Back to the dino-in-human footprint

[Thanatos]

I'm stuck picturing a dangerously fat man with freaky toes and a foot arch that's flat transverse but not longitudinally huffing it along as fast as he can to get away from the dinosaurs.

Life was rough before we had shotguns and Dr. Scholls.

Naturally, the genes for this alternate foot morphology are now extinct. This explains everything. Except the mutant dinosaur. Alright, in God's betatest creation the plans for vertebrate locomotion were still a little rough and got completely redone for creation v1.0. Disprove that, science!

[beartheweak]

I'm stuck picturing a dangerously fat man with freaky toes and a foot arch that's flat transverse but not longitudinally huffing it along as fast as he can to get away from the dinosaurs.

Naturally, the genes for this alternate foot morphology are now extinct. This explains everything. Except the mutant dinosaur. Alright, in God's betatest creation the plans for vertebrate locomotion were still a little rough and got completely redone for creation v1.0. Disprove that, science!

Why would (s)he be fat? You are making an overstatement that his toes are "freaky". His foot arch isn't flat, as you can see in the images, and there is still nothing wrong with the perfectly plausible proposal that even if there was no arch, this person was flat-footed.

Also, do you know nothing about the causes for flat-feet? It is only the cause of genes in some cases.

All of your responses are either proved away, or you are simply avoiding the evidence at hand (especially when it is widely accepted, and logical, that any amount of evidence that disproves evolution would be catastrophic to the theory).

The one big problem that I see with this video is that it only discusses the imprint itself. Where is the independent & peer-reviewed research and findings of this fossil?

Regarding so-called mainstream "peer review", the secular peers don't care to look at any evidence that conflicts with evolution theory. Any significant amount of secular "peer review" won't ever happen on anything that conflicts with secular theories. Therefore, you cannot even attempt to debunk it based on lack of "significant secular peer review". It's like you saying "Well we don't believe anything exists that can expose evolution as a myth, so we won't even bother analyzing the evidence that creationists have". I think it's pretty clear to anyone that comes onto these forums with any less bias than an apostate atheist (or someone with a fresh mind in the subject) will agree with me.

With that being said, let me also strengthen my argument one more time. It is impossible to forge this artifact. If you disagree, then you must tell me what process can be taken to forge this artifact (yes, in this case, it's logical that you must debunk it). Keep in mind, there isn't just one artifact that disproves your secular theories. There are thousands of artifacts that are just as sufficient (http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html - if you want a place to start; however, I am aware that some of the artifacts on that sight can possibly be hoaxes that someone made in order to make some cash). I simply think this particular artifact is the funniest of them all. It's as if God, through it, is saying "You don't see the evidence of my existence in everything? Fine, here's something that shows humans and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time- and if you ignore it then it is your own fault".

Sometimes it feels as though I'm going crazy because evidence as obvious as this still does nothing to make otherwise-intelligent atheists question their beliefs. The only unintelligible thing left to be said is you believe this (obvious) track is just something that happens to have the shape of a human foot and/or the shape of a dinosaur print.

I'm going to go ahead and say something repetitive because it feels like I have to when I'm on these forums. Once I explain premise A then premise B, an atheist (Peter in particular, as with many cases in the past) always goes back to bring up an argument that was already explained away with premise A. So here it is (Peter): This is not the only artifact that I can use to disprove evolution. However, only one evidence is all that's necessary to disprove the whole theory. So (Peter), slow your roll, and stop asking for more evidence. If a flaw with this artifact is pointed out to me, then I will pull up another one. But I'm not going to waste my time pulling all of the evidence to one place for you, right now, because it's a time waster due to the fact that only one evidence is all that is needed. If anything, you seem like the desperate one by trying to run me in circles.

Five different branches of science have been totally wrong for the past 100 years or your footprint is a clever hoax or misinterpretation?

And about that... are you kidding me? You're trying to use propaganda as a way to win this one? Everyone, except you apparently, knows that there is not one "mainstream" theory about any of the topics that collide with religion and science. Creationists aren't just one small group. Atheists aren't just one small group (although much smaller, population wise). It's ignorant things like these that make me wonder if you're actually a truth-seeker.

[beartheweak]

The one big problem that I see with this video is that it only discusses the imprint itself. Where is the independent & peer-reviewed research and findings of this fossil?

I pulled this so I won't have to type it again and because this article does a good job of more fully explaining this argument (http://ianjuby.org/delk/):

" 'It hasn't been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal'

Ah yes, this is quite a humerous argument too. No "reputable, peer-reviewed journal" dares to publish evidence like this which destroys evolution. Entire books have been written on this subject, not to mention the recent movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." There are peer-reviewed creation journals out there, and this track will be included in our upcoming article on the Paluxy track research. However, evolutionists will simply reject such an article out of hand anyway, because it's not an evolutionary journal.

Go figure - evolutionary journals won't publish anything that knocks evolution, therefore because evidence like this won't be published in evolutionary journals, it is rejected by evolutionists.

I'm not even going to waste much time with this very silly argument that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the tracks are authentic.

If there are some scientists who wish to legitimately examine it, I'm sure that can be arranged - but only under very strict control of CEM. Why? Because some evidence like this has been destroyed before. See Don Patton's website for more details on this episode.

