Looking for reasonable explanations for the Paluxy River footprints.

[Weatherman2020]

Again, the 1986 Mt St Helens lava dome is not the .35 million year old formation argon dating says it is.

Think on your own using known evidence and stop parroting with no evidence to support your claims.

Hate to be the one to break it to ya bub... And you might want to sit down for this, but... The Bible isn't evidence.


Someone had to tell him...

Yet another lame strawman.

You just validate over and over your ignorance.

If there was content in that post... No one got it but you. I repeat... The Bible is not evidence. Are we clear on this?

Dufus, get it thru your Neanderthal head - no one claimed it was.

Your stupid strawmen simply validate you have no evidence.

Here's the question that I've never gotten an answer to:

If dinosaurs and man lived in the same time, why are dinosaur bones fossilized and human bones not?

They do exist.

Human Fossils | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Well look at that! I learned something today. A "fossil" is not always made of stone as I had thought. I have to change the question now.

If man and dinosaurs lived in the same time period, why are dinosaur bones made of rock, but not human bones?

Learn something new every once in a while.

They have found soft tissue in Dino fossils. Soft tissue doesn't last 6 million years.

"They have found soft tissue in Dino fossils. Soft tissue doesn't last 6 million years."


Actually, it's 60+ million years, and yes it can. You keep making authoritative declarations like this that are incorrect.

Actually they claim it's 75 million years.
So if you're going to avoid the evidence of my posts and correct me, at least get your facts straight.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hate to be the one to break it to ya bub... And you might want to sit down for this, but... The Bible isn't evidence.


Someone had to tell him...

Yet another lame strawman.

You just validate over and over your ignorance.

If there was content in that post... No one got it but you. I repeat... The Bible is not evidence. Are we clear on this?

Dufus, get it thru your Neanderthal head - no one claimed it was.

Your stupid strawmen simply validate you have no evidence.

The time of scientifica has overwhelming amount of peer reviewed highly scrutinized, validated evidence. There are numerous websites dedicated to this single topic alone. Even within this thread you've been shown evidence, and been given multiple links to additional evidence for your verification. Your own willful ignorance is of your own making. People who hold fast to the ridiculous claims you do serve only to hasten the demise of christianity, as the educated world around you moves forward with proveable facts that withstand scrutiny from all comers and angles. Just one of the numerous reasons your religion is in precipitous decline.

Answer the OP. Answer my Estonia painting. Answer the Cambodian carving. Answer why the 1986 lava dome dates to .35 million years ago. Answer why soft tissue is found in dinosaur fossils.

And simply saying they are all hoaxes is not science, it's bullshit wishful thinking.

"Answer my Estonia painting. Answer the Cambodian carving. "


See, you have it backwards again. You seem confused as to what constitutes 'evidence". Here's something that may help: if it can be explained in many different ways, especially in many simpler ways, it is not evidence. No, nobody has to "prove" those aren't what you say they are. It is YOU who has to prove that they ARE what you say they are. Then, you have to explain how they got there. then, you have to explain why the mountains of mutually supportive evidence we have is all wrong. Then, you have to come up with better explanation that supports ALL the evidence, not just two things you found on Google... ALL the evidence. Good luck with that, friend.

 

[Vastator]

They do exist.

Human Fossils | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Well look at that! I learned something today. A "fossil" is not always made of stone as I had thought. I have to change the question now.

If man and dinosaurs lived in the same time period, why are dinosaur bones made of rock, but not human bones?

Learn something new every once in a while.

They have found soft tissue in Dino fossils. Soft tissue doesn't last 6 million years.

Gonna hafta see a link to that claim, I don't believe it. Show me your link that says they found soft dino tissue that is only 6 million years old. Which BTW,is still before the 1st human being walked the Earth. Most anthropologists have mankind appearing no earlier than 200,000 years ago, although recent finds suggest maybe even 300,000 years ago. That's a long way from 6 million years.

The official atheist version of the origin of man is always changing because it's a lie.

