Free Republic

We need to devote our time to telling others what a relationship with Christ can do for their lives NOW and in their eternal future, not trying to convince them that the earth is 6,000 or 10,000 or 4.5 billion years old. Forget the debate about the age of the earth because that's just getting in the way. Let's put things in perspective and stick to the important topic of how Jesus can change people's lives when they accept him as Lord and Saviour. People need to personally know Jesus, not listen to debates on how old the earth is.

___________________________________
Boy. what a wonderful insulated life you all have. Not one of you has probably worked with any secular scientist to understand the extent of the damage caused by your hostile antagonisms against the numerous disciplines that have anything to do with cosmology. Hack, hack, hack away--call them evil evolutionists. Impinge their character. Warn your kids not to take any of the evil sciences, especially anthropology or paleontology. Let a huge segment of scientific society go to hell---leave them no witness. Do you guys even police yourselves? What about the Kent Hovinds, the Carl Baughs, the Don Pattens, of Christian academia? These are the ones most vocal, and these are your representatives of creationism to everybody I work with. And what about me? Are my comments not even worth a reply? An active thread killed by a mystery man? Are my comments too compelling for you to even answer? Is this how you witness to professionals who are interested in joining a debate? To some one who longs for dialog with any Christian scientists? No comments on the fraud that is promoted by your own crationists? Not one word of warning to anyone reading these threads? Not even a word of warning about me? Just silence. So be it. I seem to remember a verse that says that in the last days men will seek teachers in accordance with their own desires, tickling their ears. Let me add another one: "Always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. Hummmmmm. Let's play ring around the issues. Lets dialog until someone comes with real meat. Then lets hope he goes away. We'll give him the silent treatment. Oh--maybe you are upset about my response to the 19 posts you sent after I exposed the Las Cruces human track as a hoax--one I dare say was promoted as fact on another thread in your forum. You guys mentioned my name. How do you think I found the forum in the first place? Oh I get it. No response but sarcasm and snippits. I wrote a careful and scientific comment to the Las Cruces "human track" at the end of that thread and not a word back. In fact, you answer the ones who continue to promote fraud, and hurl sarcastic barbs at the one exposing it.

I remember another verse--a smooth (lit. kind answer) turns away wrath. Even Solomon couldn't imagine someone getting no answer.

Well it worked. There are no ambassadors for Christ to be found on this thread. Apparently I, along with your hoaxters, are not even worthy of a rebuke. "Tell us a lie, you say, "and we will respond to you." Tell us that everything is great within creationist dogma. Tell us that thousands of scientists are okay being unchurched and unreached. Well, I don't share your lack of concern. I'll wotk alone with the Holy Spirit as my teacher. I'll be an ambassador for Christ. And when those evil evolutionists who know of my work and discoveries see the frauds presented, and not one rebuke, I'll just tell them the truth. They know me. They will listen to me.

Sin caused death, not spiritual death, but death of any kind, according to Romans 5. With out that sin and death, Christ himself would not be required. Salvation it self is in question if we spiritualize the age of the earth.

________________________________________
Why haven't creationists celebrated dinosaurs with the same kind of unbridled enthusiasm as the secularists? Look at the creationist literature. The vast body of evidence presented is in the form of children's books, because none of them have any type of experience or theological argument that goes past the reductionist statement"they all died in the flood of Noah." The real reason behind the dearth of Christian scholarship on dinosaurs is because, like you, most creationists dinosaurs were not created as they presently appear, and as such were not part of God's original creation. Herbivorous ancestral species were created, but none were carnivorous. Thus the first problem the discovery of dinosaurs created in these peoples minds was how to further reconcile the abundant fossil evidence scattered all over the world that reveal terrifying carnivorous monsters like Tyrannosaurus (N. Amer.; China), Carnotaurus, Giganotasaurus, Allosaurus, Carcarodontosaurus ad infinitum, with the apparent Scriptural teachings about the absence of death, pain, suffering, and carnovorism in the originally created earth. Here's Walt Brown's comment:

"Before the fall nature was a paradise with no pain, death, decay, aging, carnivores nor omnivores were known. Before the fall there was a relationship between man and animals quite different from that which we know today, which is based largely on fear." (In the Beginning, 1996; pg 197)

Or Smith and Wilder:
"Early animals were herbivores (plant eaters). After either the fall or the flood, some became carnivores." (Man's Origin; Man's Destiny: A Critical survey of the Principles of Evolution and Christianity. 1974. Pg. 290) Obviously, if these statements are correct, and the interpretations that they present of certain Scripture passages accurate, then God could not have created carnivores in His creative endeavors listed in the first two chapters of Genesis. Then where did they come from?