If there's going to be a symposium / forum for interested investigators, I'll post details here later."

[Peter]

You're trying to use propaganda as a way to win this one?

It's a simple question that has an answer and I'm not here to "win" anything. Do you think this is a contest?
In any event, the question was rhetorical. The answer is obvious to any thinking person.

[Peter]

No "reputable, peer-reviewed journal" dares to publish evidence like this which destroys evolution.

You assume it's "evidence" and that it "destroys evolution". I'd call that very wishful thinking but then again a drowning man will grasp at a floating twig.

[beartheweak]

You are still only avoiding answering my questions.

[Peter]

You are still only avoiding answering my questions.

OK, just for you I went back and read every post looking for unanswered questions. I found this.

I'm taking the evidence one piece at a time. I never said there's only this one piece of evidence. You proved yourself to be the stereotypical atheist by trying to get out of answering this- as you have not given one good fact.

By "get out of answering this" am I to assume you mean the youtube video? What about the video would you like me to answer? I don't have the thing in my possession and even if I did I'm not an expert on CAT scans or determining the authenticity of footprints. The Delt track is nothing more than a curiosity until a proper examination can be conducted by unbiased experts.

It's origin is, predictably, foggy. This lone person finds the track "somewhere" all by itself and sits it in his living room covered in mud for awhile until he needs money for an operation or something and then decides to clean it up. Lo and behold there's what looks like a human footprint hidden under the mud. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Delt is a creationist, hmm? It's all just a little too convenient to take seriously IMO.

Ask a direct question and I'll be happy to give you a direct answer if I can because, unlike many here, I don't avoid questions.

[Dave In Canada]

Regarding so-called mainstream "peer review", the secular peers don't care to look at any evidence that conflicts with evolution theory. Any significant amount of secular "peer review" won't ever happen on anything that conflicts with secular theories. Therefore, you cannot even attempt to debunk it based on lack of "significant secular peer review". It's like you saying "Well we don't believe anything exists that can expose evolution as a myth, so we won't even bother analyzing the evidence that creationists have". I think it's pretty clear to anyone that comes onto these forums with any less bias than an apostate atheist (or someone with a fresh mind in the subject) will agree with me.

Perhaps you are not aware but there legitimate scientists who are also Christians. They don't seem to have a problem with their work being peer reviewed. I am all for analyzing the evidence and I am sure people on both sides of the coin are interested. Unfortunately all we have here is a youtube video.

With that being said, let me also strengthen my argument one more time. It is impossible to forge this artifact. If you disagree, then you must tell me what process can be taken to forge this artifact (yes, in this case, it's logical that you must debunk it). Keep in mind, there isn't just one artifact that disproves your secular theories. There are thousands of artifacts that are just as sufficient (http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html - if you want a place to start; however, I am aware that some of the artifacts on that sight can possibly be hoaxes that someone made in order to make some cash). I simply think this particular artifact is the funniest of them all. It's as if God, through it, is saying "You don't see the evidence of my existence in everything? Fine, here's something that shows humans and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time- and if you ignore it then it is your own fault".

So on one hand this cannot be a forgery but you are aware of other forgeries. How is that strengthening your argument?

Sometimes it feels as though I'm going crazy because evidence as obvious as this still does nothing to make otherwise-intelligent atheists question their beliefs. The only unintelligible thing left to be said is you believe this (obvious) track is just something that happens to have the shape of a human foot and/or the shape of a dinosaur print.

Perhaps you are going crazy. Until the track is properly analyzed I will not accept your assertions. Why are you so upset with us about that when you have thousands of both secular and religious scientists who believe that evolution is a fact.

I'll take their word over yours any day of the week. Only a moron would accept a youtube video as absolute proof of debunking evolution.

It's ignorant things like these that make me wonder if you're actually a truth-seeker.

Ditto!

[Dave In Canada]

If there are some scientists who wish to legitimately examine it, I'm sure that can be arranged - but only under very strict control of CEM. Why? Because some evidence like this has been destroyed before. See Don Patton's website for more details on this episode.

If there's going to be a symposium / forum for interested investigators, I'll post details here later."

I doubt it will happen as there is no way that the creationists will ever turn that artifact over to REAL SCIENTISTS to examine!

[minorwork]

Would you buy a used car 'cause it looked good on TV or a video, at night, just after a rain? Those things cover a LOT of flaws.

[beartheweak]

Ask a direct question and I'll be happy to give you a direct answer if I can because, unlike many here, I don't avoid questions.

I beg to differ. For probably the third time: What process could have been followed to forge the Delk Track?

[beartheweak]

So on one hand this cannot be a forgery but you are aware of other forgeries. How is that strengthening your argument?

I merely gave the disclaimer that there is always a possibility that forgeries can exist amongst legitimate artifacts because I don't want to be held responsible if an artifact on that site has been proven to be forged. But back to the original question, what process can be taken to forge the Delk Track?

Only a moron would accept a youtube video as absolute proof of debunking evolution.

Only a fool would think there is just one video that debunks evolution. It appears you're just trying to assume that my only proof is a youtube video as a way to make me look like a moron. What a sleazy tactic... and a way to weasel your way out of answering to yet another valid proof.