Scientists Find Soft Tissue in 75-Million-Year-Old Dinosaur Bones


They even make you an example if you dare question their lies by presenting evidence.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

"The official atheist version of the origin of man is always changing because it's a lie. ""

Another authoritative declaration, and wrong again. It's not changing all that much. I assume you mean evolution, which is also accepted by many religious people.

The only change, is the growing clarity of our knowledge of what happened. More knowledge, more detail. And that kind of change is good. Its what science is all about.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hate to be the one to break it to ya bub... And you might want to sit down for this, but... The Bible isn't evidence.


Someone had to tell him...

Yet another lame strawman.

You just validate over and over your ignorance.

If there was content in that post... No one got it but you. I repeat... The Bible is not evidence. Are we clear on this?

Dufus, get it thru your Neanderthal head - no one claimed it was.

Your stupid strawmen simply validate you have no evidence.

Here's the question that I've never gotten an answer to:

If dinosaurs and man lived in the same time, why are dinosaur bones fossilized and human bones not?

They do exist.

Human Fossils | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Well look at that! I learned something today. A "fossil" is not always made of stone as I had thought. I have to change the question now.

If man and dinosaurs lived in the same time period, why are dinosaur bones made of rock, but not human bones?

Learn something new every once in a while.

They have found soft tissue in Dino fossils. Soft tissue doesn't last 6 million years.

"They have found soft tissue in Dino fossils. Soft tissue doesn't last 6 million years."


Actually, it's 60+ million years, and yes it can. You keep making authoritative declarations like this that are incorrect.

Actually they claim it's 75 million years.
So if you're going to avoid the evidence of my posts and correct me, at least get your facts straight.

I said, "60+ million". Is 75 more than 60? I think so, not quite sure.

And ACTUALLY, they have found soft tissue from 195 million years ago. Also, they have found a few different ways it can be preserved. yes, while you were googling for creationist talking points, scientists were busy in the lab, explaining things.

 

[Weatherman2020]

They do exist.

Human Fossils | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Well look at that! I learned something today. A "fossil" is not always made of stone as I had thought. I have to change the question now.

If man and dinosaurs lived in the same time period, why are dinosaur bones made of rock, but not human bones?

Learn something new every once in a while.

They have found soft tissue in Dino fossils. Soft tissue doesn't last 6 million years.

Gonna hafta see a link to that claim, I don't believe it. Show me your link that says they found soft dino tissue that is only 6 million years old. Which BTW,is still before the 1st human being walked the Earth. Most anthropologists have mankind appearing no earlier than 200,000 years ago, although recent finds suggest maybe even 300,000 years ago. That's a long way from 6 million years.

The official atheist version of the origin of man is always changing because it's a lie.

Scientists Find Soft Tissue in 75-Million-Year-Old Dinosaur Bones


They even make you an example if you dare question their lies by presenting evidence.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

"The official atheist version of the origin of man is always changing because it's a lie. ""

Another authoritative declaration, and wrong again. It's not changing all that much. I assume you mean evolution, which is also accepted by many religious people.

Bull. Just last month the origins of man jumped 33% in years and went from a local area to cover two continents.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Yet another lame strawman.

You just validate over and over your ignorance.

If there was content in that post... No one got it but you. I repeat... The Bible is not evidence. Are we clear on this?

Dufus, get it thru your Neanderthal head - no one claimed it was.

Your stupid strawmen simply validate you have no evidence.

They do exist.

Human Fossils | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Well look at that! I learned something today. A "fossil" is not always made of stone as I had thought. I have to change the question now.

If man and dinosaurs lived in the same time period, why are dinosaur bones made of rock, but not human bones?

Learn something new every once in a while.

They have found soft tissue in Dino fossils. Soft tissue doesn't last 6 million years.

"They have found soft tissue in Dino fossils. Soft tissue doesn't last 6 million years."


Actually, it's 60+ million years, and yes it can. You keep making authoritative declarations like this that are incorrect.

Actually they claim it's 75 million years.
So if you're going to avoid the evidence of my posts and correct me, at least get your facts straight.

