Is There Scientific Evidence Supporting the Floor of Noah?

[WinterBorn]

If it is indeed scientific evidence, aren't you relying on a publication of these pictures? Isn't that opinion?

There was a claim many years ago that there were dinosaur and human footprints along side the Paluxy River. That was debunked.

The Delk Print

This link brings up some problems with the Delk Print. First of all, if the prints were made within minutes or hours of each other, as is claimed, why are the human footprints the same depth as the dinosaur's, given that the dinosaur weigh a few tons. Also, there is the issue of the lack of compression of the layers under the prints. Also, there is evidence of the removal of material around the top of the dinosaur track. And the toes of the dino track do not fit what Baulk claims the dion is.

That and the known frauds perpetrated by Baulk (fake degrees ect) call into question his credibility.

Here are some remarks concerning these tracks:
"Moreover, the digits on the Delk print show little if any indications of individual digit pads which are normally detectable on real dinosaur tracks with such a distinct outline. However, it does resemble a number of other likely carvings that were made decades ago, as well as some that have come out of the Glen Rose and Stephenville area in more recent years, and which were sold to tourists. I've personally inspected several of these prints, including some of the recent examples that happened to be broken through the track depressions. Unlike real tracks that show deformational lines corresponding to the print depression, the subsurface features of these loose tracks were truncated by the depressions, strongly indicating a carved origin".

"

sorry but opinions dont debunk physical evidence,,,,

They do if they point out evidence that the tracks are fake.

 

[WinterBorn]

Your claim that all published scientific research is opinion is laughable.

Documenting the careful research of scientists, and their conclusions is not opinion.

Besides, it is your opinion that the tracks are genuine and not faked.

 

[progressive hunter]

If it is indeed scientific evidence, aren't you relying on a publication of these pictures? Isn't that opinion?

There was a claim many years ago that there were dinosaur and human footprints along side the Paluxy River. That was debunked.

The Delk Print

This link brings up some problems with the Delk Print. First of all, if the prints were made within minutes or hours of each other, as is claimed, why are the human footprints the same depth as the dinosaur's, given that the dinosaur weigh a few tons. Also, there is the issue of the lack of compression of the layers under the prints. Also, there is evidence of the removal of material around the top of the dinosaur track. And the toes of the dino track do not fit what Baulk claims the dion is.

That and the known frauds perpetrated by Baulk (fake degrees ect) call into question his credibility.

Here are some remarks concerning these tracks:
"Moreover, the digits on the Delk print show little if any indications of individual digit pads which are normally detectable on real dinosaur tracks with such a distinct outline. However, it does resemble a number of other likely carvings that were made decades ago, as well as some that have come out of the Glen Rose and Stephenville area in more recent years, and which were sold to tourists. I've personally inspected several of these prints, including some of the recent examples that happened to be broken through the track depressions. Unlike real tracks that show deformational lines corresponding to the print depression, the subsurface features of these loose tracks were truncated by the depressions, strongly indicating a carved origin".

"

sorry but opinions dont debunk physical evidence,,,,

They do if they point out evidence that the tracks are fake.

if they made sense they would,,,

if you looked at the picture its clear the dino was heavier than the human, and the other picture shows the test done to prove they were actual foot prints,,,and the rock was also tested under the flawed RC dating and also showed the rock was millions of yrs old


not to mention this is just one example of the hundreds of such prints found around the world,,,,

 

[WinterBorn]

If it is indeed scientific evidence, aren't you relying on a publication of these pictures? Isn't that opinion?

There was a claim many years ago that there were dinosaur and human footprints along side the Paluxy River. That was debunked.

The Delk Print

This link brings up some problems with the Delk Print. First of all, if the prints were made within minutes or hours of each other, as is claimed, why are the human footprints the same depth as the dinosaur's, given that the dinosaur weigh a few tons. Also, there is the issue of the lack of compression of the layers under the prints. Also, there is evidence of the removal of material around the top of the dinosaur track. And the toes of the dino track do not fit what Baulk claims the dion is.

