Is There Scientific Evidence Supporting the Floor of Noah?

[alang1216]

I guarantee, no one who understans anything about human evolution would ever believe that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.

Wrong haha. "The famous Laetoli footprints attributed to Australopithecus afarensis are bipedal, but they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans."

The emergence of humans

Do you know of any bipedal chimps? Dogs can walk on two legs, are they bipedal?

Chimps and apes are not bipedal. We also know that their skull capacities didn't increase from those of old fossils. If the present is the key to the past, then the chimps/apes in the past did not become bipedal either. Thus, it contradicts the Laetoli footprints being chimps or apes. They were most likely human like I said.

I think we can agree that the footprints are not from chimps, they were most likely humanoid. As you wrote, "they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans" so we also agree the beings that left them were not quite the humans of today.

you mean like these??

View attachment 264820

How common are these feet? We have one set of footprints from this time and they were made by someone with this syndrome? Not impossible but highly unlikely.

 

[progressive hunter]

Wrong haha. "The famous Laetoli footprints attributed to Australopithecus afarensis are bipedal, but they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans."

The emergence of humans

Do you know of any bipedal chimps? Dogs can walk on two legs, are they bipedal?

Chimps and apes are not bipedal. We also know that their skull capacities didn't increase from those of old fossils. If the present is the key to the past, then the chimps/apes in the past did not become bipedal either. Thus, it contradicts the Laetoli footprints being chimps or apes. They were most likely human like I said.

I think we can agree that the footprints are not from chimps, they were most likely humanoid. As you wrote, "they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans" so we also agree the beings that left them were not quite the humans of today.

you mean like these??

View attachment 264820

How common are these feet? We have one set of footprints from this time and they were made by someone with this syndrome? Not impossible but highly unlikely.

very common for some,,,and very likely for a people that never wore shoes,,,

 

[alang1216]

very common for some,,,and very likely for a people that never wore shoes,,,

No idea what you mean by "very common for some", seems like an oxymoron.

Never heard the shoe thing before, got a link?

 

[progressive hunter]

very common for some,,,and very likely for a people that never wore shoes,,,

No idea what you mean by "very common for some", seems like an oxymoron.

Never heard the shoe thing before, got a link?

Redirect Notice

 

[alang1216]

Redirect Notice

Alas, my system doesn't like your link so it killed it.

 

[progressive hunter]

Redirect Notice

Alas, my system doesn't like your link so it killed it.

Health and the Huaorani | The Yale Review of International Studies

 

[james bond]

I guarantee, no one who understans anything about human evolution would ever believe that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.

Wrong haha. "The famous Laetoli footprints attributed to Australopithecus afarensis are bipedal, but they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans."

The emergence of humans

Do you know of any bipedal chimps? Dogs can walk on two legs, are they bipedal?

Chimps and apes are not bipedal. We also know that their skull capacities didn't increase from those of old fossils. If the present is the key to the past, then the chimps/apes in the past did not become bipedal either. Thus, it contradicts the Laetoli footprints being chimps or apes. They were most likely human like I said.

I think we can agree that the footprints are not from chimps, they were most likely humanoid. As you wrote, "they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans" so we also agree the beings that left them were not quite the humans of today.

Being splayed would also fit of living humans. There is evidence of chimps and apes tracks and non-splayed humans. I don't see any evidence of humanoids (bizarre).

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I guarantee, no one who understans anything about human evolution would ever believe that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.

Wrong haha. "The famous Laetoli footprints attributed to Australopithecus afarensis are bipedal, but they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans."

The emergence of humans

Do you know of any bipedal chimps? Dogs can walk on two legs, are they bipedal?

Chimps and apes are not bipedal. We also know that their skull capacities didn't increase from those of old fossils. If the present is the key to the past, then the chimps/apes in the past did not become bipedal either. Thus, it contradicts the Laetoli footprints being chimps or apes. They were most likely human like I said.

I think we can agree that the footprints are not from chimps, they were most likely humanoid. As you wrote, "they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans" so we also agree the beings that left them were not quite the humans of today.

Being splayed would also fit of living humans. There is evidence of chimps and apes tracks and non-splayed humans. I don't see any evidence of humanoids.

