Posted on 07/31/2008 6:20:38 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
A slab of North Texas limestone is on track to rock the world, with its two imbedded footprints poised to make a huge impression in scientific and religious circles.
The estimated 140-pound stone was recovered in July 2000 from the bank of a creek that feeds the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas, located about 53 miles south of Fort Worth. The find was made just outside Dinosaur Valley State Park, a popular destination for tourists known for its well-preserved dinosaur tracks and other fossils.
The limestone contains two distinct prints – one of a human footprint and one belonging to a dinosaur. The significance of the cement-hard fossil is that it shows the dinosaur print partially over and intersecting the human print.
In other words, the stone’s impressions indicate that the human stepped first, the dinosaur second. If proven genuine, the artifact would provide evidence that man and dinosaur roamed the Earth at the same time, according to those associated with the find and with its safekeeping. It could potentially toss out the window many commonly held scientific theories on evolution and the history of the world.
Finding scholars and experts on evolution, paleontology or creationism to speak about the discovery proved difficult. Some who were contacted said they didn’t want to comment on the prints without a personal inspection or without review of data from scientific tests.
However, Dr. Phillip Murry, a vertebrate paleontology instructor in the Geoscience department of Tarleton State University at Stephenville, Texas, stated in his response to an interview request: “There has never been a proven association of dinosaur (prints) with human footprints.”
The longtime amateur archeologist who found the fossil thinks that statement is now proven untrue.
(Excerpt) Read more at mineralwellsindex.com ...
Fair enough, but surely you agree that the principle you describe in post # 43, which is a test of sorts, does not meet standards of a true scientific test. That is, it does not directly refute the evidence in question.
I have no argument with you then.
It’s a very interesting one, and a great mental exercise. Even if they aren’t able to accept any other possibility, it’s a fun exercise to consider. As you said, it’s just a question.
Yeah, well just look at that big toe!
About 225 million years ago is when the dinosaur showed up and hung around being pretty dominant for about !60 million years. Baugh, says he now has proof man and dinosaurs were around together and he thinks the prints are about 4,500 years old. As I recall they were wiped out by a comet. Except for the one that hung around at Mineral Wells for 65 million more years so it could get in this print.
We all knew that since the early 60s :)
Men and dinosaurs did indeed walk the earth together. Both were created on the sixth day.
We'll make it even easier. Show the fossil remains of any primate in the same rock stratum as a dinosaur.
Only according to mythology. The actual evidence indicates otherwise.
Of course belief enters into it.
Chaka Uganda Visassa
Selling the fakes to tourists and so forth while keeping the actual human footprints somewhere???
As your aunt may also confirm that the guy who hired locals for these carvings lived during the Depression and it would seem unlikely the gentleman in this article lived back then.
Agreed. The imprint of the distal phalanx of the great toe is deeper than the imprint of the ball of the foot formed by the head of the first metatarsal. This only occurs during running and will invariably cause blurring of the footprint, as the foot pushes off. The imprint is clear and the digits are well-defined.
I wouldn’t even label this a clever fake. It might fool a few slack-jawed hillbillies, but that’s all.
Unless they also produce a leash and collar, I'm not buying it......
Well, you have to account for the age of the footprint, and human evolution.
Oh, wait.......never mind.
It's just amazing that we only find fossils of certain kinds of dinosaurs in certain ages of rock, I suppose. What a coincidence.
Never any fossil remains with humans, or as dirtboy notes, even a primate. Heck, if man and dinosaurs were created on the sixth day, dinosaur fossils should be found next to cats, deer, pigeons, etc.
Why aren't they?
Considering the numbers, that would be quite a find, wouldn't it?
Why, out of all the billions of fossils and millions of species that have been cataloged to date, do you want to restrict attention to a tiny sliver of a sub phylum that amounts to perhaps only .01% of all fossils? Complex invertebrates, usually complete specimens, comprise the vast majority of fossils, roughly 95%. The remaining 5% consists mainly of plants and algae, %4.75; insects, 0.24%; vertebrates, mostly fish; .0125%. Of this minuscule sliver an even tinier sliver is left for the land-dwelling vertebrates, most of which are represented by a bone or less. Divide the minuscule sliver of land dwelling vertebrates even more to reduce the class to primates.
Not an easy task to find something like that.
Why do you restrict the sample so severely to prove your point? With the numbers 99.99% in your favor, shouldn't it be easier by many orders of magnitude to produce any fossil remains, say for example, of a transitional leading up to the complex invertebrates, and between invertebrates and vertebrates? Those must have been huge events in earth's history. Surely you can show some fossil remains that clearly demonstrate those transitions?
Cordially,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.