Premise one: Carnivores are a result of the fall of Adam and Eve. Young-earth creationists believe that carnivorism, as represented within the world's elaborate food chain, is a corrupt end product of a fallen living creation. They further believe that dinosaurs, more than any other created beings, bore the full brunt of the corrupting influences of human sin upon the world. Therefore, to dare propose hat these animals, as they now appear with "tooth and claw" (see my other posts), were part of the original good creation is a belief that smacks of heresy. Morris explains:

"In the first place, we are told that "God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good." This is the seventh time in the chapter that God pronounced His creative works "good." Thus, any evidences of disorder, of antagonisms, of suffering, of decay, of struggle, and above all, of death, which we now see in the present world or in the records of the past, cannot possibly be attributed to anything occurring during the six days of creation. Something happened after creation to bring these into the world." (The beginning of the world, pg. 28.

But with this as a tenet of creationism, there is a huge contradiction presented when one considers all the fossil evidence, and especially those pertaining to the dinosaurs, for from their first appearance in the fossil record, we find carnivores. In fact, some fossils of dinosaurs even have their last meal preserved within their bellys. So if God did not create the horrific carnivores found within the fossil record in the first six days of Genesis one, where did they all come from. How did they emerge? Morris' next sentence reads:

"By man came death. (1 Corinthians 15:21). Thus fossils of former living creatures, preserved in the rocks of the earth's crust could not have been buried either before or during the creation period." (ibid. pg 29)

So let it be written......so let it be done. Is this the end of the argument?

Sin caused death, not spiritual death, but death of any kind, according to Romans 5. With out that sin and death, Christ himself would not be required. Salvation it self is in question if we spiritualize the age of the earth.

________________________________________
Why haven't creationists celebrated dinosaurs with the same kind of unbridled enthusiasm as the secularists? Look at the creationist literature. The vast body of evidence presented is in the form of children's books, because none of them have any type of experience or theological argument that goes past the reductionist statement"they all died in the flood of Noah." The real reason behind the dearth of Christian scholarship on dinosaurs is because, like you, most creationists dinosaurs were not created as they presently appear, and as such were not part of God's original creation. Herbivorous ancestral species were created, but none were carnivorous. Thus the first problem the discovery of dinosaurs created in these peoples minds was how to further reconcile the abundant fossil evidence scattered all over the world that reveal terrifying carnivorous monsters like Tyrannosaurus (N. Amer.; China), Carnotaurus, Giganotasaurus, Allosaurus, Carcarodontosaurus ad infinitum, with the apparent Scriptural teachings about the absence of death, pain, suffering, and carnovorism in the originally created earth. Here's Walt Brown's comment:

"Before the fall nature was a paradise with no pain, death, decay, aging, carnivores nor omnivores were known. Before the fall there was a relationship between man and animals quite different from that which we know today, which is based largely on fear." (In the Beginning, 1996; pg 197)

Or Smith and Wilder:
"Early animals were herbivores (plant eaters). After either the fall or the flood, some became carnivores." (Man's Origin; Man's Destiny: A Critical survey of the Principles of Evolution and Christianity. 1974. Pg. 290) Obviously, if these statements are correct, and the interpretations that they present of certain Scripture passages accurate, then God could not have created carnivores in His creative endeavors listed in the first two chapters of Genesis. Then where did they come from?

Premise one: Carnivores are a result of the fall of Adam and Eve. Young-earth creationists believe that carnivorism, as represented within the world's elaborate food chain, is a corrupt end product of a fallen living creation. They further believe that dinosaurs, more than any other created beings, bore the full brunt of the corrupting influences of human sin upon the world. Therefore, to dare propose hat these animals, as they now appear with "tooth and claw" (see my other posts), were part of the original good creation is a belief that smacks of heresy. Morris explains:

"In the first place, we are told that "God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good." This is the seventh time in the chapter that God pronounced His creative works "good." Thus, any evidences of disorder, of antagonisms, of suffering, of decay, of struggle, and above all, of death, which we now see in the present world or in the records of the past, cannot possibly be attributed to anything occurring during the six days of creation. Something happened after creation to bring these into the world." (The beginning of the world, pg. 28.

