Looking for reasonable explanations for the Paluxy River footprints.

[Weatherman2020]

You also have to understand that any particular species, T-Rex say, roamed the earth for tens of thousands of years. That's a lot of dead T-Rexes. Yet what do we have, like six complete skeletons?

How is that hard to believe?

I didnt think we had any. We have "sue" which is like 80 or 85% complete. The others are like 50 and 60%. Maybe i am wrong?

I'm going fossil hunting next week. I will likely find dozens of intact fossils.

Dozens of full skeletons? No, you won't. Even in your scenario, many animals that consume flesh shit out the bones. If you were to find dozens of full skeletons, then you might have a valid argument, but you would also be famous.

Yes, I will find dozens of fossilized fish and other sea creatures. Which I can only find because they were rapidly buried in mud.

Ah! Fish skeletons. I'm sure then that you will. And yes, it will be for many reasons, one of which will be being quickly covered in mud.

How does a sea creature get quickly buried in mud?

 

[PredFan]

There is a flaw in your logic. Here it is:

"Supposedly new code is inserted into the DNA strand out of no where and this code works perfectly"

99.99999% of the time mutations in the DNA code do absolutely nothing. Sometimes they can kill and sometimes they are beneficial. The more often DNA is exchanged(sexual reproduction) the more you roll that DNA dice. That's why viruses, which reproduce daily, can evolve almost immediately whereas more complex organisms like us can take millennia.

Any mutation in DNA will have an impact. A negative impact. There is no DNA code that is not programed to do something. You take that away, and things go badly for that living thing.

A virus is not changing it's DNA, it merely changes shape to prevent white blood cells from clinging to it.

That just simply isn't true.

What do you think determines the shape of the virus? That's right, it's DNA.

The DNA in a virus says it can change shape, the DNA is not changing.

The virus is not that complicated. Plus a change in shape does not turn a harmless-to-humans virus into a man-killer, or change its transmission ability.

We are a bit off the track here. The point is that the more often an organism reproduces, the more frequently mutations happen.

You're the one who claims viruses proves DNA mutates. Now you don't want to talk about it now that you see there is no mutation of DNA? Cripes.

How about this. There is zero evidence of any DNA mutation being a benefit to that life form. Submissive genes becoming dominant is all you'll find. But they were always there.

No, I did not claim that. I claimed that viruses, and indeed bacteria too, demonstrate that the more frequently an organism reproduces, the more often mutations show up. The fact that DNA mutates is undeniable.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I'm going fossil hunting next week. I will likely find dozens of intact fossils.

Dozens of full skeletons? No, you won't. Even in your scenario, many animals that consume flesh shit out the bones. If you were to find dozens of full skeletons, then you might have a valid argument, but you would also be famous.

Yes, I will find dozens of fossilized fish and other sea creatures. Which I can only find because they were rapidly buried in mud.

Yeah, but why only six or T rexes? My fundementalist friend is convinced they were killed in the flood.

If humans have existed for 500,000 years why only a dozen finds?

How long have we been looking? How long have we been smart enough to understand what they were?

Then explain the OP, the Cambodian Dino, and the Estonian Dino.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Any mutation in DNA will have an impact. A negative impact. There is no DNA code that is not programed to do something. You take that away, and things go badly for that living thing.

A virus is not changing it's DNA, it merely changes shape to prevent white blood cells from clinging to it.

That just simply isn't true.

What do you think determines the shape of the virus? That's right, it's DNA.

The DNA in a virus says it can change shape, the DNA is not changing.

The virus is not that complicated. Plus a change in shape does not turn a harmless-to-humans virus into a man-killer, or change its transmission ability.

We are a bit off the track here. The point is that the more often an organism reproduces, the more frequently mutations happen.

You're the one who claims viruses proves DNA mutates. Now you don't want to talk about it now that you see there is no mutation of DNA? Cripes.

How about this. There is zero evidence of any DNA mutation being a benefit to that life form. Submissive genes becoming dominant is all you'll find. But they were always there.

No, I did not claim that. I claimed that viruses, and indeed bacteria too, demonstrate that the more frequently an organism reproduces, the more often mutations show up. The fact that DNA mutates is undeniable.

Except they are not mutating from a DNA standpoint.

