Ancient Australian Footprints

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:08 pm

Clearly no one is trying to say this is the only explanation or trying to fool anyone

Arch likes the one explanation that tries to fool everyone as long as it is wrapped in the pages of Holy Drivel!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:46 pm

IF THEY DON'T YOU SAY "SO WHAT THEY'VE FOUND TRACKS BEFORE"

i was consistant, i am not looking for speculation at all. i would prefer a 'i/we don't know the reason these tracks are here' to something that states the obvious.

is that what these guiys went to school for? to state what a 2 year old could see?

They didn't claim that their theories mwere true as you can plainly see it say's "they are believed to be" or "they could have been" or "they seem to be".

right and this is what i have been saying all along--- those are the words evolutionary researchers use all the time and they concentrate onthe speculation building fanciful theories they can't prove. then saying it is science while ignoring the truth.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:13 pm

archaeologist wrote:
IF THEY DON'T YOU SAY "SO WHAT THEY'VE FOUND TRACKS BEFORE"
i was consistant, i am not looking for speculation at all. i would prefer a 'i/we don't know the reason these tracks are here' to something that states the obvious.

is that what these guiys went to school for? to state what a 2 year old could see?

They didn't claim that their theories mwere true as you can plainly see it say's "they are believed to be" or "they could have been" or "they seem to be".
right and this is what i have been saying all along--- those are the words evolutionary researchers use all the time and they concentrate onthe speculation building fanciful theories they can't prove. then saying it is science while ignoring the truth.

these are supposed to be educated and intelligent researchers yet that is all they could come up with?

Then what the fuck is this?^^^^ So you think the article should say. "they found some tracks" and then that's it? Come on. You know reporters ask for this shit so they have something to write in their article.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:17 pm

Come on. You know reporters ask for this shit so they have something to write in their article

it sounds better than 'many activities took place here' . but still there are better ways of saying things than what they did.

i was always taught that it was better to say 'i don't know more investigation is needed...' than to make up some wild story which would leave egg on your face when proven to be false or idiotic.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:21 pm

i was always taught that it was better to say 'i don't know more investigation is needed...

Really?

I thought this was your answer to everything?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:53 pm

for some Yes; for me No. i believe we need to be honest and not use mantras like that as they do not help in any way.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:04 am

Right up until the moment when someone challenges your bible. Then, you revert to form just like the rest of them.

tj · Post by tj » Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:12 am

archaeologist wrote:for some Yes; for me No. i believe we need to be honest and not use mantras like that as they do not help in any way.

If you don't believe stuff just because the bible says so, why do you expect those darn secular professionals to do so? If those darn secular professionals find evidence that is contrary to what the bible says, what would you have them do?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:41 am

If you don't believe stuff just because the bible says so, why do you expect those darn secular professionals to do so

don't go jumping off the deep end, i believe the basics just as the Bible writes it but i do not hide behind such mantras. i do look for more details and when i do not have evidence to offer then i am left with, 'God did it' or 'i don't know'. which is far more satisfying than an evolutionist pipe dream.

take those quotes i gave from the book--Origins'-- i do not know how God formed the solar system, except that the Bible says He spoke and made them. thus, i do not believe far out tales of gravity happening by chance which then collared flying matter and fused them into a planet.

my source of the origin is God, which is who the Bible is pointing to throughout its pages. that is the important thing. footprints in the sand proove very little except the existence of people in that neck of the woods, but i already knew that. i think the dating is too long in the tooth and will challenge that date, since footprints do not hold carbon or other isotopes. it is ridiculous to say it was that long ago because you really have no idea when they were preserved there.

Essan · Post by **Essan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:45 am

archaeologist wrote:
i was always taught that it was better to say 'i don't know more investigation is needed...' than to make up some wild story which would leave egg on your face when proven to be false or idiotic.

You've not encountered many journalists - if you don't tell them what they want to hera they'll make it up anyway. Saying you don;t know to a journalist is not an option

So basically we've had 4 pages of silly argument because you disagree with someone answering a journalists questions with a bit of innocent speculation?

Really Arch, don't we have enough arguments underway without having to create new ones out of nothing?

tj · Post by tj » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:21 am

archaeologist wrote:take those quotes i gave from the book--Origins'-- i do not know how God formed the solar system, except that the Bible says He spoke and made them. thus, i do not believe far out tales of gravity happening by chance which then collared flying matter and fused them into a planet.

You admit then to not knowing if the words that god spoke actually created the laws that our current mathematical models attempt to describe. You simply can't know for certain that god didn't set creation in motion in this way. Same for evolution. You can't know for certain that evolution isn't the engine of god's creation of life* because, as a devout christian, you know that you can't attempt to know the mind of god.

