Vandals use hammer to smash 115-million-year-old dinosaur footprint at Australian national park

The Telgraph ^ | 12/20/17 | Jonathan Pearlman

[Simon Green]

(Parks Victoria released a photo on December 20, which shows a dinosaur footprint after it was damaged by vandals at Flat Rocks near Melbourne)

Vandals used a hammer to smash a 115-million-year-old three-toed dinosaur footprint in a national park in Australia. Park rangers at the Bunurong Marine Park discovered the damage to the theropod footprint while taking a school group on a tour.

The one-foot wide print was found in 2006 and deliberately left in place to allow visitors to see it in its natural state in one of the world’s few ice-age dinosaur sites.

"It is so disappointing,” Parks Victoria ranger Brian Martin told ABC News.

“It's a popular, significant site. The rock there is reasonably hard so it looks like it's been hit with a hammer and pieces of the rock around the edge of the footprint have been broken away.”

The identity of the culprits and the possible motive remain unknown, but it appears the vandals were familiar with the footprint.

“For someone to damage it intentionally, you'd have to have a rough idea of where it is because seaweed grows on the rock platform and it looks like a normal rock until you look closely and see the outline of the footprint," Mr Martin said.

(The footprint before it was smashed)

Broken fragments of the print were found on the surrounding rock platform in which it is embedded.

Palaeontologists made a silicon rubber mould of the print after it was discovered. It is hoped that technicians will be able to restore the print.

The national park, east of Melbourne, was once roamed by at least six different types of carnivorous dinosaurs.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Smaller due to drastically less oxygen in the atmosphere.

People used to be 20-23 feet tall in Noah’s time.
.

[WayneS]

I see. And where are the fossilized remains of these people who used to be 20 feet tall?

[Simon Green]

People used to be 20-23 feet tall in Noah’s time.

[Bob434]

nope didn’t confuse anything- their ‘measurements’ for the universe keep changing Drastically- assuming the fact that they can’t fairly precisely measure the age of universe,e there is no reason to think their measurements of earth are any more credible- We can get into the problems with all the various measurement systems - but suffice iot to say- every single method of measuring is seriously flawed, dates are always thrown out which do not conform to the opinion, and the OPinions of dates based on these flawed results is just that- opinions about how old the earth is, and how old the universe is-

[editor-surveyor]

.
I believe the physical evidence!

The submerged cities along the Black sea and Atlantic and Pacific oceans show that much of the water was contained in the ice at one time, and as it melted they went under.

The ancient philosophers all spoke of it.

The Bible contains geneologies that give us the age of the Earth, as well as the plain text of Tanakh tells us so.

[Salamander]

Well, everything but the buckle is still up there.
Bring a shovel and a big truck.

:D

[editor-surveyor]

.
Buildings tell the story on the height of the builders of them.

[Simon Green]

nope didn’t confuse anything

Then why did you conflate the age of the Earth with that of the universe?

assuming the fact that they can’t fairly precisely measure the age of universe,e

It's currently dated to 4 significant figures. How "precise" do you expect it to be?

[editor-surveyor]

.
“Starlight and Time” is the best treatise on the subject.

When the creation was expanded, time itself was expanded with it. From its point of origin (somewhere near us) it is still 6017 years old.
.

[Bob434]

lol=- ‘precise’? 4 different figures? varying by billions?

while carbon dating has a modicum of accuracy, the methods used to date beyond a few thousand years are seriously flawed- and as mentioned, dates not resulting in support of the opinion are thrown out, and there apepars to many that are thrown out- You can ind out how seriously flawed they are yourself- the info is readily available- so when you say ‘precise’ what exactly do you mean?

I didn’t conflate anything- the point is that scientists fudge numbers to fit the opinion, and their methods of dating are anything but precise or even close to being precise- There is also a great deal of evidence that counters their claims- so no degree of precision is even remotely possible- The age of universe keeps changing by billions of years- there is no reason to think that the science that can’t narrow it down to less than billions in the universe is capable of using methods to date the age of earth with seriously flawed methods of dating any more accurately-

[editor-surveyor]

.
You might just get a fool to clean your attic for free!
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Need more time?

Just invent it!
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Noah’s grave is in Turkey.
.

[WayneS]

Does that mean the St. Louis Arch is 2,000 years old?

;-)

[Bob434]

[[Then why did you conflate the age of the Earth with that of the universe?]]

Woops- i see what you are talking about- yes- I did assume you meant universe- my bad- however, the accuracy points I brought up comparing dating methods for both, and the inaccuracy of both, still stand

[MD Expat in PA]

Buildings tell the story on the height of the builders of them.

I used to live in a 100-year-old house with 12 ft. ceilings. Does that mean that people 100 years ago were at least 10 ft. tall?

Not to mention the incredible height of the men who build the Empire State Building and the World Trade Towers. They must have been ginormous.

[Bob434]

youtube has a couple videos on starlight and time expanding/ slowing- Can’t remember who it was? Humphries? He had a very interesting take on the issue-

[Simon Green]

lol=- ‘precise’? 4 different figures?

I didn't say 4 different figures, I said 4 significant figures. Do you not know what the term means?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures

A measurement that is precise to 4 significant figures has a measurement resolution of 9,999 parts in 10,000. In other words, it's no more than 0.01% "off" from the actual figure.

varying by billions?

Varying by ±0.021 billion. Rather less than "billions".

while carbon dating has a modicum of accuracy, the methods used to date beyond a few thousand years are seriously flawed

Who mentioned carbon dating? The age of the universe has been measured using studies of the microwave background radiation, ameasurements by the Planck satellite, and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (among others).

I didn’t conflate anything

You conflated the age of the Earth with that of the universe.

[Daffynition]

Hard to tell, they are sitting down. :)

[Simon Green]

Yeesh. I get vertigo just looking at that.