Because you have your head up your ass. All you see is jesus and corn.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are pulling pics off the internet that have no bearing to the topic. And you are trying to pass them off as Paluxy Tracks, which is dishonest.

Let me know when you want to get back to what we were discussing.

at least I tried to provide something other than my opinion,,,

I have provided much more than my opinion. I have provided scientific research and evidence.

When you Googled "paluxy tracks" one of the pics you got was the one you posted.
But if you had clicked on it you would have see this attached to it:"The Zapata Track [Draft] - Reviews an alleged human print on a loose rock from New Mexico" and you would have known it was not from the Paluxy river.

You are so desperate to prove something you will post anything you can find, whether it applies or not.

I've got to work in the morning. Its getting close to midnight here. Take the night and see if you can post something relevant.

But this is the problem with your "publications are opinions/pictures are evidence" mindset. You have to know what the pictures are of, and what they mean.

I have been trying to find a picture of the print you claim with an appendage sticking out the side,,,maybe you can help???

Here are the sites explaining it.

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)

The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy



There are 4 sites with plenty of info.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are pulling pics off the internet that have no bearing to the topic. And you are trying to pass them off as Paluxy Tracks, which is dishonest.

Let me know when you want to get back to what we were discussing.

at least I tried to provide something other than my opinion,,,

I have provided much more than my opinion. I have provided scientific research and evidence.

When you Googled "paluxy tracks" one of the pics you got was the one you posted.
But if you had clicked on it you would have see this attached to it:"The Zapata Track [Draft] - Reviews an alleged human print on a loose rock from New Mexico" and you would have known it was not from the Paluxy river.

You are so desperate to prove something you will post anything you can find, whether it applies or not.

I've got to work in the morning. Its getting close to midnight here. Take the night and see if you can post something relevant.

But this is the problem with your "publications are opinions/pictures are evidence" mindset. You have to know what the pictures are of, and what they mean.

I have been trying to find a picture of the print you claim with an appendage sticking out the side,,,maybe you can help???

I posted 4 links.

 

[progressive hunter]

You are pulling pics off the internet that have no bearing to the topic. And you are trying to pass them off as Paluxy Tracks, which is dishonest.

Let me know when you want to get back to what we were discussing.

at least I tried to provide something other than my opinion,,,

I have provided much more than my opinion. I have provided scientific research and evidence.

When you Googled "paluxy tracks" one of the pics you got was the one you posted.
But if you had clicked on it you would have see this attached to it:"The Zapata Track [Draft] - Reviews an alleged human print on a loose rock from New Mexico" and you would have known it was not from the Paluxy river.

You are so desperate to prove something you will post anything you can find, whether it applies or not.

I've got to work in the morning. Its getting close to midnight here. Take the night and see if you can post something relevant.

But this is the problem with your "publications are opinions/pictures are evidence" mindset. You have to know what the pictures are of, and what they mean.

I have been trying to find a picture of the print you claim with an appendage sticking out the side,,,maybe you can help???

Here are the sites explaining it.

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)

The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy



There are 4 sites with plenty of info.

3 of them are repeat articles written by a computer programmer with no creds for archaeology and amount to nothing but a hit job and no facts,,, and the 4th wont let me read it,,,,

sorry I will go with a true archaeologist on this one,,,

 

[WinterBorn]

You are pulling pics off the internet that have no bearing to the topic. And you are trying to pass them off as Paluxy Tracks, which is dishonest.

Let me know when you want to get back to what we were discussing.

at least I tried to provide something other than my opinion,,,

I have provided much more than my opinion. I have provided scientific research and evidence.

When you Googled "paluxy tracks" one of the pics you got was the one you posted.
But if you had clicked on it you would have see this attached to it:"The Zapata Track [Draft] - Reviews an alleged human print on a loose rock from New Mexico" and you would have known it was not from the Paluxy river.

You are so desperate to prove something you will post anything you can find, whether it applies or not.

I've got to work in the morning. Its getting close to midnight here. Take the night and see if you can post something relevant.

But this is the problem with your "publications are opinions/pictures are evidence" mindset. You have to know what the pictures are of, and what they mean.

I have been trying to find a picture of the print you claim with an appendage sticking out the side,,,maybe you can help???

Here are the sites explaining it.