This works both ways. No scientist can know for certain that these things aren't the engines of some god's creation, no matter how unlikely and ridiculous the notion may seem to them.

archaeologist wrote:footprints in the sand proove very little except the existence of people in that neck of the woods, but i already knew that. i think the dating is too long in the tooth and will challenge that date, since footprints do not hold carbon or other isotopes. it is ridiculous to say it was that long ago because you really have no idea when they were preserved there.

I agree that radioactive decay dating on footprints doesn't get us anywhere.

Here's a thought experiment:

Say we pour a concrete sidewalk on any given Monday and by Tuesday night it is set solid. However, when we walk outside Wednesday morning we find the footprints of young miscreants. We can date those footprints in the sidewalk because, although we know little about the print leavers, we know a great deal about the sidewalk.

If you want to challenge the dating of the prints, you must demonstrate that what is known about the sidewalk is incorrect.

*I realize I'm blurring abiogenesis and evolution.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 1:53 pm

You simply can't know for certain that god didn't set creation in motion in this way. Same for evolution.

that i do know and if He had used evolution, He would have said so but He didn't so we have the creation account.

You admit then to not knowing if the words that god spoke actually created the laws that our current mathematical models attempt to describe.

no, not what i am referring to. i have to be careful with the words i use as evolutinists jump on any little generality to try and get credibility for their theory. creation we know took place as the Bible says it because the results are seen to this day.

evolution is not seen but creation 's results take place all over the world whether you like it or not.

Same for evolution. You can't know for certain that evolution isn't the engine of god's creation of life* because, as a devout christian, you know that you can't attempt to know the mind of god

i can know that evolution was not used, as described above, and that all archaeological, historical and biblical records point to creation not evolution. so with a definite certainty i can say evolution was not used by God.

we know a great deal about the sidewalk.

yes but that is assuming you know when the water was actually there and if it were lakes at all, if not remnants of the flood waters and so on. your sidewalk illustration is very limited in its scope as the time frame is knowable whereas, these lakes' time frame is not knowable with any degree of the same amount of certainty.

nor can you say when those footprints were made or what conditions they were made under except for the obvious, the ground was wet, it dried, the footprints stayed.

You've not encountered many journalists - if you don't tell them what they want to hera they'll make it up anyway. Saying you don;t know to a journalist is not an option

i can agree with you there and no i don't talk to many journalists. in the past 5 years i have only been in the newspapers twice.

So basically we've had 4 pages of silly argument because you disagree with someone answering a journalists questions with a bit of innocent speculation?

again, i disagree with a lot of speculation as it just opens yourself up to looking foolish and your reputation suffers for it. so i don't think it is silly to talk about it. then in using such time frames, which also opens yourself up to losing credibility, is just not smart.

what this type of speculation does is muddy the waters, plant seeds of origin in the mindsof people which causes the loss of objectivity which undermines any claims scientists can make, corrupting the conclusions because the data has now been manipulated towards a certain end.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:17 am

okay since i am blamed for taking this thread down a wrong trail, i shall attempt to get it back on track . my opposition to the article was about the speculation that went on but let's lay that aside and concentrate on the footprints and how they relate to other sites found around the world?

were these lakes actual lakes or were they left remnants of a flooding (not to take this down a religious path)? what was important about these lakes? and what is the importance of this find?

then how do these dicoveries measure up to, say andi believe it is called, the Glen river discovery where there were footprints found alongside dinosaur prints?

don't worry i am not attempting to make any religious comparisons nor make this a religious discovery discussion in any way and hope to limit this to what people have observed and think about what has been found.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:50 am

Hopefully, they are a little more realistic than Glen Rose!

http://hometown.aol.com/ibss3/ibss3/paluxy.htm

There has been much false information given out by Carl Baugh (Creation Science Museum). The human footprint he bought is clearly a carving. The supposed wood is iron oxide. The supposed human finger is most likely a burrow filling. The large skeleton is just 200-300 years old and not part of the Cretaceous layer. The hammer in the rock, called the "London Artifact" is most likely a 19th century miner’s hammer (See above picture). His dinosaur claws are actually crocodile teeth. The supposed human tooth is a fish tooth. There are no clear human footprints in the Paluxy River except the ones that were carved which are anatomically wrong.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:33 pm

i remember the controverst about that site (justnot the name) and really never paid that much attention to it. but the following is why i do not like speculation, as it is just misleading and not even close to what the reality may be.

all they discovered was a neck, a back and a tailbone, sorry , tailboneS it is plural. which makes me skeptical right there. then with such little information they draw a picture, which makes it look like the ulk and spiderman on steroids:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... hotos.html

seen here in an artist's conception

why even bother with a drawing when there is no way of proving what it looked like, let alone concluding that the fossil could have survived for millions of years:

The new species, which lived about 70 million years ago,

i would like to see if anyone can answer my questions on the footprints as i would like to get a clearer picture on the site.