How Did the Ancients Know About Dinosaurs?

[Asclepias]

If you say so. You keep believing those are human footprints.

not only does the writer not have a degree but has never studied or done research in the field,,,

so under your criteria why do you use him as a source???


the source I used has over 30 yrs in the field

Your source has been soundly debunked by the scientific community. Nothing he says is legit.

no it hasnt,,,all they do is personal attacks and no science proof,,,

Your source has no scientific proof.

youre either an ignorant fool or a bold faced liar,,,


maybe you should check his research and testing he did on it before you shoot off your mouth,,,

I have. It was not scientific. Science is objective. He set out to prove the prints were human. Thats not scientific.

 

[progressive hunter]

not only does the writer not have a degree but has never studied or done research in the field,,,

so under your criteria why do you use him as a source???


the source I used has over 30 yrs in the field

Your source has been soundly debunked by the scientific community. Nothing he says is legit.

no it hasnt,,,all they do is personal attacks and no science proof,,,

Your source has no scientific proof.

youre either an ignorant fool or a bold faced liar,,,


maybe you should check his research and testing he did on it before you shoot off your mouth,,,

I have. It was not scientific. Science is objective. He set out to prove the prints were human. Thats not scientific.

so RC dating is not scientific???
and the testing done on compression was not scientific???

its obvious you are lying,,,

 

[Hollie]

It was not true. Read this.

FOSSILS OF 'MAN TRACKS' SHOWN TO BE DINOSAURIAN

your article gives no scientific proof they are not human,,,

it amounts to nothing but a hit piece,,,

If you say so. You keep believing those are human footprints.

not only does the writer not have a degree but has never studied or done research in the field,,,

so under your criteria why do you use him as a source???


the source I used has over 30 yrs in the field

Your source has been soundly debunked by the scientific community. Nothing he says is legit.

no it hasnt,,,all they do is personal attacks and no science proof,,,

,,,There’s an entire section of the forum dedicated to you folks and your lurid conspiracy theories,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

your article gives no scientific proof they are not human,,,

it amounts to nothing but a hit piece,,,

If you say so. You keep believing those are human footprints.

not only does the writer not have a degree but has never studied or done research in the field,,,

so under your criteria why do you use him as a source???


the source I used has over 30 yrs in the field

Your source has been soundly debunked by the scientific community. Nothing he says is legit.

no it hasnt,,,all they do is personal attacks and no science proof,,,

,,,There’s an entire section of the forum dedicated to you folks and your lurid conspiracy theories,,,

just so you know sweety I have you on ignore and only rarely get your post

so rant all you want

 

[Hollie]

If you say so. You keep believing those are human footprints.

not only does the writer not have a degree but has never studied or done research in the field,,,

so under your criteria why do you use him as a source???


the source I used has over 30 yrs in the field

Your source has been soundly debunked by the scientific community. Nothing he says is legit.

no it hasnt,,,all they do is personal attacks and no science proof,,,

,,,There’s an entire section of the forum dedicated to you folks and your lurid conspiracy theories,,,

just so you know sweety I have you on ignore and only rarely get your post

so rant all you want

I’m glad you acknowledged you’re a coward.

 

[Asclepias]

Your source has been soundly debunked by the scientific community. Nothing he says is legit.

no it hasnt,,,all they do is personal attacks and no science proof,,,

Your source has no scientific proof.

youre either an ignorant fool or a bold faced liar,,,


maybe you should check his research and testing he did on it before you shoot off your mouth,,,

I have. It was not scientific. Science is objective. He set out to prove the prints were human. Thats not scientific.

so RC dating is not scientific???
and the testing done on compression was not scientific???

its obvious you are lying,,,

No dummy. He stated they were human prints when they have been proven to be dinosaur prints. He can date all he wants but he is dating dino prints not human prints.

 

[Asclepias]

If you say so. You keep believing those are human footprints.

not only does the writer not have a degree but has never studied or done research in the field,,,

so under your criteria why do you use him as a source???


the source I used has over 30 yrs in the field

Your source has been soundly debunked by the scientific community. Nothing he says is legit.

no it hasnt,,,all they do is personal attacks and no science proof,,,

,,,There’s an entire section of the forum dedicated to you folks and your lurid conspiracy theories,,,

just so you know sweety I have you on ignore and only rarely get your post

so rant all you want

Why do you put people on ignore? I am seeing youre a "head in the sand" type of person.