But with this as a tenet of creationism, there is a huge contradiction presented when one considers all the fossil evidence, and especially those pertaining to the dinosaurs, for from their first appearance in the fossil record, we find carnivores. In fact, some fossils of dinosaurs even have their last meal preserved within their bellys. So if God did not create the horrific carnivores found within the fossil record in the first six days of Genesis one, where did they all come from. How did they emerge? Morris' next sentence reads:

"By man came death. (1 Corinthians 15:21). Thus fossils of former living creatures, preserved in the rocks of the earth's crust could not have been buried either before or during the creation period." (ibid. pg 29)

So let it be written......so let it be done. Is this the end of the argument?

Sin caused death, not spiritual death, but death of any kind, according to Romans 5. With out that sin and death, Christ himself would not be required. Salvation it self is in question if we spiritualize the age of the earth.

________________________________________
Why haven't creationists celebrated dinosaurs with the same kind of unbridled enthusiasm as the secularists? Look at the creationist literature. The vast body of evidence presented is in the form of children's books, because none of them have any type of experience or theological argument that goes past the reductionist statement"they all died in the flood of Noah." The real reason behind the dearth of Christian scholarship on dinosaurs is because, like you, most creationists dinosaurs were not created as they presently appear, and as such were not part of God's original creation. Herbivorous ancestral species were created, but none were carnivorous. Thus the first problem the discovery of dinosaurs created in these peoples minds was how to further reconcile the abundant fossil evidence scattered all over the world that reveal terrifying carnivorous monsters like Tyrannosaurus (N. Amer.; China), Carnotaurus, Giganotasaurus, Allosaurus, Carcarodontosaurus ad infinitum. Walt Brown explains:
"Before the fall nature was a paradise with no pain, death, decay, aging, carnivores nor omnivores were known. Before the fall there was a relationship between man and animals quite different from that which we know today, which is based largely on fear." (In the Beginning, 1996; pg 197)

Or Smith and Wilder:
"Early animals were herbivores (plant eaters). After either the fall or the flood, some became carnivores." (Man's Origin, Man's Destiny...1974. pg.290. Obviously, if these statements are correct, and the interpretations that they present of certain Scripture passages accurate, then God could not have created carnivores in His creative endeavors listed in the first two chapters of Genesis. Then where did they come from?

Premise one: Carnivores are a result of the fall of Adam and Eve.
Young-earth creationists believe that carnivorism, as represented within the world's elaborate food chain, is a corrupt end product of a fallen living creation. They further believe that dinosaurs, more than any other created beings, bore the full brunt of the corrupting influences of human sin upon the world. Therefore, to dare propose hat these animals, as they now appear with "tooth and claw" (see my other posts), were part of the original good creation is a belief that smacks of heresy. Morris explains:

"In the first place, we are told that "God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good." This is the seventh time in the chapter that God pronounced His creative works "good." Thus, any evidences of disorder, of antagonisms, of suffering, of decay, of struggle, and above all, of death, which we now see in the present world or in the records of the past, cannot possibly be attributed to anything occurring during the six days of creation. Something happened after creation to bring these into the world." (The beginning of the world, pg. 28.)

But with this as a tenet of creationism, there is a huge contradiction presented when one considers all the fossil evidence, and especially those pertaining to the dinosaurs, for from their first appearance in the fossil record, we find carnivores. In fact, some fossils of dinosaurs even have their last meal preserved within their belles. So if God did not create the horrific carnivores found within the fossil record in the first six days of Genesis one, where did they all come from. How did they emerge? Morris' next sentence reads:

"By man came death. (1 Corinthians 15:21). Thus fossils of former living creatures, preserved in the rocks of the earth's crust could not have been buried either before or during the creation period." (ibid. pg 29)

So let it be written......so let it be done. Is this the end of the argument?

No reading of these passages can infer, imply, or somehow suggest that it is not a 24 hour period. You choose to refuse it not by the Word of God as it is written, but by the knowledge of fallible man. You are interpreting the Bible through the lens of man's current understanding that is subject to change.
_________________________________

Some bible expositors are unwilling to allow for more expansive views that incorporate scientific discovery into creationist dogma, so they promote an unscientific stance that in some cases can appear to be quite intolerant. Check out H. Morris:

"We need...to recognize plainly that the biblical "days" of creation were real days, such as we know them today, and cannot possibly be equated with the"ages" of the so-called historical geology. This should not trouble us scientifically, since we have already seen that science, as such, is utterly incapable of telling us anything about creation. Science deals only with present processes, with reproducible experiments, and present processes are not processes of creation. We prefer, therefore, simply to let God's word speak for itself concerning what happened in the creation period." (The creation of the world. 1977. pg 24).