That and the known frauds perpetrated by Baulk (fake degrees ect) call into question his credibility.

Here are some remarks concerning these tracks:
"Moreover, the digits on the Delk print show little if any indications of individual digit pads which are normally detectable on real dinosaur tracks with such a distinct outline. However, it does resemble a number of other likely carvings that were made decades ago, as well as some that have come out of the Glen Rose and Stephenville area in more recent years, and which were sold to tourists. I've personally inspected several of these prints, including some of the recent examples that happened to be broken through the track depressions. Unlike real tracks that show deformational lines corresponding to the print depression, the subsurface features of these loose tracks were truncated by the depressions, strongly indicating a carved origin".

"

sorry but opinions dont debunk physical evidence,,,,

They do if they point out evidence that the tracks are fake.

if they made sense they would,,,

if you looked at the picture its clear the dino was heavier than the human, and the other picture shows the test done to prove they were actual foot prints,,,and the rock was also tested under the flawed RC dating and also showed the rock was millions of yrs old


not to mention this is just one example of the hundreds of such prints found around the world,,,,

Hundreds of dinosaur & human prints found around the world? And you know this because of publications?

IBSS - Other Views - Carl Baugh
This is a website detailed Baugh's hoaxes.

 

[WinterBorn]

It is very telling that you take the word of someone known to have committed fraud, but dismiss scientific research.

 

[progressive hunter]

It is very telling that you take the word of someone known to have committed fraud, but dismiss scientific research.

so because you disagree they are a fraud,,,

and its the evidence I accept not their word,,,

 

[WinterBorn]

It is very telling that you take the word of someone known to have committed fraud, but dismiss scientific research.

so because you disagree they are a fraud,,,

and its the evidence I accept not their word,,,

The evidence that shows signs of being manufactured?

I accept the word of respected men of science. Not those known to have committed fraud.

I also accept publications, which are peer reviewed as evidence.

 

[Hollie]

I get "this crap" from books. The last one, from which I got the 2.75 billion years, was written by a physicist with his PhD from MIT. Not crap.
Estimates of the age of the universe vary. From the last book I read on the subject, 2.75 billion was an estimate accepted as valid by cosmologists. It's been a few years so that may have changed.
There is a center of the universe. It's the point from which the universe originated. The universe is expanding at a measurable rate. Extrapolating from that rate, the origin point has been identified.
Time doesn't flow at a constant rate throughout the universe. On Earth, the planet is billions of years old but measuring from elsewhere would result in a different age. Using the chi spiral, that age at the center of the universe would be about 6000 years.

No it wasn't. And who cares if it was? The age of the earth is based on mountains of empirical evidence, not the wishful thinking of a paid liar trying to sell books.

Not by more than about 5%, they don't. You are just making stuff up.

00% wrong. Complete and utter horseshit. You literally just made up that nonsense.

No it hasnt. That is not how it works. You are making stuff up and embarrassing yourself.

No it wouldn't. Complete nonsense that you also just made up.

I double-checked what I wrote earlier and the book from which I got the information. I mistyped the 2 in 2.75 and subsequently copied my own error. It should have been 4.75 billion years for the estimated age of Earth. My apologies.

Regardless of my typo, however, everything I said about the center of the universe and time is accurate, based on the work of cosmologists, and from books for laypeople about cosmology written by legitimate scientists. You're not discussing the topic but, rather, just claiming I made it up and being insulting.

The universe is expanding.
Using the rate of expansion, the origin point of the universe can be estimated mathematically.
Time flows at different rates in different locations.
The age of Earth is different at the universe's origin point than it is on the planet.
Using chi for the ratio, the age of Earth at the origin point of the universe would be approximately an age that conforms with calculations based on the Old Testament.

If you or anyone would like to converse about that, please, let's.
If you've nothing to offer but contradiction, accusation, or insult, please don't bother.