I said, "60+ million". Is 75 more than 60? I think so, not quite sure.

And ACTUALLY, they have found soft tissue from 195 million years ago. Also, they have found a few different ways it can be preserved. yes, while you were googling for creationist talking points, scientists were busy in the lab, explaining things.

What else you going to parrot without understanding from your masters?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well look at that! I learned something today. A "fossil" is not always made of stone as I had thought. I have to change the question now.

If man and dinosaurs lived in the same time period, why are dinosaur bones made of rock, but not human bones?

Learn something new every once in a while.

They have found soft tissue in Dino fossils. Soft tissue doesn't last 6 million years.

Gonna hafta see a link to that claim, I don't believe it. Show me your link that says they found soft dino tissue that is only 6 million years old. Which BTW,is still before the 1st human being walked the Earth. Most anthropologists have mankind appearing no earlier than 200,000 years ago, although recent finds suggest maybe even 300,000 years ago. That's a long way from 6 million years.

The official atheist version of the origin of man is always changing because it's a lie.

Scientists Find Soft Tissue in 75-Million-Year-Old Dinosaur Bones


They even make you an example if you dare question their lies by presenting evidence.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

"The official atheist version of the origin of man is always changing because it's a lie. ""

Another authoritative declaration, and wrong again. It's not changing all that much. I assume you mean evolution, which is also accepted by many religious people.

Bull. Just last month the origins of man jumped 33% in years and went from a local area to cover two continents.

"Just last month the origins of man jumped 33% in years and went from a local area to cover two continents."

First of all, that is false. While you may take anything you see and immediately assume it means 100% ONE thing, and never bother again to research or second guess yourself, that is not how scientists operate. Second, that would not turn the theory of evolution on its head. Those are minor changes to a comprehensive theory. And, the "33%" number is a con man's tactic, considering the relatively short amount of time humans have been on the planet.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If there was content in that post... No one got it but you. I repeat... The Bible is not evidence. Are we clear on this?

Dufus, get it thru your Neanderthal head - no one claimed it was.

Your stupid strawmen simply validate you have no evidence.

Well look at that! I learned something today. A "fossil" is not always made of stone as I had thought. I have to change the question now.

If man and dinosaurs lived in the same time period, why are dinosaur bones made of rock, but not human bones?

Learn something new every once in a while.

They have found soft tissue in Dino fossils. Soft tissue doesn't last 6 million years.

"They have found soft tissue in Dino fossils. Soft tissue doesn't last 6 million years."


Actually, it's 60+ million years, and yes it can. You keep making authoritative declarations like this that are incorrect.

Actually they claim it's 75 million years.
So if you're going to avoid the evidence of my posts and correct me, at least get your facts straight.

I said, "60+ million". Is 75 more than 60? I think so, not quite sure.

And ACTUALLY, they have found soft tissue from 195 million years ago. Also, they have found a few different ways it can be preserved. yes, while you were googling for creationist talking points, scientists were busy in the lab, explaining things.

What else you going to parrot without understanding from your masters?

haha... so, you think this fallacious set of nonsense from you carries some nobility, in that you are "bucking the system". No, you are merely a living fossil, following the masters from 300 years ago.... the ones we already proved to be 100% wrong. Pick your masters better, friend.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Dufus, get it thru your Neanderthal head - no one claimed it was.

Your stupid strawmen simply validate you have no evidence.

They have found soft tissue in Dino fossils. Soft tissue doesn't last 6 million years.

"They have found soft tissue in Dino fossils. Soft tissue doesn't last 6 million years."


Actually, it's 60+ million years, and yes it can. You keep making authoritative declarations like this that are incorrect.

Actually they claim it's 75 million years.
So if you're going to avoid the evidence of my posts and correct me, at least get your facts straight.

I said, "60+ million". Is 75 more than 60? I think so, not quite sure.

And ACTUALLY, they have found soft tissue from 195 million years ago. Also, they have found a few different ways it can be preserved. yes, while you were googling for creationist talking points, scientists were busy in the lab, explaining things.

