"So pseudoscience debunked by more pseudoscience? There appears no real answer. The prints have been worn away and left to interpretation.
Regardless, this Lunar impact hypothesis does not need any more evidence than has already been presented. There is no other mechanism to produce the topography and it explains our loss of technology and history and every detail of the events 12,900 years ago. This is the inspiration behind the story of 'The Great Deluge'."
Of course ichnology is not pseudo science!! Why would you make such a claim? Do you specialize in trace fossils yourself? How perfectly silly to claim the Paluxy prints are unsolved. In addition, you qualify your observation by then saying "regardless". Regardless??? But you just used their supposed reality to buttress your argument! How can you then toss them aside with "regardless"? You are the one who wanted to use them as evidence!!! Regardless??? Apparently, when their true nature is explained, your reply amounts to "eh, so what". And this passes as the scientific methodology for you? really??? The actual footprint can show in any number of ways. Some lighter theropods walking in water will not show the heel print, but just the toes, etc. not every print is perfectly flat with the entire outline with toes, heel, etc. you reply with no evidence to support human footprint and you pretend to be enough of a specialist in ichnology, apparently, that you can just dismiss these studies out of hand?
Tell you what. I always found the fact that so many mammals became smaller despite so many of great size existing in the Cenazoic Era to be interesting. However, now having seen your reply to ichnology and your decision that the Paluxy tracks are still actually open to interpretation, demonstrates to me that it is actually you engaged in the practice of pseudoscience. Certainly at least where footprint "evidence" is concerned. Your stand on that issue alone proves to me that your are actually not interested in approaching this item objectively, which, since a I have little else to go on in judging your theory, leads me to suspect a close examination will demonstrate taking shortcuts and dismissing good science(ichnology and the Paluxy tracks) is likely to be found elsewhere in your thinking as well. Always fun looking at things like this, though, thanks for sharing your ideas. However, your easy embrace of the Pauloxy prints must cast doubts, for me, on anything else you claim.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm
"For many years claims were made by "young-earth" creationists (YECs) 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 non-avian 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, the resulting depressions often superficially resemble large human footprints. 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)."
And here is Kuban's original paper on these dinosaur prints:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/elong.htm
BTW, I can't find anyplace where I said "Kalopin is a creationist". And I'm not basing any comments based on that assumption. I have left links that have discussed creationism because they are simply a part of the conversation where the Paluxy prints are concerned, not because I think you are a creationist yourself.