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)

The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy



There are 4 sites with plenty of info.

3 of them are repeat articles written by a computer programmer with no creds for archaeology and amount to nothing but a hit job and no facts,,, and the 4th wont let me read it,,,,

sorry I will go with a true archaeologist on this one,,,

What "true achaeologist" is that?

 

[progressive hunter]

at least I tried to provide something other than my opinion,,,

I have provided much more than my opinion. I have provided scientific research and evidence.

When you Googled "paluxy tracks" one of the pics you got was the one you posted.
But if you had clicked on it you would have see this attached to it:"The Zapata Track [Draft] - Reviews an alleged human print on a loose rock from New Mexico" and you would have known it was not from the Paluxy river.

You are so desperate to prove something you will post anything you can find, whether it applies or not.

I've got to work in the morning. Its getting close to midnight here. Take the night and see if you can post something relevant.

But this is the problem with your "publications are opinions/pictures are evidence" mindset. You have to know what the pictures are of, and what they mean.

I have been trying to find a picture of the print you claim with an appendage sticking out the side,,,maybe you can help???

Here are the sites explaining it.

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)

The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy



There are 4 sites with plenty of info.

3 of them are repeat articles written by a computer programmer with no creds for archaeology and amount to nothing but a hit job and no facts,,, and the 4th wont let me read it,,,,

sorry I will go with a true archaeologist on this one,,,

What "true achaeologist" is that?

any that actually worked in the field

 

[WinterBorn]

I have provided much more than my opinion. I have provided scientific research and evidence.

When you Googled "paluxy tracks" one of the pics you got was the one you posted.
But if you had clicked on it you would have see this attached to it:"The Zapata Track [Draft] - Reviews an alleged human print on a loose rock from New Mexico" and you would have known it was not from the Paluxy river.

You are so desperate to prove something you will post anything you can find, whether it applies or not.

I've got to work in the morning. Its getting close to midnight here. Take the night and see if you can post something relevant.

But this is the problem with your "publications are opinions/pictures are evidence" mindset. You have to know what the pictures are of, and what they mean.

I have been trying to find a picture of the print you claim with an appendage sticking out the side,,,maybe you can help???

Here are the sites explaining it.

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)

The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy



There are 4 sites with plenty of info.

3 of them are repeat articles written by a computer programmer with no creds for archaeology and amount to nothing but a hit job and no facts,,, and the 4th wont let me read it,,,,

sorry I will go with a true archaeologist on this one,,,

What "true achaeologist" is that?

any that actually worked in the field

Funny, I have posted links to the research of numerous true archeologists and true paleontologists. But you dismissed them all as "opinion". I think you only accept research which proves what you already believe.

 

[progressive hunter]

I have been trying to find a picture of the print you claim with an appendage sticking out the side,,,maybe you can help???

Here are the sites explaining it.

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)

The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy



There are 4 sites with plenty of info.

3 of them are repeat articles written by a computer programmer with no creds for archaeology and amount to nothing but a hit job and no facts,,, and the 4th wont let me read it,,,,

sorry I will go with a true archaeologist on this one,,,

What "true achaeologist" is that?

any that actually worked in the field

Funny, I have posted links to the research of numerous true archeologists and true paleontologists. But you dismissed them all as "opinion". I think you only accept research which proves what you already believe.

when did I say I believe in something???

i'm still searching for the truth,,

your sources are going off of false or flawed assumptions is why I reject them,,,



and what happened to the evo talking point of if they arent educated in the field they arent credible???

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I have provided much more than my opinion. I have provided scientific research and evidence.

When you Googled "paluxy tracks" one of the pics you got was the one you posted.
But if you had clicked on it you would have see this attached to it:"The Zapata Track [Draft] - Reviews an alleged human print on a loose rock from New Mexico" and you would have known it was not from the Paluxy river.

You are so desperate to prove something you will post anything you can find, whether it applies or not.

I've got to work in the morning. Its getting close to midnight here. Take the night and see if you can post something relevant.

But this is the problem with your "publications are opinions/pictures are evidence" mindset. You have to know what the pictures are of, and what they mean.

I have been trying to find a picture of the print you claim with an appendage sticking out the side,,,maybe you can help???

Here are the sites explaining it.

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)

The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy



There are 4 sites with plenty of info.