 

[progressive hunter]

no it hasnt,,,all they do is personal attacks and no science proof,,,

Your source has no scientific proof.

youre either an ignorant fool or a bold faced liar,,,


maybe you should check his research and testing he did on it before you shoot off your mouth,,,

I have. It was not scientific. Science is objective. He set out to prove the prints were human. Thats not scientific.

so RC dating is not scientific???
and the testing done on compression was not scientific???

its obvious you are lying,,,

No dummy. He stated they were human prints when they have been proven to be dinosaur prints. He can date all he wants but he is dating dino prints not human prints.

none were proven to be dino tracks,,,its an opinion,,,

but you can see by looking at them they are human

 

[progressive hunter]

not only does the writer not have a degree but has never studied or done research in the field,,,

so under your criteria why do you use him as a source???


the source I used has over 30 yrs in the field

Your source has been soundly debunked by the scientific community. Nothing he says is legit.

no it hasnt,,,all they do is personal attacks and no science proof,,,

,,,There’s an entire section of the forum dedicated to you folks and your lurid conspiracy theories,,,

just so you know sweety I have you on ignore and only rarely get your post

so rant all you want

Why do you put people on ignore? I am seeing youre a "head in the sand" type of person.

shes just a dumb kunt that rants incoherently,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

no it hasnt,,,all they do is personal attacks and no science proof,,,

Your source has no scientific proof.

youre either an ignorant fool or a bold faced liar,,,


maybe you should check his research and testing he did on it before you shoot off your mouth,,,

I have. It was not scientific. Science is objective. He set out to prove the prints were human. Thats not scientific.

so RC dating is not scientific???
and the testing done on compression was not scientific???

its obvious you are lying,,,

No dummy. He stated they were human prints when they have been proven to be dinosaur prints. He can date all he wants but he is dating dino prints not human prints.

show me a dino that has a human foot and we can talk,,,

 

[Asclepias]

Your source has no scientific proof.

youre either an ignorant fool or a bold faced liar,,,


maybe you should check his research and testing he did on it before you shoot off your mouth,,,

I have. It was not scientific. Science is objective. He set out to prove the prints were human. Thats not scientific.

so RC dating is not scientific???
and the testing done on compression was not scientific???

its obvious you are lying,,,

No dummy. He stated they were human prints when they have been proven to be dinosaur prints. He can date all he wants but he is dating dino prints not human prints.

none were proven to be dino tracks,,,its an opinion,,,

but you can see by looking at them they are human

"but you can see by looking at them they are human"

Thats not very scientific and exactly why we know its just creationist babble. Thanks for exposing your premise. Get a trainer if your going to try and debate

 

[progressive hunter]

then

youre either an ignorant fool or a bold faced liar,,,


maybe you should check his research and testing he did on it before you shoot off your mouth,,,

I have. It was not scientific. Science is objective. He set out to prove the prints were human. Thats not scientific.

so RC dating is not scientific???
and the testing done on compression was not scientific???

its obvious you are lying,,,

No dummy. He stated they were human prints when they have been proven to be dinosaur prints. He can date all he wants but he is dating dino prints not human prints.

none were proven to be dino tracks,,,its an opinion,,,

but you can see by looking at them they are human

"but you can see by looking at them they are human"

Thats not very scientific and exactly why we know its just creationist babble. Thanks for exposing your premise. Get a trainer if your going to try and debate

then show me a dino that has a human foot,,,

 

[Asclepias]

Your source has no scientific proof.

youre either an ignorant fool or a bold faced liar,,,


maybe you should check his research and testing he did on it before you shoot off your mouth,,,

I have. It was not scientific. Science is objective. He set out to prove the prints were human. Thats not scientific.

so RC dating is not scientific???
and the testing done on compression was not scientific???

its obvious you are lying,,,

No dummy. He stated they were human prints when they have been proven to be dinosaur prints. He can date all he wants but he is dating dino prints not human prints.

show me a dino that has a human foot and we can talk,,,

Show me a human footprint that is the same age as a dino footprint and we can talk.