 

[TNHarley]

Dozens of full skeletons? No, you won't. Even in your scenario, many animals that consume flesh shit out the bones. If you were to find dozens of full skeletons, then you might have a valid argument, but you would also be famous.

Yes, I will find dozens of fossilized fish and other sea creatures. Which I can only find because they were rapidly buried in mud.

Yeah, but why only six or T rexes? My fundementalist friend is convinced they were killed in the flood.

If humans have existed for 500,000 years why only a dozen finds?

How long have we been looking? How long have we been smart enough to understand what they were?

Then explain the OP, the Cambodian Dino, and the Estonian Dino.

Freewill posted a link from the late 80s talking about the prints int he OP were dinosaur.
The cambodian dino is assumption. That doesnt look like any dino that we know today. IT could have also been carved after the fact. People make up shit all the time.
I asked when the painting from the church was made. I tried to find that picture online but i couldnt.

 

[PredFan]

I didnt think we had any. We have "sue" which is like 80 or 85% complete. The others are like 50 and 60%. Maybe i am wrong?

I'm going fossil hunting next week. I will likely find dozens of intact fossils.

Dozens of full skeletons? No, you won't. Even in your scenario, many animals that consume flesh shit out the bones. If you were to find dozens of full skeletons, then you might have a valid argument, but you would also be famous.

Yes, I will find dozens of fossilized fish and other sea creatures. Which I can only find because they were rapidly buried in mud.

Ah! Fish skeletons. I'm sure then that you will. And yes, it will be for many reasons, one of which will be being quickly covered in mud.

How does a sea creature get quickly buried in mud?

Really? You cannot even imagine that?

1. Large mudslide mows a lake or a pond right over.

2. A river that feeds a sea gets choked off or diverted by an unknown factor, say an earthquake maybe.

3. A nearby volcano boils a local lake or sea, killing all living things and then filling it with mud or ash.

Really, it could be a whole host of reasons.

 

[PredFan]

That just simply isn't true.

What do you think determines the shape of the virus? That's right, it's DNA.

The DNA in a virus says it can change shape, the DNA is not changing.

The virus is not that complicated. Plus a change in shape does not turn a harmless-to-humans virus into a man-killer, or change its transmission ability.

We are a bit off the track here. The point is that the more often an organism reproduces, the more frequently mutations happen.

You're the one who claims viruses proves DNA mutates. Now you don't want to talk about it now that you see there is no mutation of DNA? Cripes.

How about this. There is zero evidence of any DNA mutation being a benefit to that life form. Submissive genes becoming dominant is all you'll find. But they were always there.

No, I did not claim that. I claimed that viruses, and indeed bacteria too, demonstrate that the more frequently an organism reproduces, the more often mutations show up. The fact that DNA mutates is undeniable.

Except they are not mutating from a DNA standpoint.

That is just factually innacurate.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Yes, I will find dozens of fossilized fish and other sea creatures. Which I can only find because they were rapidly buried in mud.

Yeah, but why only six or T rexes? My fundementalist friend is convinced they were killed in the flood.

If humans have existed for 500,000 years why only a dozen finds?

How long have we been looking? How long have we been smart enough to understand what they were?

Then explain the OP, the Cambodian Dino, and the Estonian Dino.

Freewill posted a link from the late 80s talking about the prints int he OP were dinosaur.
The cambodian dino is assumption. That doesnt look like any dino that we know today. IT could have also been carved after the fact. People make up shit all the time.
I asked when the painting from the church was made. I tried to find that picture online but i couldnt.

The Estonian pic was painted in the late 1500's. You can also tell by the clothes used. I knew nothing about it until I walked down the line of paintings and almost peed my pants.

 

[Theowl32]

I didnt think we had any. We have "sue" which is like 80 or 85% complete. The others are like 50 and 60%. Maybe i am wrong?

I'm going fossil hunting next week. I will likely find dozens of intact fossils.

Dozens of full skeletons? No, you won't. Even in your scenario, many animals that consume flesh shit out the bones. If you were to find dozens of full skeletons, then you might have a valid argument, but you would also be famous.

Yes, I will find dozens of fossilized fish and other sea creatures. Which I can only find because they were rapidly buried in mud.

