Science Proves the Bible Again

[progressive hunter]

you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one

I CALL BULLSHIT

HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO

Prove this is a human foot print:





prove this isnt

You cut and pasted that from “Genesis Park”.

You were too embarrassed to admit your source, right?

its times like this you show how much of a dumb **** you are,,,,if you already knew the source then why ask

Such an angry xtian. When your source is a fraud, you attack the messenger who points out your fraud.

Remember the golden rules?

Thousest shall not’est cut and paste’eth from fundie cranks’ests.

were you at the beach when you came up with that??

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. It shows that the thickness of ice layers varies depending on the amount of snow the place where they are measured receives.

Your "Glacier Girl P38" example does not prove ice layers are invalid as a means of dating.

Now explain how the the earth is only 6000 years old when we have physical evidence in some places of 700,000 annual layers of ice

I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
how do you explain both human and dino footprints to be in rock dating 500 million yrs old

How old do you imagine the Earth is?

First: there were no dinosaurs 500 millions years ago. There weren't even land animals at that time.

Second: They aren't human foot prints.

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.

The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).

A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.

This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio. Thanks, and enjoy your visit!​

you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one

I CALL BULLSHIT

HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO

Prove this is a human foot print:

prove this isnt

The Zapata Track

 

[Hollie]

Prove this is a human foot print:





prove this isnt

You cut and pasted that from “Genesis Park”.

You were too embarrassed to admit your source, right?

its times like this you show how much of a dumb **** you are,,,,if you already knew the source then why ask

Such an angry xtian. When your source is a fraud, you attack the messenger who points out your fraud.

Remember the golden rules?

Thousest shall not’est cut and paste’eth from fundie cranks’ests.

were you at the beach when you came up with that??

That’s some of your best commentary so far.

 

[progressive hunter]

I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
how do you explain both human and dino footprints to be in rock dating 500 million yrs old

How old do you imagine the Earth is?

First: there were no dinosaurs 500 millions years ago. There weren't even land animals at that time.

Second: They aren't human foot prints.

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.

The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).

A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.

This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio. Thanks, and enjoy your visit!​

you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one

I CALL BULLSHIT

HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO

Prove this is a human foot print:

prove this isnt

The Zapata Track

I know you wont watch it

 

[Hollie]

How old do you imagine the Earth is?

First: there were no dinosaurs 500 millions years ago. There weren't even land animals at that time.

Second: They aren't human foot prints.

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.

The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).

A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.

This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio. Thanks, and enjoy your visit!​

you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one

I CALL BULLSHIT

HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO

Prove this is a human foot print:

prove this isnt

The Zapata Track

I know you wont watch it

Cartoons for the Flat Earth groupies.

 

[bripat9643]

How old do you imagine the Earth is?

First: there were no dinosaurs 500 millions years ago. There weren't even land animals at that time.

Second: They aren't human foot prints.

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.

The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).

A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.

This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio. Thanks, and enjoy your visit!​

you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one

I CALL BULLSHIT

HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO

Prove this is a human foot print:

prove this isnt

The Zapata Track

I know you wont watch it

Obvious fraud. Why would anyone remove human 100 million year old fossil footprints from the bedrock?

 

[progressive hunter]

you guys always have some made up bullshit to explain everything that proves you wrong bogus,,,I know a foot print when I see one

I CALL BULLSHIT

HOW ABOUT YOU KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS TOO

Prove this is a human foot print:

prove this isnt

The Zapata Track

I know you wont watch it

Obvious fraud. Why would anyone remove human 100 million year old fossil footprints from the bedrock?

TO PRESERVE THEM AND STUDY THEM


its obvious you didnt watch the video

 

[bripat9643]

Prove this is a human foot print:

prove this isnt

The Zapata Track

I know you wont watch it

Obvious fraud. Why would anyone remove human 100 million year old fossil footprints from the bedrock?

TO PRESERVE THEM AND STUDY THEM


its obvious you didnt watch the video

Wrong. It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock. Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.