Morris plays scientific evidence against scriptural truth as if they were forever at odds and opposed to one another. I find this attitude impossible to support. The underpinnings of Morris' consistent unscientific stand hinges, then, not on what is evident from creation, but from what is not.
Let me illustrate. Nowhere is this philosophy more bankrupt than when it comes to ideas about the age of the earth. The apparent old age of the earth is clearly problematic to those who accept the young earth premise. Yet the young earth creationists, like Morris, are the first to admit that the earth does indeed look old. (Please note. They have invented this idea. It was not invented by evolutionists, atheists, or santa clause.) So in order to reconcile the evidence of an old earth with their ideology that the earth is young they have come up with the novel idea of "creation with apparent age." This idea proposes to argue that God made the earth appear to be billions of years old when He actually created it 6,000 years ago. This is a remarkable concession to the overwhelming scientific evidence of an old earth, and it is one that should trouble those who believe they must reject the evidence of age in order to keep alive the unsubstantiated belief in a 6,000 year-old-earth. Remarkably, Morris and others must acknowledge that their belief is the one least supported by science. What is a scientific creationist, then? If Morris is right and science really can't tell us anything about creation per se, why should we expect to find any evidence for a young earth? Let's consider Morris again:

"On the same day, God caused vegetation to cover the dry land, grasses and herbs were already bearing seed and the trees already yielding fruit, as soon as they appeared. This further implies that the "dry land" which had just previously come forth from the waters was already prepared with suitable soils and nutrients for the plants. Everything was created in fully developed, completely funcioning form. The whole world thus had an "appearance of age," even though newly created. Creation of apparent age is inherent in the very concept of creation. No deception is involved, since God has plainly told us these events of creation." (ibid. pg 25.)

Can't anybody go back to the first step to see why they find themselves so very far down the wrong road? If this issue is "plain" why all the uproar? The lack of evidence for a young earth contrasts so sharply with the abundant evidence of the real age of the earth that the two can never be harmonized--at least not scientifically. Morris suggests that God deliberately made the earth look billions of years old when it was born 6,000 years ago. Decades of promoting this belief has undoubtedly engendered the cry from everybody who hears of it that some type of heavenly deception is afoot. Morris has to deal with that problem, hence his comment at the end of his statement.

What is troubling to me as a paleontologist is that when one studies the formations of earth, we indeed do not see evidence of a young earth, because page upon page of God's natural history book is replete with information that go back much farther than 6,000 years. What we are supposed to believe is that God wrote into these geological layers a clear, moment by moment, history of events spanning millions if not billions of years in an instant. This concept is so fantastic that it is impossible to grasp by anyone who has ventured out into God's garden and read His book, layer by layer, like I have. Morris can only resort to a demand to "believe" an idea that overrules the scientific evidence of an old earth. Morris again:

"Recognition of the necessity for creation of "apparent age" and of a "finished creation" will go far toward resolving the apparent scientific conflict between the Bible account of creation and the supposed great age of the earth and the universe." (ibid, pg 29.)

LET ME CATEGORICALLY STATE THAT MORRIS' CLAIM DOES NOT HARMONIZE SCIENCE WITH THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF CREATION, BUT MISSING SCIENCE WITH HIS YOUNG-EARTH THEORY.

Those that, like me, do not accept the necessary tenet of the apparent age of heaven and earth have no problem. For the heavens and the earth look old because they are old. There is no divine mandate whereby any Christian is obligated to believe this. All readers must understand that this premise is an absolute theological disaster that has created so many false teachings that the gospel of Christ has been hindered, regardless of whether the creation account is a big issue or not, among a huge pool of professionals, who would otherwise be open to the Gospel. When they find out what young-earth creationists believe about science, why should I expect them to believe the ridiculous story that a man rose from the dead? If young earth creationists like Morris use the same logic employed in the apparent age dogma with the account of the resurrection of Christ, all Christian apologetics would collapse.

