Science Proves the Bible Again

[bripat9643]

You mean the don't show the snow that accumulated over a year?

NOPE,, and if you read the article it will show the planes were buried about 75 yrs ago and had hundreds if not thousands of layers and was several hundred feet deep

How would the charlatans at your fundie Christian ministry know how many layers of ice had accumulated?

Why don’t you present the data, ice cores, published papers they presented.

Thanks.

sorry after your insults I would never try and debate a dumbcunt like you

How, umm, Christian of you.

when did I claim to be christian???

You're spouting Christian dogma, do it's logical to conclude that you're a Christian.

 

[progressive hunter]

do you??

The answer is that is snows more near the coast of Greenland where the plane crashed than were the ice cores were drilled, which is near the center of the continent. Near the coast Greenland gets about 1.5 meters of snow per year. 75 x 1.5 x 3.28 = 369 feet. Some compression undoubtedly occurred.

plucking creationism's low-hanging fruit: Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron

Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron


This is my first post here and I want to get into the meat of an argument I've had with a creationist here in Busan. Still, some background is probably necessary.

My creationist coworker sent me a long (20 page) discussion of why secular science is wrong about the age of the Earth. That was the first article he gave me. He has now sent me four or five and all of a similar length and breadth. There are two problems with much of the stuff he sends me. Well, two problems that affect my ability to respond.

First, although he gives an enormous number of references and links, he has admitted that he has not read all of them. To my uncertain knowledge, of the 39 bullet point examples he gives showing that modern science's aging techniques are wrong, he has read fewer than 10% himself. I believe this to true for all the references and mined quotes he offers. I feel that with his name on the article, all errors affect his credibility.
Second, he occasionally covers material that I don't understand well enough to critique and I don't think he understands well enough to use as a defense. For example, I know the absolute basics of radiocarbon dating and nothing of the practicalities. How does one collect a sample and ensure it is not contaminated? I don't know. For me, this is reason enough to read the articles with interest but not to post them with my stamp of approval. I'm not asking for expertise - that would be hypocritical- but when I offer a link, I do so only if I understand the concepts.
I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
The article I'm starting on today covered many aspects of how to date the Earth or what is wrong with dating methods that give answers greater than 6-10,000 years. This article had many different articles and links in it and I am looking at one of these titled, "Ice Core Sample Dating/ The Lost Squadron". The original was by Carl Wieland and my coworker appears to have copied it in its entirety from creation.com/the-lost-squadron although the article contains a hyperlink to Answers in Genesis. I don't think there are copyright issues as he has given links and this means I can share a link the original article.

In brief, the Wieland's article attempts to show why ice cores taken from Greenland glaciers cannot show ages of tens of thousands of years. That material would be rather dry, and is in fact untrue, so he uses the dramatic true story of a fleet of US fighters and bombers that crash landed on the island as a disguise or hook. Indeed, of the fifteen or so paragraphs, ten describe the fate of the aircraft and only a few actually discuss ice cores. One of the key excerpts:
...the 3000-metre-long ice core [brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992] would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation.
The article is amazing as a tutorial in how to lie by omission. One would imagine that the ice cores were taken very near the crash-site. but the two are in fact hundreds of kilometres apart and in what I would describe as different climatic areas. The planes are near the coast where they receive ocean-effect precipitation (Wikipedia - short version: lots), while the ice core site is more than a hundred kilometres inland. Here is all the location information given:
Regarding the planes: "Realising that their only hope was to crash-land on the icy wastes of Greenland’s east coast, they desperately searched till they found a break in the cloud cover."
And here is everything the article has to say about the location of the ice cores: " "

On maps, the two locations are clearly distant. Further, one is quite distant inland, while the other is on the coast. Maps (Glacier Girl, Eismitte):







A possibly more accurate map of the ice core site is here.

Why is it important that one site is on the coast and the other more than a hundred kilometres inland? Because of something called Ocean Effect Snow. This is also known as Lake effect snow and simply describes the phenomenon of greater snowfall occurring close to unfrozen bodies of water than distant from water. Greenland's coast around the crash site received about 1.5 metres of snow per year but that does not mean that inland site would get a similar amount.

How much snow does the Eismitte get?
Between 1910 and '28, it received less than half a metre a year.



More recently (and from a different, but nearby location):






Both show average snowfalls of less than half a metre - the average in the image is 0.24- metres.
---
Added later: True Size Map shows the size of countries without distortion brought on by using a Mercator projection map. Because Greenland is so far north, it looks huge. In True Size Map, I pulled it down to the continental USA and it is a lot narrower there - but still longer North-South than the USA so clearly saying the two events are in Greenland cannot mean they must have similar weather conditions


---

I believe I have shown why Weiland's article cannot be trusted and is probably deliberately dishonest. Is there more to the story? Yes, thanks for asking.