I’m not sure what “chi” is or how that will lead anyone to some point in space that defines the point of the initial expansion of the universe.

A quick search of two of the leading research universities would refute the “chi” claim.

Where is the centre of the universe?

https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/3

Aside from the above, there is still irrefutable evidence of a very ancient planet and solar system.

Chi is an irrational number that defines a spiral, the way pi is an irrational number that defines a circle.

Chi isn't what leads to the origin point of the universe. That's based on calculations derived from the rate at which the universe is expanding. Using chi against the varying flow of time leads to Earth being 4.75 billion years old here at 6000 years old at the location of the Big Bang.

The chi claim is a theory; firmly grounded and legitimately scientific, but still a theory. There are others. All theories are open to questioning; that's sort of the point of them.

Thank you for the links. I'll read them when I have more time.

There's definitely evidence of a very ancient planet, solar system, and universe. I'm not disputing that; only saying that there's solid, modern cosmology that lends credence to the Biblical timeline from creation to now (note that the creation narrative is told from the perspective of the Creator until man is created, and from that point shifts to the perspective of humanity). The Biblical creation narrative, like the story of Noah, is a myth. Myth may be and usually is based on fact.

The ultimate point is that, rather than being in conflict, science and the Bible -- along with other ancient wisdom literature -- may co-exist harmoniously, both containing truth, both with much to teach us.

The problem I see with the “chi” reference is that the planet is not 6,000 years old and so much of what constitutes biblical tales are directly in conflict with science evidence.

Let’s step back for a minute and look at two different scenarios.

A god created existence in only 6 days, but did so in such a way to make it look immensely old and left massive clues to support that belief... and this god put forth a test to only two humans without(at least in terms of the Judeo-Christian god) giving them either the ability to make a considered choice nor did he bother to tell them the consequences would extend to every person born after them... and this god then inspired a book but did not allow the original to last in case the condemned to damnation by definition humans worship those texts... and allowed copies of copies to multiply so that huge civilizations would clash with one another over interpretations... and this god then comes down to earth as a human to act as a mediator to experience human weakness and pain and sin that he created in the first place anyway, and he's letting billions upon billions of people suffer thusly and choose eternal damnation on an ongoing basis in order to satisfy this need to experience the aforementioned... and finally in a climactic battle wherein agony and suffering will spread over the globe this god will battle his nemesis that he himself created and could blink to make disappear if he really wanted to...

OR


Existence is natural, patterns form out of the exchange of energy, life evolved in some places, competition for that life implemented social structures, sentience ignited that social structure to a more and more complicated degree... and allowed for technology to extend the perceptions of humans to further and further reaches, chipping away at old, perhaps poetic and elegant but nonetheless outdated beliefs created by a ruling class that knew the power of ignorance and fear in people made them vastly more controllable?

Just a side note - we see stars forming today by the way, in the Pleiades-- various stages of stars being formed are quite visible. Knowing the speed of light one can measure distances, showing billions of years is required to establish the size and distances we see.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Regardless of my typo, however, everything I said about the center of the universe and time is accurate

No, it isn't. There is no center of the universe, nor have you read any science saying there is. If you HAD read any of the science on the topic, you would know that any point in the universe appears to be the center of the universe to an observer at that point. If the 3 dimensional space that is our universe were scaled down to two dimensions, the "center", or, the origination point of expansion (as you are conflatingthese ideas , but not correctly so) would be the center of a sphere , with a circular section of the the two dimensional surface (centered on the observer) representing all timespace we can ever observe. No, we cannot observe or point to this "center" of the sphere. It is a reference point that actually does not exist within the spacetime of our universe.

Think of it as floating on a sea, with a circular horizon around you. You appear to be at the "center" of your observable space. Go 100 miles in any direction and look again. You will still appear to be at the center of all you can observe.

 

[Hollie]

First you said you never quoted me. How about we stick with that?