Yeah, but why only six or T rexes? My fundementalist friend is convinced they were killed in the flood.

If humans have existed for 500,000 years why only a dozen finds?

A dozen finds? Not sure what that means.

From what I have read in regards to the fossilization (there are more than a few processes) process, it takes very specific conditions for it to happen.

It has been suggested that all of these T rexes along with millions of other dinosaurs from thousands upon thousands of different species were wiped out a couple thousand years ago. Covered by mud, which according to some is all that needs to be done for fossilization to happen.

Six T rexes?

Something is not making sense here, at all.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The DNA in a virus says it can change shape, the DNA is not changing.

The virus is not that complicated. Plus a change in shape does not turn a harmless-to-humans virus into a man-killer, or change its transmission ability.

We are a bit off the track here. The point is that the more often an organism reproduces, the more frequently mutations happen.

You're the one who claims viruses proves DNA mutates. Now you don't want to talk about it now that you see there is no mutation of DNA? Cripes.

How about this. There is zero evidence of any DNA mutation being a benefit to that life form. Submissive genes becoming dominant is all you'll find. But they were always there.

No, I did not claim that. I claimed that viruses, and indeed bacteria too, demonstrate that the more frequently an organism reproduces, the more often mutations show up. The fact that DNA mutates is undeniable.

Except they are not mutating from a DNA standpoint.

That is just factually innacurate.

Read up on it and post away.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I'm going fossil hunting next week. I will likely find dozens of intact fossils.

Dozens of full skeletons? No, you won't. Even in your scenario, many animals that consume flesh shit out the bones. If you were to find dozens of full skeletons, then you might have a valid argument, but you would also be famous.

Yes, I will find dozens of fossilized fish and other sea creatures. Which I can only find because they were rapidly buried in mud.

Yeah, but why only six or T rexes? My fundementalist friend is convinced they were killed in the flood.

If humans have existed for 500,000 years why only a dozen finds?

A dozen finds? Not sure what that means.

From what I have read in regards to the fossilization (there are more than a few processes) process, it takes very specific conditions for it to happen.

It has been suggested that all of these T rexes along with millions of other dinosaurs from thousands upon thousands of different species were wiped out a couple thousand years ago. Covered by mud, which according to some is all that needs to be done for fossilization to happen.

Six T rexes?

Something is not making sense here, at all.

Neither does soft tissue in a dinosaur bone.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I'm going fossil hunting next week. I will likely find dozens of intact fossils.

Dozens of full skeletons? No, you won't. Even in your scenario, many animals that consume flesh shit out the bones. If you were to find dozens of full skeletons, then you might have a valid argument, but you would also be famous.

Yes, I will find dozens of fossilized fish and other sea creatures. Which I can only find because they were rapidly buried in mud.

Ah! Fish skeletons. I'm sure then that you will. And yes, it will be for many reasons, one of which will be being quickly covered in mud.

How does a sea creature get quickly buried in mud?

Really? You cannot even imagine that?

1. Large mudslide mows a lake or a pond right over.

2. A river that feeds a sea gets choked off or diverted by an unknown factor, say an earthquake maybe.

3. A nearby volcano boils a local lake or sea, killing all living things and then filling it with mud or ash.

Really, it could be a whole host of reasons.

Happens often enough they are common on Mt Everest even? Pffft.

 

[rightwinger]

Paluxy River - Wikipedia

Some of the tracks were fake, carved by locals to sell during the Great Depression.[3] These footprints do not represent the way human footprints would look in mud; they also do not accurately reflect the changes in the way giant humans would walk as a result of their size.[6] Other footprints were genuine tracks, but showed features inconsistent with human footprints

 

[TNHarley]

Yeah, but why only six or T rexes? My fundementalist friend is convinced they were killed in the flood.

If humans have existed for 500,000 years why only a dozen finds?

How long have we been looking? How long have we been smart enough to understand what they were?

Then explain the OP, the Cambodian Dino, and the Estonian Dino.

Freewill posted a link from the late 80s talking about the prints int he OP were dinosaur.
The cambodian dino is assumption. That doesnt look like any dino that we know today. IT could have also been carved after the fact. People make up shit all the time.
I asked when the painting from the church was made. I tried to find that picture online but i couldnt.