From Weiland's article:
In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years. This is the only description of how secular scientists (should those two words be in quotes?) determine the age of segments of the ice core. There is no attempt to show why varying isotope ratios should be incorrect either. Left out of Weiland's work is how ice cores can be calibrated by looking for volcanic ash from known eruptions.

To summarize, not only are Weiland's conclusions wrong, they show a strange combination of in-depth research on certain areas and no research on others. The highest quality of research is on matters that do not relate to the controversy being discussed. For example, we learn what device is used, and what it's parameters are, for melting the ice to reach the planes, but no details on where the planes were found compared to the location of ice core drilling site. Further, they the two locations are suggested to be near one another -note the quote about 3000 metres of ice equalling 2000 years accumulation as if those 3000 metres were in the same climate zone.​

already seen this, and all it shows is that ice layers are subjective and unreliable for accurate dating on both sides

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

 

[progressive hunter]

NOPE,, and if you read the article it will show the planes were buried about 75 yrs ago and had hundreds if not thousands of layers and was several hundred feet deep

How would the charlatans at your fundie Christian ministry know how many layers of ice had accumulated?

Why don’t you present the data, ice cores, published papers they presented.

Thanks.

sorry after your insults I would never try and debate a dumbcunt like you

How, umm, Christian of you.

when did I claim to be christian???

stating facts is not dogma

 

[bripat9643]

The answer is that is snows more near the coast of Greenland where the plane crashed than were the ice cores were drilled, which is near the center of the continent. Near the coast Greenland gets about 1.5 meters of snow per year. 75 x 1.5 x 3.28 = 369 feet. Some compression undoubtedly occurred.

plucking creationism's low-hanging fruit: Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron

Greenland ice and icecores: the lost squadron


This is my first post here and I want to get into the meat of an argument I've had with a creationist here in Busan. Still, some background is probably necessary.

My creationist coworker sent me a long (20 page) discussion of why secular science is wrong about the age of the Earth. That was the first article he gave me. He has now sent me four or five and all of a similar length and breadth. There are two problems with much of the stuff he sends me. Well, two problems that affect my ability to respond.

First, although he gives an enormous number of references and links, he has admitted that he has not read all of them. To my uncertain knowledge, of the 39 bullet point examples he gives showing that modern science's aging techniques are wrong, he has read fewer than 10% himself. I believe this to true for all the references and mined quotes he offers. I feel that with his name on the article, all errors affect his credibility.
Second, he occasionally covers material that I don't understand well enough to critique and I don't think he understands well enough to use as a defense. For example, I know the absolute basics of radiocarbon dating and nothing of the practicalities. How does one collect a sample and ensure it is not contaminated? I don't know. For me, this is reason enough to read the articles with interest but not to post them with my stamp of approval. I'm not asking for expertise - that would be hypocritical- but when I offer a link, I do so only if I understand the concepts.
I never claimed it to be 6K yrs old
The article I'm starting on today covered many aspects of how to date the Earth or what is wrong with dating methods that give answers greater than 6-10,000 years. This article had many different articles and links in it and I am looking at one of these titled, "Ice Core Sample Dating/ The Lost Squadron". The original was by Carl Wieland and my coworker appears to have copied it in its entirety from creation.com/the-lost-squadron although the article contains a hyperlink to Answers in Genesis. I don't think there are copyright issues as he has given links and this means I can share a link the original article.

In brief, the Wieland's article attempts to show why ice cores taken from Greenland glaciers cannot show ages of tens of thousands of years. That material would be rather dry, and is in fact untrue, so he uses the dramatic true story of a fleet of US fighters and bombers that crash landed on the island as a disguise or hook. Indeed, of the fifteen or so paragraphs, ten describe the fate of the aircraft and only a few actually discuss ice cores. One of the key excerpts:
...the 3000-metre-long ice core [brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992] would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation.
The article is amazing as a tutorial in how to lie by omission. One would imagine that the ice cores were taken very near the crash-site. but the two are in fact hundreds of kilometres apart and in what I would describe as different climatic areas. The planes are near the coast where they receive ocean-effect precipitation (Wikipedia - short version: lots), while the ice core site is more than a hundred kilometres inland. Here is all the location information given:
Regarding the planes: "Realising that their only hope was to crash-land on the icy wastes of Greenland’s east coast, they desperately searched till they found a break in the cloud cover."
And here is everything the article has to say about the location of the ice cores: " "

On maps, the two locations are clearly distant. Further, one is quite distant inland, while the other is on the coast. Maps (Glacier Girl, Eismitte):







A possibly more accurate map of the ice core site is here.