Christ didn't really rise from the dead. It only appeared that he did.

you still have the problem of death before sin...what did Jesus die for...sin...why was the world created with sin in it??? it wasn't, Adam introduced sin...was Adam real?

could a "very good" world have the stench of rotting corpses, cancer and dismemberment of man and animals in it?
_____________________________________


Perhaps it is time that a paleontologist chime in on the issue. Paleontology has become a very diverse science that cover numerous evidences with direct bearing on issues that cover the age of the earth. While there are numerous pontifications declaring unequivocally that the earth is 6,000 years old and that everything terrestrial and astrological were created in 6 days (Note: literally the sun moon, stars, and constellations, and all of their dynamic interrelationships were created in twelve hours, not 6 days), Efforts to prove this point paleontologially have centered on two primary issues:

1) Co-habitation of humans and all life forms found in the fossil record
2) Death (i.e. extinction)

These two are obviously interrelated and have to be proved with regard to a specific time frame. For the evolutionists, as much time as he thinks he needs he gets, but the young-earthers are constrained to six 24-hour days and a total age of all material in the universe to 6,000 years.

It needs to be stressed that the young earther time frame is self imposed and is based upon a particular interpretation of the Genesis account, buttressed with secondary sources throughout the Bible. Still, it is an interpretation and can only garner scientifc dogmatism through the discovery and interpretation of objective physical evidence.

On the other hand, evolutionists have issues to deal wiih as well. They too need the variable of time in order to posit their points. They have an advantage over the young earthers in the sense that their time constraints do not need beginning or end points. Five billion years is a relative term in the sense that all time has at the very least beginning points.
The beginning point may be certain only through human measurement, while the end point is continually changing. Five billion years from what? We may say the big bang, but what is your reference point for its beginning. It is only 5 billion years referenced from human time. Thus we become the end point, and that end point is constantly changing. If I believe tomorrow what I believe today, the age of the earth is now one day older. Interestingly, the creationists have solved this problem of time by quoting Genesis "In the beginning God created." So they do have a begin point that the naturalistic evolutionists will never find. In other words while the age of the earth has increased dramically from tens of thousands, to hundreds of thousands, to millions, and hundreds of millions, to billions, and so on and so forth, by the naturalistic evolutionist, the creationists time frame is still exactly what it was when Bishop Usshur (sic) "scientifically" through counting all the geneologies in the Bible came up with ----- 6,000 years.

Therefore, it must be that all animals and all plants that ever are and ever were lived together, and though scripturally (through the young earth perspective) they were not created contemporaneously, the first occurrance of life seperated from the creation of man by no less than 72 hours. Such a difference in time can never be measured in any significant way and so it is assumed by all that they were essentially created together.

Several points must be stressed: Firstly, The young-earth creationist perspective was firmly in place before two important discoveries took place in the 19th century: The discovery of dinosaurs, and the fact of extinction. In fact, the discovery of the one lead to the conclusion of the other. It was immediately obvious that the discovery of dinosaur bone, both articulated and scattered, stunned both camps.

The presence of gigantic reptilian beasts that lived on land, in the seas, and flew, represented a challenge to the status quo in a number of significant areas. Where did such monsters come from? Why did they get so big? Why were so many of them ferocious carnivores? Why are there no creatures like them on earth today? These and other questions required answers from both secular and religious academics. These questions are still difficult to answer, even today, for while we have advanced significantly in our ideas as to what dinosaurs looked like, and to a lesser degree, how they behaved, questions surrounding their biological origins and their untimely demise are much harder to answer.

From an evolutionary point of view, dinosaurs represent such a dramatic advance over anything previously thought ot have existed on earth, that explaning their remarkable structural and bio-mechanical characterristics strain logic. It's one thing to find evidence of the existence of a bigger bear, or a longer whale, or a larger shellfish, but to find a whole race of animals, of a size and composition that have no familiar representatives alive today, was a startling discovery, for it implied extinction on a global scale.

Secular and religious academics reacted to the discovery of dinosaurs very differently. Secular scientists, enamored with the freshly brewed ideas of classical evolution, as described and explained by Charles Darwin, sought to incorporate the dinosaurs into newly developing evolutionary beliefs. Religious academics, for the most part, used the hardened skeletal remains of dinosaurs as evidence of the horrrors and all-encompasing nature of the Biblical flood of Noah.