What else you going to parrot without understanding from your masters?

haha... so, you think this fallacious set of nonsense from you carries some nobility, in that you are "bucking the system". No, you are merely a living fossil, following the masters from 300 years ago.... the ones we already proved to be 100% wrong. Pick your masters better, friend.

Not my problem you swallow everything your masters feed you without question. Good sheep.

 

[Weatherman2020]

They have found soft tissue in Dino fossils. Soft tissue doesn't last 6 million years.

Gonna hafta see a link to that claim, I don't believe it. Show me your link that says they found soft dino tissue that is only 6 million years old. Which BTW,is still before the 1st human being walked the Earth. Most anthropologists have mankind appearing no earlier than 200,000 years ago, although recent finds suggest maybe even 300,000 years ago. That's a long way from 6 million years.

The official atheist version of the origin of man is always changing because it's a lie.

Scientists Find Soft Tissue in 75-Million-Year-Old Dinosaur Bones


They even make you an example if you dare question their lies by presenting evidence.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

"The official atheist version of the origin of man is always changing because it's a lie. ""

Another authoritative declaration, and wrong again. It's not changing all that much. I assume you mean evolution, which is also accepted by many religious people.

Bull. Just last month the origins of man jumped 33% in years and went from a local area to cover two continents.

"Just last month the origins of man jumped 33% in years and went from a local area to cover two continents."

First of all, that is false. While you may take anything you see and immediately assume it means 100% ONE thing, and never bother again to research or second guess yourself, that is not how scientists operate. Second, that would not turn the theory of evolution on its head. Those are minor changes to a comprehensive theory. And, the "33%" number is a con man's tactic, considering the relatively short amount of time humans have been on the planet.

Educate yourself, sheep.

Human Footprints From 5.7 Million Years Ago May Rewrite Evolution History

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"They have found soft tissue in Dino fossils. Soft tissue doesn't last 6 million years."


Actually, it's 60+ million years, and yes it can. You keep making authoritative declarations like this that are incorrect.

Actually they claim it's 75 million years.
So if you're going to avoid the evidence of my posts and correct me, at least get your facts straight.

I said, "60+ million". Is 75 more than 60? I think so, not quite sure.

And ACTUALLY, they have found soft tissue from 195 million years ago. Also, they have found a few different ways it can be preserved. yes, while you were googling for creationist talking points, scientists were busy in the lab, explaining things.

What else you going to parrot without understanding from your masters?

haha... so, you think this fallacious set of nonsense from you carries some nobility, in that you are "bucking the system". No, you are merely a living fossil, following the masters from 300 years ago.... the ones we already proved to be 100% wrong. Pick your masters better, friend.

Not my problem you swallow everything your masters feed you without question. Good sheep.

Uh oh.....tantrum time....

I'll be back when you simmer down. But I will leave you with a thought:

Those who follow the evidence are doing precisely the opposite of "following a master", whether that master is a priest, a dogma, a superstition, or a pre-conception. That would be me.

You, however, are beholden to a preconception. And now, you are engaged in a great project of "backward-think", in which you are furiously searching for "evidence" to support a staunch belief you long ago adopted. You are the 'sheep', following the 'master' that is your superstition. Your inability to shake this incorrect preconception leaves you not in full control of your own faculties, as you are forced to lie, cheat, commit fallacy after fallacy, and ignore the mountains of evidence which stand against you. That is you, being controlled.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Gonna hafta see a link to that claim, I don't believe it. Show me your link that says they found soft dino tissue that is only 6 million years old. Which BTW,is still before the 1st human being walked the Earth. Most anthropologists have mankind appearing no earlier than 200,000 years ago, although recent finds suggest maybe even 300,000 years ago. That's a long way from 6 million years.

The official atheist version of the origin of man is always changing because it's a lie.

Scientists Find Soft Tissue in 75-Million-Year-Old Dinosaur Bones


They even make you an example if you dare question their lies by presenting evidence.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

"The official atheist version of the origin of man is always changing because it's a lie. ""

Another authoritative declaration, and wrong again. It's not changing all that much. I assume you mean evolution, which is also accepted by many religious people.