Why is it important that one site is on the coast and the other more than a hundred kilometres inland? Because of something called Ocean Effect Snow. This is also known as Lake effect snow and simply describes the phenomenon of greater snowfall occurring close to unfrozen bodies of water than distant from water. Greenland's coast around the crash site received about 1.5 metres of snow per year but that does not mean that inland site would get a similar amount.

How much snow does the Eismitte get?
Between 1910 and '28, it received less than half a metre a year.



More recently (and from a different, but nearby location):






Both show average snowfalls of less than half a metre - the average in the image is 0.24- metres.
---
Added later: True Size Map shows the size of countries without distortion brought on by using a Mercator projection map. Because Greenland is so far north, it looks huge. In True Size Map, I pulled it down to the continental USA and it is a lot narrower there - but still longer North-South than the USA so clearly saying the two events are in Greenland cannot mean they must have similar weather conditions


---

I believe I have shown why Weiland's article cannot be trusted and is probably deliberately dishonest. Is there more to the story? Yes, thanks for asking.

From Weiland's article:
In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years. This is the only description of how secular scientists (should those two words be in quotes?) determine the age of segments of the ice core. There is no attempt to show why varying isotope ratios should be incorrect either. Left out of Weiland's work is how ice cores can be calibrated by looking for volcanic ash from known eruptions.

To summarize, not only are Weiland's conclusions wrong, they show a strange combination of in-depth research on certain areas and no research on others. The highest quality of research is on matters that do not relate to the controversy being discussed. For example, we learn what device is used, and what it's parameters are, for melting the ice to reach the planes, but no details on where the planes were found compared to the location of ice core drilling site. Further, they the two locations are suggested to be near one another -note the quote about 3000 metres of ice equalling 2000 years accumulation as if those 3000 metres were in the same climate zone.​

already seen this, and all it shows is that ice layers are subjective and unreliable for accurate dating on both sides

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:

 

[bripat9643]

How would the charlatans at your fundie Christian ministry know how many layers of ice had accumulated?

Why don’t you present the data, ice cores, published papers they presented.

Thanks.

sorry after your insults I would never try and debate a dumbcunt like you

How, umm, Christian of you.

when did I claim to be christian???

stating facts is not dogma

Call it what you wish, only Christians believe it.

 

[progressive hunter]

already seen this, and all it shows is that ice layers are subjective and unreliable for accurate dating on both sides

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

 

[progressive hunter]

How would the charlatans at your fundie Christian ministry know how many layers of ice had accumulated?

Why don’t you present the data, ice cores, published papers they presented.

Thanks.

sorry after your insults I would never try and debate a dumbcunt like you

How, umm, Christian of you.

when did I claim to be christian???

stating facts is not dogma

Call it what you wish, only Christians believe it.

believe what??

 

[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

Source?

 

[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

Source?

you first

 

[bripat9643]

sorry after your insults I would never try and debate a dumbcunt like you

How, umm, Christian of you.

when did I claim to be christian???

stating facts is not dogma

Call it what you wish, only Christians believe it.

believe what??

For example, only certain Christians believe that human foot prints were found next to Dinosaur foot prints.

 

[progressive hunter]

How, umm, Christian of you.

when did I claim to be christian???

stating facts is not dogma

Call it what you wish, only Christians believe it.

believe what??

For example, only certain Christians believe that human foot prints were found next to Dinosaur foot prints.

alinsky 101,,,when you cant refute the message attack the messenger

 

[Hollie]

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

I’ ve proved it isn’t.

Prove I haven’t.

 

[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

Source?

you first

A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy

 

[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

I’ ve proved it isn’t.

Prove I haven’t.

no you didnt

 

[bripat9643]

when did I claim to be christian???

stating facts is not dogma

Call it what you wish, only Christians believe it.

believe what??

For example, only certain Christians believe that human foot prints were found next to Dinosaur foot prints.

alinsky 101,,,when you cant refute the message attack the messenger

Describing you as a Christian is "attacking" you?

 

[progressive hunter]

stating facts is not dogma

Call it what you wish, only Christians believe it.

believe what??

For example, only certain Christians believe that human foot prints were found next to Dinosaur foot prints.

alinsky 101,,,when you cant refute the message attack the messenger

Describing you as a Christian is "attacking" you?

yep

 

[Hollie]

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

You cut and pasted that from “Genesis Park”.

You were too embarrassed to admit your source, right?

 

[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

I’ ve proved it isn’t.

Prove I haven’t.

no you didnt

“Prove it isn’t”

 

[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

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

 

[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

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.