Early on, evolutionists were faced with the problem of explaining, in non-catastrophic terms (thereby distancing themselves from invoking the catastrophe of Noah's flood), their sudden and dramatic demise. For the dinosaurs, as big and as grand as they were, died, without leaving a living trace behind whereby one could have anticipated their prior existence. Sincee this was true, it appeared to be an evolutionary dead end. But more importantly, if evolution was energized by survival of the fittest, then the dinosaurs seemed to prove that the fittest died. For they were bigger, stronger, and more adaptable, even by modern standards, than anything else that emerged on earth, iincluding mammals and man. And even though their carcasses were found on every continent, and in every kind of environmental niche, they still inexplicably died.

But there was no celebration for the creationists,for extinction was not at all in their vocabulary. Before the dinosaur discoveries, extinction for a creationist meant the termination of larger representatives of contemporaneous species -- that is, biggerr birds, bears, camels, wolves, and the like. But now there was a whole race of creatures that had never before been known to exist, and they were all wiped out to a beast.

I have written this long polemic to get to this point: We must consider what impact the presence and composition of the fossils of dinosaurs and other extinct reptiles has had on the Biblical creationists theology -- specifically as they relate to ideas of paradise (Eden), the fall of man, the subsequent curse, and the Noachian deluge. Additionally, what does their discovery mean for the prevailing views about the age of the earth? Finally what did the discovery of the extinction of these animals mean to the idea of the creation and preservation of species?

Listen to Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in their 1961 edition of The Genesis Flood:

"Uniformitarian paleontology, of course, dates the formation of the major fossiliferous strata many scores and hundreds of millions of years before the appearance of human beings on the earth. It assumes that uncounted billions of animals had experienced natural of violent deaths before the fall of Adam; that many important kinds of animals had long since become extinct by the time God created Adam to have dominion over every living creature;and that long ages before the edenic curse giant flesh-eating monsters like Tyrannosaurus Rex roamed the earth,slashing their victims with ferocious dagger-like teeth and claws. But how can such an iinterpretation of the history of the animal kingdom be reconciled with the early chapters of Genesis? Does the book of Genesis, honestly studied in the light of the New Testament, allow for a reign of tooth and claw and death and destruction before the fall of Adam?" (Pg 454-455).

See what I mean?

I will write more later.

The use of fossil footprints in the creation/evolution debate has centered primarily on the Puluxy river dinosaur tracks. I deal very extensively on these tracks in my book "Earth's First Steps." Roland Bird found some dino tracks in a rock shop in NW New Mexico. At the time, the science of Ichnology was young and basically the playground of folk scientists. The owner of the shop was impressed with Roland's interest and said the proverbial "Get a load a This!" From the back room came a large slab with a "human print." The owner claimed it was found in the same strata anbd in close proximity to the dino tracks. But Birde was unimpressed. He could see that the print was a hoax, but playing along, he was able to convince the owner to take him to the Puluxy tracks. Once there, the wonder of the site was immediately evident to Bird. Creationists argue that Roland Bird (at the time he was affilitated with the American Museum of Nat Hist in NY) dismissed the "man tracks" because of his evolutionary bias. In fact, this is a common comment by creationists if anyone fails to see the "reality" of any evidence that they propose. But the answer is as obvious as the photo of the so-called man tracks that have miraculously emerged from the area of my excavations. They are an obvious fraud. Now here is something neat. Expecting such a miracle emerging, I and a collegue filmed and photographed the limestone bedrock and the indentations. They were indeed fascinating. On many of my guided tours to the site we would pause at the limestone bed and look at the pseudotracks. What "Dr" Patton and others don't tell you is that there are litterally dozens of indentations on the 100 ft long limestone bed leading up to my main excavation site. These indentations litteraly represent hundreds of shapes, and it is certainly possible that one could find a shape that would tickle anybodies fancy. For example, there is one indentation that looks like an elephant print. Others that look a someone wearing mocasins. Still others that look like a tripod impression. But none that represent any symmetry of locomotion in any type of trackway. Now the constraints I and any paleontologist worth his salt must adhere to regarding trackway research is that 5 consecutive prints need to be seen in order to build a compelling case concerning who the trackmaker was, and how it walked. I can guarantee you that there are no consecutives associated with the "patten" track. I have taught loads of people the difference between real trackways and pseudo tracks by comparing the limestone bed wiith the hundreds of remarkable tracks and trails I discovered about 1/4 mile past the bed. Every single person viewing the limestone indentations and my trackways could immediately see the difference. Even kids. Being formally trained in my doctoral work at the university of virginia in the sociology of science and religion, I was certain that in time the limestone pits would show up in the pseudoliterature of the fringe creationist groups. I knew of this fraud quite a while ago, but I have noticed that there has been an upsurge in adherance to it.