3 of them are repeat articles written by a computer programmer with no creds for archaeology and amount to nothing but a hit job and no facts,,, and the 4th wont let me read it,,,,

sorry I will go with a true archaeologist on this one,,,

What "true achaeologist" is that?

any that actually worked in the field

See? Blatant, embarrassing little liar.

Why is anyone responding to this dishonest little ****? He's just yanking your chains for attention.

 

[WinterBorn]

Here are the sites explaining it.

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)

The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy



There are 4 sites with plenty of info.

3 of them are repeat articles written by a computer programmer with no creds for archaeology and amount to nothing but a hit job and no facts,,, and the 4th wont let me read it,,,,

sorry I will go with a true archaeologist on this one,,,

What "true achaeologist" is that?

any that actually worked in the field

Funny, I have posted links to the research of numerous true archeologists and true paleontologists. But you dismissed them all as "opinion". I think you only accept research which proves what you already believe.

when did I say I believe in something???

i'm still searching for the truth,,

your sources are going off of false or flawed assumptions is why I reject them,,,



and what happened to the evo talking point of if they arent educated in the field they arent credible???

Have I ever said that?

But, for pure research, the degree matters. For examining tracks I think am amateur, with a history of field work, is good.

Up to you. But neither the scientific community nor most creationists believe that the Paluxy tracks are human.

 

[progressive hunter]

3 of them are repeat articles written by a computer programmer with no creds for archaeology and amount to nothing but a hit job and no facts,,, and the 4th wont let me read it,,,,

sorry I will go with a true archaeologist on this one,,,

What "true achaeologist" is that?

any that actually worked in the field

Funny, I have posted links to the research of numerous true archeologists and true paleontologists. But you dismissed them all as "opinion". I think you only accept research which proves what you already believe.

when did I say I believe in something???

i'm still searching for the truth,,

your sources are going off of false or flawed assumptions is why I reject them,,,



and what happened to the evo talking point of if they arent educated in the field they arent credible???

Have I ever said that?

But, for pure research, the degree matters. For examining tracks I think am amateur, with a history of field work, is good.

Up to you. But neither the scientific community nor most creationists believe that the Paluxy tracks are human.

I never said you did,,,

and there are more tracks than just the [paluxy as I have said several times,,,

my point is there is more physical evidence that humans and dinos either coexisted or were far closer than the 135?? million yrs,,

so at this point considering that and a whole host of other things I am leaning toward a younger earth where we didnt come from a rock,,actually as to the age of the earth itself, that is unknown and I guess never will be for sure,,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

I have been trying to find a picture of the print you claim with an appendage sticking out the side,,,maybe you can help???

Here are the sites explaining it.

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)

The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy



There are 4 sites with plenty of info.

3 of them are repeat articles written by a computer programmer with no creds for archaeology and amount to nothing but a hit job and no facts,,, and the 4th wont let me read it,,,,

sorry I will go with a true archaeologist on this one,,,

What "true achaeologist" is that?

any that actually worked in the field

See? Blatant, embarrassing little liar.

Why is anyone responding to this dishonest little ****? He's just yanking your chains for attention.

thanks for the attention,,,

 

[Hollie]

What "true achaeologist" is that?

any that actually worked in the field

Funny, I have posted links to the research of numerous true archeologists and true paleontologists. But you dismissed them all as "opinion". I think you only accept research which proves what you already believe.

when did I say I believe in something???

i'm still searching for the truth,,

your sources are going off of false or flawed assumptions is why I reject them,,,



and what happened to the evo talking point of if they arent educated in the field they arent credible???

Have I ever said that?

But, for pure research, the degree matters. For examining tracks I think am amateur, with a history of field work, is good.

Up to you. But neither the scientific community nor most creationists believe that the Paluxy tracks are human.

I never said you did,,,

and there are more tracks than just the [paluxy as I have said several times,,,

my point is there is more physical evidence that humans and dinos either coexisted or were far closer than the 135?? million yrs,,

so at this point considering that and a whole host of other things I am leaning toward a younger earth where we didnt come from a rock,,actually as to the age of the earth itself, that is unknown and I guess never will be for sure,,,,

It’s comical that you rattle on about evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted yet you fail to produce any of that evidence.