Post #452 "and I have never quoted you so you sir are a LIAR,,,"

but you said I misquoted you,,,

After you said you never quoted me. I like starting at the beginning instead of just bouncing around, picking & choosing.

which is all a deflection from the main topic because your a liar,,,

Wait, you said you never quoted me, I call you on that, and now you claim I am deflecting from the main topic? lol Okey dokey then.

I am not running from the main topic at all.

what I want to see is your evidence that man and dino didnt coexist and see how that weighs up against the evidence they did coexist

when you do that and stop making it personal we can have an adult conversation,,,

ID’iot creationists are at a loss to offer any evidence that man and dinosaurs co-existed.

BTW, Ken Ham’s silly amusement park is not evidence for ID’iot creationists in spite of what you folks claim.

 

[james bond]

The universe is expanding.
Using the rate of expansion, the origin point of the universe can be estimated mathematically.
Time flows at different rates in different locations.
The age of Earth is different at the universe's origin point than it is on the planet.
Using chi for the ratio, the age of Earth at the origin point of the universe would be approximately an age that conforms with calculations based on the Old Testament.

At least, we've found Fort Fun Indiana runs away from math. He was explaining the great "shadow" photo of "Sgr A" that scientists captured from networking their telescopes to make a telescope as large as the Earth. One of the things he got wrong was which black hole they were looking at. It wasn't our black hole, but the black hole, Messier 87 (M87), that is in another galaxy due to its much larger size. Also, the image we saw was not a shadow, but a silhouette. After I found out what he told me was in error, he would not hear of it. He sounds like he knows something about space, but can be mistaken.

So my question is is the rate of expansion constant? How do you measure the different rates of time in different locations (I assume you use different clocks placed at the location)? How do we find the universe's origin point? I don't think the creation side has a theory to calculate the age of the Earth. We just have evidence for a young Earth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How did clams get to the top of a mountain in NC, hmm?

Have you asked a 10th grader? A 10th grader will know the answer. Good luck.

 

[james bond]

Chi is an irrational number that defines a spiral, the way pi is an irrational number that defines a circle.

Chi isn't what leads to the origin point of the universe. That's based on calculations derived from the rate at which the universe is expanding. Using chi against the varying flow of time leads to Earth being 4.75 billion years old here at 6000 years old at the location of the Big Bang.

What defines a spiral? We use pi r squared to define circumference? You lost me at Earth being 4.75 B yrs old while our clock says it is 6000 yrs old at the location of BB.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Chi is an irrational number that defines a spiral, the way pi is an irrational number that defines a circle.

Chi isn't what leads to the origin point of the universe. That's based on calculations derived from the rate at which the universe is expanding. Using chi against the varying flow of time leads to Earth being 4.75 billion years old here at 6000 years old at the location of the Big Bang.

What defines a spiral? We use pi r squared to define circumference? You lost me at Earth being 4.75 B yrs old while our clock says it is 6000 yrs old at the location of BB.

100% wrong. It is 4.54 billion years old. We have it nailed, at this point. You really cannot go a single post without lying, can you?

 

[james bond]

And the physical evidence is that there was a mass extinction around 65 million years ago.
Here are some links from reputable scientific sources:
K–T extinction | Overview & Facts

K-T Event

The KT extinction

You are basing it on secular/atheist authorities which you can't explain in your own words.

I already pointed out that these scientists systematically eliminated their opposition during the 1850s in order to promote their evolution science. Atheists and their scientists are usualy wrong. The creation side already provided the physical evidence of the mass extinction caused by Noah's Flood such as bent rocks, sea fossils on top of Mt. Everest, dinosaur graveyards, and the fossil evidence. The fossils happened just thousands of years ago.

 

[WinterBorn]

It is very telling that you take the word of someone known to have committed fraud, but dismiss scientific research.

so because you disagree they are a fraud,,,

and its the evidence I accept not their word,,,

No, not at all. He is a fraud because of numerous frauds he has perpetrated.