Bull. Just last month the origins of man jumped 33% in years and went from a local area to cover two continents.

"Just last month the origins of man jumped 33% in years and went from a local area to cover two continents."

First of all, that is false. While you may take anything you see and immediately assume it means 100% ONE thing, and never bother again to research or second guess yourself, that is not how scientists operate. Second, that would not turn the theory of evolution on its head. Those are minor changes to a comprehensive theory. And, the "33%" number is a con man's tactic, considering the relatively short amount of time humans have been on the planet.

Educate yourself, sheep.

Human Footprints From 5.7 Million Years Ago May Rewrite Evolution History

You're confusing yourself with your own headline...having to stretch back the appearance of upright hominims by a couple of million years does not turn evolution or the evolutionary tree on its head. I think your error probably arises by a misunderstanding of both the timescales involved and by the fact that, while specialists make a big deal about even the slightest change to their working hypotheses, in the big scheme, it's a very small change to the accepted theories.

 

[Vastator]

Gonna hafta see a link to that claim, I don't believe it. Show me your link that says they found soft dino tissue that is only 6 million years old. Which BTW,is still before the 1st human being walked the Earth. Most anthropologists have mankind appearing no earlier than 200,000 years ago, although recent finds suggest maybe even 300,000 years ago. That's a long way from 6 million years.

The official atheist version of the origin of man is always changing because it's a lie.

Scientists Find Soft Tissue in 75-Million-Year-Old Dinosaur Bones


They even make you an example if you dare question their lies by presenting evidence.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

"The official atheist version of the origin of man is always changing because it's a lie. ""

Another authoritative declaration, and wrong again. It's not changing all that much. I assume you mean evolution, which is also accepted by many religious people.

Bull. Just last month the origins of man jumped 33% in years and went from a local area to cover two continents.

"Just last month the origins of man jumped 33% in years and went from a local area to cover two continents."

First of all, that is false. While you may take anything you see and immediately assume it means 100% ONE thing, and never bother again to research or second guess yourself, that is not how scientists operate. Second, that would not turn the theory of evolution on its head. Those are minor changes to a comprehensive theory. And, the "33%" number is a con man's tactic, considering the relatively short amount of time humans have been on the planet.

Educate yourself, sheep.

Human Footprints From 5.7 Million Years Ago May Rewrite Evolution History

Lol... He didn't read the article... Lol...

 

[task0778]

Gonna hafta see a link to that claim, I don't believe it. Show me your link that says they found soft dino tissue that is only 6 million years old. Which BTW,is still before the 1st human being walked the Earth. Most anthropologists have mankind appearing no earlier than 200,000 years ago, although recent finds suggest maybe even 300,000 years ago. That's a long way from 6 million years.

The official atheist version of the origin of man is always changing because it's a lie.

Scientists Find Soft Tissue in 75-Million-Year-Old Dinosaur Bones


They even make you an example if you dare question their lies by presenting evidence.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

"The official atheist version of the origin of man is always changing because it's a lie. ""

Another authoritative declaration, and wrong again. It's not changing all that much. I assume you mean evolution, which is also accepted by many religious people.

Bull. Just last month the origins of man jumped 33% in years and went from a local area to cover two continents.

"Just last month the origins of man jumped 33% in years and went from a local area to cover two continents."

First of all, that is false. While you may take anything you see and immediately assume it means 100% ONE thing, and never bother again to research or second guess yourself, that is not how scientists operate. Second, that would not turn the theory of evolution on its head. Those are minor changes to a comprehensive theory. And, the "33%" number is a con man's tactic, considering the relatively short amount of time humans have been on the planet.

Educate yourself, sheep.

Human Footprints From 5.7 Million Years Ago May Rewrite Evolution History

From your link:

"Scientists say they may have found human footprints in Greece"

"potentially changing our ideas of how the species evolved and dispersed."