 

[progressive hunter]

prove this isnt

The Zapata Track

I know you wont watch it

Obvious fraud. Why would anyone remove human 100 million year old fossil footprints from the bedrock?

TO PRESERVE THEM AND STUDY THEM


its obvious you didnt watch the video

Wrong. It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock. Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.

not if its documented


and that logic disproves 100% of evolution

 

[bripat9643]

The Zapata Track

I know you wont watch it

Obvious fraud. Why would anyone remove human 100 million year old fossil footprints from the bedrock?

TO PRESERVE THEM AND STUDY THEM


its obvious you didnt watch the video

Wrong. It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock. Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.

not if its documented


and that logic disproves 100% of evolution

How was it "documented?" Are there photos of the fossils in place while they are still attached to the bed rock?

 

[progressive hunter]

I know you wont watch it

Obvious fraud. Why would anyone remove human 100 million year old fossil footprints from the bedrock?

TO PRESERVE THEM AND STUDY THEM


its obvious you didnt watch the video

Wrong. It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock. Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.

not if its documented


and that logic disproves 100% of evolution

How was it "documented?" Are there photos of the fossils in place while they are still attached to the bed rock?

I think if you went to his museum you could see them,,and did you know the Smithsonian has a block of them that have dino skeletons on them for exhibit???

 

[bripat9643]

Obvious fraud. Why would anyone remove human 100 million year old fossil footprints from the bedrock?

TO PRESERVE THEM AND STUDY THEM


its obvious you didnt watch the video

Wrong. It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock. Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.

not if its documented


and that logic disproves 100% of evolution

How was it "documented?" Are there photos of the fossils in place while they are still attached to the bed rock?

I think if you went to his museum you could see them,,and did you know the Smithsonian has a block of them that have dino skeletons on them for exhibit???

See the photos? Why aren't they published on the internet?

The Smithsonian has a block of what?

Some fossils, like the one of Archaeopteryx, aren't discovered until a piece of rock is quarried and then split open. However, it's provenance is fully documented. No one has contested it. Numerous other fossils of the same species have been discovered.

 

[progressive hunter]

TO PRESERVE THEM AND STUDY THEM


its obvious you didnt watch the video

Wrong. It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock. Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.

not if its documented


and that logic disproves 100% of evolution

How was it "documented?" Are there photos of the fossils in place while they are still attached to the bed rock?

I think if you went to his museum you could see them,,and did you know the Smithsonian has a block of them that have dino skeletons on them for exhibit???

See the photos? Why aren't they published on the internet?

The Smithsonian has a block of what?

Some fossils, like the one of Archaeopteryx, aren't discovered until a piece of rock is quarried and then split open. However, it's provenance is fully documented. No one has contested it. Numerous other fossils of the same species have been discovered.

a block of dino prints,,it might be the nature museum

and they are published and I posted a video of them you refuse to watch

 

[captkaos]

For some reason I got this here water well pump that pumps water from under the ground so I proved the flood from Genesis first.

Finally we agree on something there is hope for you yet MOON DUDE. AOC is even more intelligent than these dupes. That was hard to say! Now I have to go take a shower I feel dirty! I use eco friendly products called soap and water, but not water from the "Fountains of the Deep." Just a regular faucet !

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. It's because you can't fake them if they are still attached to the bedrock. Once a block is removed from the strata, you have destroyed whatever provenance it had.

not if its documented


and that logic disproves 100% of evolution

How was it "documented?" Are there photos of the fossils in place while they are still attached to the bed rock?

I think if you went to his museum you could see them,,and did you know the Smithsonian has a block of them that have dino skeletons on them for exhibit???

See the photos? Why aren't they published on the internet?

The Smithsonian has a block of what?

Some fossils, like the one of Archaeopteryx, aren't discovered until a piece of rock is quarried and then split open. However, it's provenance is fully documented. No one has contested it. Numerous other fossils of the same species have been discovered.

a block of dino prints,,it might be the nature museum

and they are published and I posted a video of them you refuse to watch

I did watch it. I saw no pics of these prints in situ. The prints that had human looking toes were all in detached blocks. The ones that were in situ did not look the slightest bit human.