You accept that the evidence is not manufactured. I do not.

I accept the published conclusions of scientific experts who studied the K-T Mass Extinction though.

 

[Hollie]

And the physical evidence is that there was a mass extinction around 65 million years ago.
Here are some links from reputable scientific sources:
K–T extinction | Overview & Facts

K-T Event

The KT extinction

You are basing it on secular/atheist authorities which you can't explain in your own words.

I already pointed out that these scientists systematically eliminated their opposition during the 1850s in order to promote their evolution science. Atheists and their scientists are usualy wrong. The creation side already provided the physical evidence of the mass extinction caused by Noah's Flood such as bent rocks, sea fossils on top of Mt. Everest, dinosaur graveyards, and the fossil evidence. The fossils happened just thousands of years ago.

Actually, your incessant whining about the 1850’s has everything to do with the tools of science becoming more precise which left less and less room for fear and superstition.

It’s really funny that you in particular would make a comment about someone explaining “in their own words” when you plagiarize so ruthlessly and attempt to fraudulently pass off cutting and pasting from creation.com as your own.

I can’t help but to have noticed that the religious extremists in these threads are the most dishonest people I have ever come across.

 

[james bond]

Because this line of discussion started when James Bond posted "Would you live next to a TRex? I'm sure if you did, then we'd find your fossil." as a reason why no terrestrial fossils are found on Mt Everest.

And if you do not accept publications (especially reputable scientific publications) then you obviously do not want to see any evidence. Scientists do research and publish it for peer review. Do you expect me to post pictures of the K-T Mass Extinction? The publications I posted explained what scientists found and how they came to the conclusions they did.

One of the largest pieces of evidence is the story of St. George and the dragon. There may be versions told around the world. It would be equivalent today of viral news off the internet. It would be news of a man named St. George slaying a large dinosaur. So, people mostly left them alone in their own neighborhoods. They protected themselves by having shelter where they could not get to.

Look at news from today that contradicts evolution. Many people do not want to believe the news because it goes against their worldview -- Shock as mysterious dinosaur-like BEAST washes up on beach in Kent.

 

[james bond]

Your claim that all published scientific research is opinion is laughable.

Documenting the careful research of scientists, and their conclusions is not opinion.

Besides, it is your opinion that the tracks are genuine and not faked.

It's biased research made to fit evolutionary fake science. The evidence is circumstantial or historical evidence. There isn't one piece of evidence based on the scientific method. Otherwise, you would be strutting like a peacock showing us how birds came from dinosaurs and that you aren't talking dino chicken nuggets.

 

[Hollie]

The universe is expanding.
Using the rate of expansion, the origin point of the universe can be estimated mathematically.
Time flows at different rates in different locations.
The age of Earth is different at the universe's origin point than it is on the planet.
Using chi for the ratio, the age of Earth at the origin point of the universe would be approximately an age that conforms with calculations based on the Old Testament.

At least, we've found Fort Fun Indiana runs away from math. He was explaining the great "shadow" photo of "Sgr A" that scientists captured from networking their telescopes to make a telescope as large as the Earth. One of the things he got wrong was which black hole they were looking at. It wasn't our black hole, but the black hole, Messier 87 (M87), that is in another galaxy due to its much larger size. Also, the image we saw was not a shadow, but a silhouette. After I found out what he told me was in error, he would not hear of it. He sounds like he knows something about space, but can be mistaken.

So my question is is the rate of expansion constant? How do you measure the different rates of time in different locations (I assume you use different clocks placed at the location)? How do we find the universe's origin point? I don't think the creation side has a theory to calculate the age of the Earth. We just have evidence for a young Earth.

How odd that it was not ID’iot “creation scientists” at creation.com doing the research. Well, let’s be honest and acknowledge that the crank fundamentalist ministries do no research.

BTW, will you eventually offer the “evidence” for a 6,000 year old earth? It’s tiring to read these empty claims and never an offering of evidence,