"Analysis suggests the animal that made the tracks was an ancient member of the human family, but Crete is not within geographical area where our ancestors were known to roam 5.7 million years ago. "

"“The interpretation of these footprints is potentially controversial,” the scientists wrote."

" The authors said they “must also entertain the possibility” that the tracks were not the product of a human ancestor, but rather were made by another yet-to-be-discovered primate that evolved “human-like foot anatomy.”

It would not be the first time that species in different evolutionary lines separately evolved similar characteristics, a phenomenon known as convergent evolution.

“The first of these interpretations is clearly more straightforward,” the authors noted.

However, even if the tracks being made by a human ancestor is a simpler explanation based on our current knowledge of ancient primates, they said nature does not always operate in such a simple fashion.

“What makes this controversial is the age and location of the prints,” researcher Per Ahlberg said in the Uppsala University report. “This discovery challenges the established narrative of early human evolution head-on and is likely to generate a lot of debate. Whether the human origins research community will accept fossil footprints as conclusive evidence of the presence of hominins in the Miocene of Crete remains to be seen.” "


You are stating as fact some conclusions that are somewhat controversial. I didn't see anybody stating that the origins of man has jumped 33%, nor that man originated on two continents. Nothing wrong with challenging the established narrative, but a honest scientist does not alter the accepted narrative either without more conclusive evidence than what we've seen so far.

 

[mamooth]

Answer the OP.

Some creationist fraud, and some fraud by the locals to bring in tourist dollars.

By your standards, I can prove Superman exists by posting a picture of him. Your standards are stupid, which is why science rejects them, and why intelligent people reject them.

You can't just toss up random photos and declare they're proof. You need scientific backing for them. You need to prove your human footprints came from Paluxy, then you need to prove they weren't carved by humans. Until you do that, all you have is meaningless pictures.

Answer my Estonia painting.

The Bible talks about a "behemoth", so a painter made up a fantasy animal. It looks not much like a dinosaur. Looks more like big riding lizards.

Answer the Cambodian carving.

It's a rhino with decorations carved around it. There's the same kind of decoration carved underneath it. Do you think dinosaurs had udders? No, it's just the weird little decoration nubs that are all over the carvings.

Answer why the 1986 lava dome dates to .35 million years ago.

Creationist fraud. They sent their samples to a lab that specifically stated it was unable to date samples less than 2 million years old.

Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals

Answer why soft tissue is found in dinosaur fossils.

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

 

[Old Rocks]

Here's the question that I've never gotten an answer to:

If dinosaurs and man lived in the same time, why are dinosaur bones fossilized and human bones not?

They do exist.

Human Fossils | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Well look at that! I learned something today. A "fossil" is not always made of stone as I had thought. I have to change the question now.

If man and dinosaurs lived in the same time period, why are dinosaur bones made of rock, but not human bones?

Learn something new every once in a while.

They have found soft tissue in Dino fossils. Soft tissue doesn't last 6 million years.

Actually, more than 68 million years. And you base your opinion on soft tissue on what?

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex finally has a physical explanation. According to new research, iron in the dinosaur's body preserved the tissue before it could decay.

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Perhaps you should actually look at what the scientists have to say before flapping your ignorant yap.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL, so I should ignore all those respected and credentialed scientists in favor of a guy who can touch something and tell how old it is. 'K.

I'm saying take no ones word for anything. Use an open mind. Look at the evidence and draw your own conclusions. Don't start with dinosaurs were 70 million years ago, that's a bias.

There is no threat to my faith with a billion year old earth. But my interest in geology and archeology has me outside the box of what they teach in schools.

LOL, I don't think you got out too far from that box if you're thinking mankind co-existed with dinos. Here are the facts. FACTS. There is something called the K-T Boundary, it is a thin layer of sediment that exists all around the world that is dated by scientists to be about 65 million years old. Below that layer you find dino fossils, above that layer you don't. NOT ONE. The conclusion drawn by that fact is that dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago. That is not a bias, that is as close to a fact as you're ever going to get. Dispute it all you want, but I got facts and fossils on my side and the scientific community too; let me know when you find a dinosaur fossil that dates to a time when humans walked the planet. A debunked footprint or carving doesn't stack up to any real scientific evidence that shows otherwise.