 

[Moonglow]

For some reason I got this here water well pump that pumps water from under the ground so I proved the flood from Genesis first.

Finally we agree on something there is hope for you yet MOON DUDE. AOC is even more intelligent than these dupes. That was hard to say! Now I have to go take a shower I feel dirty! I use eco friendly products called soap and water, but not water from the "Fountains of the Deep." Just a regular faucet !

You use that city water which is used turd flushing liquid?

 

[progressive hunter]

not if its documented


and that logic disproves 100% of evolution

How was it "documented?" Are there photos of the fossils in place while they are still attached to the bed rock?

I think if you went to his museum you could see them,,and did you know the Smithsonian has a block of them that have dino skeletons on them for exhibit???

See the photos? Why aren't they published on the internet?

The Smithsonian has a block of what?

Some fossils, like the one of Archaeopteryx, aren't discovered until a piece of rock is quarried and then split open. However, it's provenance is fully documented. No one has contested it. Numerous other fossils of the same species have been discovered.

a block of dino prints,,it might be the nature museum

and they are published and I posted a video of them you refuse to watch

I did watch it. I saw no pics of these prints in situ. The prints that had human looking toes were all in detached blocks. The ones that were in situ did not look the slightest bit human.

then you didnt watch it,,,,because the video was about the paluxy prints and there were several of the prints still in the ground, and he talks at length about the provenance


dont bullshit a bullshitter

 

[captkaos]

For some reason I got this here water well pump that pumps water from under the ground so I proved the flood from Genesis first.

Finally we agree on something there is hope for you yet MOON DUDE. AOC is even more intelligent than these dupes. That was hard to say! Now I have to go take a shower I feel dirty! I use eco friendly products called soap and water, but not water from the "Fountains of the Deep." Just a regular faucet !

You use that city water which is used turd flushing liquid?

No I have a well! And a really sweet filtration system! Can't trust "the man" with something as important as my water supply. How bout you! Still buying Perrier MOON CRATER?

 

[bripat9643]

How was it "documented?" Are there photos of the fossils in place while they are still attached to the bed rock?

I think if you went to his museum you could see them,,and did you know the Smithsonian has a block of them that have dino skeletons on them for exhibit???

See the photos? Why aren't they published on the internet?

The Smithsonian has a block of what?

Some fossils, like the one of Archaeopteryx, aren't discovered until a piece of rock is quarried and then split open. However, it's provenance is fully documented. No one has contested it. Numerous other fossils of the same species have been discovered.

a block of dino prints,,it might be the nature museum

and they are published and I posted a video of them you refuse to watch

I did watch it. I saw no pics of these prints in situ. The prints that had human looking toes were all in detached blocks. The ones that were in situ did not look the slightest bit human.

then you didnt watch it,,,,because the video was about the paluxy prints and there were several of the prints still in the ground, and he talks at length about the provenance


dont bullshit a bullshitter

The ones that were still in the ground didn't look human to me. They were highly eroded.

 

[progressive hunter]

I think if you went to his museum you could see them,,and did you know the Smithsonian has a block of them that have dino skeletons on them for exhibit???

See the photos? Why aren't they published on the internet?

The Smithsonian has a block of what?

Some fossils, like the one of Archaeopteryx, aren't discovered until a piece of rock is quarried and then split open. However, it's provenance is fully documented. No one has contested it. Numerous other fossils of the same species have been discovered.

a block of dino prints,,it might be the nature museum

and they are published and I posted a video of them you refuse to watch

I did watch it. I saw no pics of these prints in situ. The prints that had human looking toes were all in detached blocks. The ones that were in situ did not look the slightest bit human.

then you didnt watch it,,,,because the video was about the paluxy prints and there were several of the prints still in the ground, and he talks at length about the provenance


dont bullshit a bullshitter

The ones that were still in the ground didn't look human to me. They were highly eroded.

ok