A second point. And a better one. The problematica that I discovered, one of the best of which can be pictured in the Smithsonian Magazine report (July 1992). Clearly mammalian in shape, with a style of locomotion similar to a bear -- the pidgeon-toed front feet, the universally depressed tracks, the appearance of nails, not claws. And five consecutives. I call them mammal-like, and the trackmaker is mysterious. But, There is only one trackway like this out of the thousands of tracks and trails that I have excavated. Osteologically, the vast majority (99.9 percent) of these trails match all the animals believed to have existed in the Early Permian. Here this and think about it: Before my excavations, which cover an ancient shoreline perhaps 100 or so miles long, the sediments containing the tracks were identified as Permian in age. There were no excavations conducted in this area for trackways. The sediments were dated through index fossils (marine invertebrates which are abundant in the limestone. The same limestone that the so-called human track was found. Many of these fossils occurred at deptth under the sea when alive, so I ask you, how the heck could there be one lone human track under the sea that is associated wih shells and other sea creatures that thrive at depth? You see, real science must identify the context whereby the human track is found, and must also provide systematics so that we can see that indeed that is a walking human, like the remarkable human trail fouund in Africa. Secondly, since all the tracks found by me were imprinted in terrestrial sediments, and represent fully terrestrialized reptiles and a small group of terrestrialized amphibians, along with shore-dwelling bivalves and other shoreline invertebrates, wouldn't it make sense that the man track be found in the abundant terrestrialized sediments, and not in the marine sediments? After all, the terestrialized sediments are just around he bend. I guess Patton and others must believe that this one track was imprinted by a lone human sunbather who went out for a swim. But their picture does not in the least show a swimming trace. And the so-called experiment done to recreate the enviornment that the track was found in was terrestrally produced. What are the odds of one lone track made underwater surviving the floood of Noah? And if it was the only one tthat did, then why are there thousands of tracks and trails of reptiles and amphibians that did along the shoreline? There are a number of very special conditions that need to exist in order for tracks and trails to be preserved, the most obvious one being a deformable surface and very gentile burial. Why doesn't Pattan go to the gulf and show us human tracks of people caught in the violent flood of huricane Katrina.

More later!
Cheers.

I have found the missing link!!! It was very hard to find it for there were no transitional posts to connect ot to. The title is five misconceptions about evolution. In it there are using my discoveries to boilster their claims.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b025c194544.htm

Now look.......I read your comments as carefully as a roswellian (or is it orwellian) can. I really thought that sarcasm was one of the requirements for joining this august (or is it March) forum. I don't believe that it is possible to hurt the feelings of those of us descended from algae (is your first name Matt?) I can get real sarcastic. All in good fun. I don't belong here in the wilderness of New Mexico --- was raised somewhere else ---- not sure where, my ancestors did not develop the ability to speak until after the ice age. But I'll get 'em to talk. U betcha there. Oh ya. I am happy to trade linguistic poopydoopy for a few introductory posts, then perhaps the cream of the crop, (the gas emmisions in the slime?) can rise above the heights of terra firma and wax wonderful.

I will find the posts and provide a link. Right now it is missing. (I couldn't resist)

So there are 16 troglodites and 1 human response. You're right. This is certainly not a creationist site! I didn't think it was. Did I say it was? Heaven forbid! Oh, that's right....there is no heaven associated with this forum. Well then, to hell with you all. Oh, there's no hell either. Just tired Lennon groupies imagining over and over and over..... All seriousness aside, You certainly did seem to have a battle on your hands back in 2002. I've got to go back and find the thread myself. Your forum came up on a search I did on updating published research on my discoveries (real--not imagined) though I do live about 120 miles from roswell. I am surprised fred flintstone has not made the claim that the tracks I found were alien. You all seem to be so interesting--- those desending from blue-green algae (a slimeball?) and a few evolutionary dead-ends among the respondents! This cross-section of evolutionary progress is remarkable. All living in a free republic, no less. I don't consider my father to be a slime-ball, I'm still debating the point.