You just validated my point. They fed you s 65 million year old date and now your parroting it without question.

So....you've not heard of uranium-lead dating.....

I can pick up a rock they say is a hundred million years old.

Doesn't mean the ground I stand on is that old.

Dating is difficult and can easily fooled. Such as a lava dome at Mt St Helens that was formed in 1986 being dated as .35 million years old.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...w_Dacite_Lava_Dome_at_Mount_St_Helens_Volcano

Are you so ignorant that you think that the scientists use only one proxy in dating? Hardly anyone accepts a date that uses only one method. Each method has possible flaws.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well look at that! I learned something today. A "fossil" is not always made of stone as I had thought. I have to change the question now.

If man and dinosaurs lived in the same time period, why are dinosaur bones made of rock, but not human bones?

Learn something new every once in a while.

They have found soft tissue in Dino fossils. Soft tissue doesn't last 6 million years.

Gonna hafta see a link to that claim, I don't believe it. Show me your link that says they found soft dino tissue that is only 6 million years old. Which BTW,is still before the 1st human being walked the Earth. Most anthropologists have mankind appearing no earlier than 200,000 years ago, although recent finds suggest maybe even 300,000 years ago. That's a long way from 6 million years.

The official atheist version of the origin of man is always changing because it's a lie.

Scientists Find Soft Tissue in 75-Million-Year-Old Dinosaur Bones


They even make you an example if you dare question their lies by presenting evidence.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

"The official atheist version of the origin of man is always changing because it's a lie. ""

Another authoritative declaration, and wrong again. It's not changing all that much. I assume you mean evolution, which is also accepted by many religious people.

Bull. Just last month the origins of man jumped 33% in years and went from a local area to cover two continents.

It most certainly did not, you stupid ass. Nor did the scientists claim that. What they claimed was they found tracks similiar in morphology to those left by the human foot.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The official atheist version of the origin of man is always changing because it's a lie.

Scientists Find Soft Tissue in 75-Million-Year-Old Dinosaur Bones


They even make you an example if you dare question their lies by presenting evidence.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

"The official atheist version of the origin of man is always changing because it's a lie. ""

Another authoritative declaration, and wrong again. It's not changing all that much. I assume you mean evolution, which is also accepted by many religious people.

Bull. Just last month the origins of man jumped 33% in years and went from a local area to cover two continents.

"Just last month the origins of man jumped 33% in years and went from a local area to cover two continents."

First of all, that is false. While you may take anything you see and immediately assume it means 100% ONE thing, and never bother again to research or second guess yourself, that is not how scientists operate. Second, that would not turn the theory of evolution on its head. Those are minor changes to a comprehensive theory. And, the "33%" number is a con man's tactic, considering the relatively short amount of time humans have been on the planet.

Educate yourself, sheep.

Human Footprints From 5.7 Million Years Ago May Rewrite Evolution History

Lol... He didn't read the article... Lol...

Of course I did...

 

[Vastator]

"The official atheist version of the origin of man is always changing because it's a lie. ""

Another authoritative declaration, and wrong again. It's not changing all that much. I assume you mean evolution, which is also accepted by many religious people.

Bull. Just last month the origins of man jumped 33% in years and went from a local area to cover two continents.

"Just last month the origins of man jumped 33% in years and went from a local area to cover two continents."

First of all, that is false. While you may take anything you see and immediately assume it means 100% ONE thing, and never bother again to research or second guess yourself, that is not how scientists operate. Second, that would not turn the theory of evolution on its head. Those are minor changes to a comprehensive theory. And, the "33%" number is a con man's tactic, considering the relatively short amount of time humans have been on the planet.

Educate yourself, sheep.

Human Footprints From 5.7 Million Years Ago May Rewrite Evolution History

Lol... He didn't read the article... Lol...

Of course I did...

Not you... The weenie who posted it.