The Estonian pic was painted in the late 1500's. You can also tell by the clothes used. I knew nothing about it until I walked down the line of paintings and almost peed my pants.

do you happen to know the name of the painting. You are kinda blowing my mind lol

 

[TNHarley]

Dozens of full skeletons? No, you won't. Even in your scenario, many animals that consume flesh shit out the bones. If you were to find dozens of full skeletons, then you might have a valid argument, but you would also be famous.

Yes, I will find dozens of fossilized fish and other sea creatures. Which I can only find because they were rapidly buried in mud.

Yeah, but why only six or T rexes? My fundementalist friend is convinced they were killed in the flood.

If humans have existed for 500,000 years why only a dozen finds?

A dozen finds? Not sure what that means.

From what I have read in regards to the fossilization (there are more than a few processes) process, it takes very specific conditions for it to happen.

It has been suggested that all of these T rexes along with millions of other dinosaurs from thousands upon thousands of different species were wiped out a couple thousand years ago. Covered by mud, which according to some is all that needs to be done for fossilization to happen.

Six T rexes?

Something is not making sense here, at all.

Neither does soft tissue in a dinosaur bone.

The iron preserved it

 

[Care4all]

I do believe in evolution. Personally, not sure how both cannot be true. Never have understood. Could evolution and intelligent design be the same thing? Who knows? There has been more than enough evidence to show that species have evolved.

The Paluxy footprints have always fascinated me.

The notion of dinosaur footprints side by side with human footprints. I have heard the notion from scientists that those are not human footprints but a dinosaur?

I think there needs to be a more reasonable explanation. Those footprints are clearly human or a humanoid.

Close to where these footprints are found are these drawings on walls from ancient people.

Are these interesting to you?

Time travelers. Future beachgoers making a pet of Dino.

ya never know!

 

[Weatherman2020]

If humans have existed for 500,000 years why only a dozen finds?

How long have we been looking? How long have we been smart enough to understand what they were?

Then explain the OP, the Cambodian Dino, and the Estonian Dino.

Freewill posted a link from the late 80s talking about the prints int he OP were dinosaur.
The cambodian dino is assumption. That doesnt look like any dino that we know today. IT could have also been carved after the fact. People make up shit all the time.
I asked when the painting from the church was made. I tried to find that picture online but i couldnt.

The Estonian pic was painted in the late 1500's. You can also tell by the clothes used. I knew nothing about it until I walked down the line of paintings and almost peed my pants.

do you happen to know the name of the painting. You are kinda blowing my mind lol

It's just one of around 40 paintings showing Bible scenes.

Holy Spirit church in Estonia. My wife and I like history and we're looking at the midevil paintings and ran across it.
From google, paintings are along the balcony.

 

[rightwinger]

The footprint in the OP looks fake to me

Not how a footprint in the mud would look

 

[PredFan]

I'm going fossil hunting next week. I will likely find dozens of intact fossils.

Dozens of full skeletons? No, you won't. Even in your scenario, many animals that consume flesh shit out the bones. If you were to find dozens of full skeletons, then you might have a valid argument, but you would also be famous.

Yes, I will find dozens of fossilized fish and other sea creatures. Which I can only find because they were rapidly buried in mud.

Yeah, but why only six or T rexes? My fundementalist friend is convinced they were killed in the flood.

If humans have existed for 500,000 years why only a dozen finds?

A dozen finds? Not sure what that means.

From what I have read in regards to the fossilization (there are more than a few processes) process, it takes very specific conditions for it to happen.

It has been suggested that all of these T rexes along with millions of other dinosaurs from thousands upon thousands of different species were wiped out a couple thousand years ago. Covered by mud, which according to some is all that needs to be done for fossilization to happen.

Six T rexes?

Something is not making sense here, at all.

It isn't making sense to you because your understanding of what happened is flawed.

It wasn't a couple of thousand years ago, it was in many cases hundreds of millions of years ago and not all of them were covered in mud.

You are correct that the conditions have to be just so, which would explain why only 6 T-Rexes.

 

[PredFan]

The footprint in the OP looks fake to me

Not how a footprint in the mud would look

The dinosaur footprint looks like a cartoon.