 13
Originally posted by MISTER CHESSThere are inferences, you need to look beyond what is written. For example, as well as dinosaurs there was primitive multi cylinder bi-wheeled transportation.
Where in the bible is anything written about dinosaurs?
"And the roar of Joshua's Triumph was heard through the land"
Meditate upon such things my son.
Originally posted by MISTER CHESSYes, and you must realize the word dinosaur and the names for the various types of dinosaurs were not in existence in Biblical times nor at the time of the first translations into English. Certainly, the description as a large and most powerful animal which eats grass and has a tail like a cedar tree does not fit any animal known to be living today. However, it could fit our understanding of the sauropod dinosaurs, like the brontosaurus.
Seriously?
You show me some crack job website and tout it as proof? The Leviathin and Behemoth, dinosaurs?
Wow, just wow.
The Instructor
10 Oct 13
Originally posted by RJHindsUtter tosh I'm afraid. There are a few nicely carved human footprints there, which have hoodwinked gullible tourists from time to time, but no genuine impressions of human feet.
It is NOT nonsense. That website shows pictures of the dinosaur footprints, the human footprints and handprint. The distance measured between the dinosaur footprints indicates the stride length of this animal was greater than the strides length of the 11 inch human footprints for sure. The stride length of the 16 inch human footprints was greater than th ...[text shortened]... ide between the two species."
http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/footprints.htm
The Idiot[/b]
10 Oct 13
Originally posted by avalanchethecatYou are ignoring the following:
Utter tosh I'm afraid. There are a few nicely carved human footprints there, which have hoodwinked gullible tourists from time to time, but no genuine impressions of human feet.
(4) Research studies unavailable until 2008 demonstrate conclusively that the fossil human footprints such as the Delk and Burdick ichnites have been validated by the use of cat-scans. The same type of equipment employed to diagnose human illnesses is used. Cat-scans of such fossil rock impressions from the Cretaceous rock strata, allegedly 108 million years old are used to differentiate more dense material like bones from soft tissue or more dense solidified mud.
Cat-scans can also show cross sections of a foot impression and reveal the difference in density at different points along the footprint impression. Charges have been made that footprints have been carved by those wanting to prove their particular point of view. A cat scan can reveal the different densities along a footprint impression. When a human puts weight on their feet there is different pressure applied in different parts of the foot area. For example the initial pressure and usually the highest pressure is when the heel first strikes the ground. The mid part of the foot has less pressure. When the ball of the foot strikes the ground and then pushes forward that part of the foot also has more pressure than the mid part of the foot. Thus one can now examine a footprint and see if the density of the hardened material changes along the footprint area. Then if the density change match that which would result from a human gait, then you know that this is a real foot print and not something carved into an existing stone. That is exactly what can be done and has been done recently with cat scans of the footprints. This is a very new scientific method that can now be used that was not available in the past. Cat-scan technology has also been used in the last few years to study dinosaur bones incased in rock etc as well, so this new technology can be used to solve past controversies.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsNone of the footprints which can categorically be shown to have been pressed into the wet mud and then fossilized look even remotely like human footprints. None of the footprints which look identifiably human have been shown to have been pressed into wet mud and then fossilized. The results of all analyses on obviously human 'footprints' at Paluxy have either returned inconclusive results or have been shown to have been carved. Of course you will disagree, as the palaeontology of this site categorically proves the falsity of your young-earth paradigm, but, as in so many cases, you are ignoring scientific studies in favour of pseudoscience which supports your beliefs.
You are ignoring the following:
[b] (4) Research studies unavailable until 2008 demonstrate conclusively that the fossil human footprints such as the Delk and Burdick ichnites have been validated by the use of cat-scans. The same type of equipment employed to diagnose human illnesses is used. Cat-scans of such fossil rock impressions from the Cretaceous r as well, so this new technology can be used to solve past controversies.
The Idiot[/b]
10 Oct 13
Originally posted by RJHindsRon, your passion is focused on the wrong thing buddy.
You are ignoring the following:
[b] (4) Research studies unavailable until 2008 demonstrate conclusively that the fossil human footprints such as the Delk and Burdick ichnites have been validated by the use of cat-scans. The same type of equipment employed to diagnose human illnesses is used. Cat-scans of such fossil rock impressions from the Cretaceous r ...[text shortened]... as well, so this new technology can be used to solve past controversies.
The Instructor[/b]
10 Oct 13
Originally posted by avalanchethecatYou give no reference authority for your statements.
None of the footprints which can categorically be shown to have been pressed into the wet mud and then fossilized look even remotely like human footprints. None of the footprints which look identifiably human have been shown to have been pressed into wet mud and then fossilized. The results of all analyses on obviously human 'footprints' at Paluxy ha ...[text shortened]... ses, you are ignoring scientific studies in favour of pseudoscience which supports your beliefs.
The Instructor
11 Oct 13
Originally posted by RJHindsRJ, Very interesting reading. Love science, good research and philosiphy. I have to tell you, as if you don't know this already, some people just want to argue till the cats come home. They will stick to their thinking, and believe they are right no matter if God Himself might tell them differntly. We see it here in nearly every forum. But again, that is what also can make it fun. I can only smile.
You are ignoring the following:
[b] (4) Research studies unavailable until 2008 demonstrate conclusively that the fossil human footprints such as the Delk and Burdick ichnites have been validated by the use of cat-scans. The same type of equipment employed to diagnose human illnesses is used. Cat-scans of such fossil rock impressions from the Cretaceous r ...[text shortened]... as well, so this new technology can be used to solve past controversies.
The Instructor[/b]
11 Oct 13
Originally posted by RJHindsAs if that would make any difference to you!
You give no reference authority for your statements.
The Idiot
http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm
http://ncse.com/cej/5/1/tracking-those-incredible-creationists
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/Farlow%20et%20al%202012%20Paluxy%20River%20tracksites.pdf
11 Oct 13
Originally posted by avalanchethecatThe article I referenced has already acknowledged that there were naysayers on the side of evilution. But it appears that the Cat scans have proved them wrong. The references you give are just a repeat of the old arguments from those discredited naysayers.
As if that would make any difference to you!
http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm
http://ncse.com/cej/5/1/tracking-those-incredible-creationists
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/Farlow%20et%20al%202012%20Paluxy%20River%20tracksites.pdf
The Instructor
12 Oct 13
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you didn't read them eh? Colour me surprised.
The article I referenced has already acknowledged that there were naysayers on the side of evilution. But it appears that the Cat scans have proved them wrong. The references you give are just a repeat of the old arguments from those discredited naysayers.
The Idiot