 

[progressive hunter]

youre either an ignorant fool or a bold faced liar,,,


maybe you should check his research and testing he did on it before you shoot off your mouth,,,

I have. It was not scientific. Science is objective. He set out to prove the prints were human. Thats not scientific.

so RC dating is not scientific???
and the testing done on compression was not scientific???

its obvious you are lying,,,

No dummy. He stated they were human prints when they have been proven to be dinosaur prints. He can date all he wants but he is dating dino prints not human prints.

show me a dino that has a human foot and we can talk,,,

Show me a human footprint that is the same age as a dino footprint and we can talk.

I already did,,,

 

[Hollie]

Your source has been soundly debunked by the scientific community. Nothing he says is legit.

no it hasnt,,,all they do is personal attacks and no science proof,,,

,,,There’s an entire section of the forum dedicated to you folks and your lurid conspiracy theories,,,

just so you know sweety I have you on ignore and only rarely get your post

so rant all you want

Why do you put people on ignore? I am seeing youre a "head in the sand" type of person.

shes just a dumb kunt that rants incoherently,,,

Actually, I’ve repeatedly refuted your pointless attempt at a coherent argument so you’re left to hurl insults.

Pretty typical for the religious extremists.

 

[Hollie]

I have. It was not scientific. Science is objective. He set out to prove the prints were human. Thats not scientific.

so RC dating is not scientific???
and the testing done on compression was not scientific???

its obvious you are lying,,,

No dummy. He stated they were human prints when they have been proven to be dinosaur prints. He can date all he wants but he is dating dino prints not human prints.

show me a dino that has a human foot and we can talk,,,

Show me a human footprint that is the same age as a dino footprint and we can talk.

I already did,,,

Cutting and pasting from ID’iot creationist websites is a fool’s errand.

 

[Asclepias]

I have. It was not scientific. Science is objective. He set out to prove the prints were human. Thats not scientific.

so RC dating is not scientific???
and the testing done on compression was not scientific???

its obvious you are lying,,,

No dummy. He stated they were human prints when they have been proven to be dinosaur prints. He can date all he wants but he is dating dino prints not human prints.

show me a dino that has a human foot and we can talk,,,

Show me a human footprint that is the same age as a dino footprint and we can talk.

I already did,,,

Even your fellow crack pots disagree with your absurd claim. You lose again.

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

"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."

 

[progressive hunter]

so RC dating is not scientific???
and the testing done on compression was not scientific???

its obvious you are lying,,,

No dummy. He stated they were human prints when they have been proven to be dinosaur prints. He can date all he wants but he is dating dino prints not human prints.

show me a dino that has a human foot and we can talk,,,

Show me a human footprint that is the same age as a dino footprint and we can talk.

I already did,,,

Even your fellow crack pots disagree with your absurd claim. You lose again.

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

"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."

still doesnt mean they are right,,,

they probably dont know the difference between a boy and a girl,,,

 

[Hollie]

No dummy. He stated they were human prints when they have been proven to be dinosaur prints. He can date all he wants but he is dating dino prints not human prints.

show me a dino that has a human foot and we can talk,,,

Show me a human footprint that is the same age as a dino footprint and we can talk.

I already did,,,

Even your fellow crack pots disagree with your absurd claim. You lose again.

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

"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."

still doesnt mean they are right,,,

they probably dont know the difference between a boy and a girl,,,

Have you considered it would be in good form to add something relevant to the topic?

 

[Asclepias]

No dummy. He stated they were human prints when they have been proven to be dinosaur prints. He can date all he wants but he is dating dino prints not human prints.

show me a dino that has a human foot and we can talk,,,

Show me a human footprint that is the same age as a dino footprint and we can talk.

I already did,,,

Even your fellow crack pots disagree with your absurd claim. You lose again.

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

"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."

still doesnt mean they are right,,,

they probably dont know the difference between a boy and a girl,,,

Yeah but you dont know the difference between a dino print and a gigantic human one.