Prehistoric footprints.

originally posted by: Raggedyman


As opposed to you having all the answers or science having all the answers or your own confirmation bias.

As for me believing man walked with dinosaurs, yes

Are crocodiles dinosaurs, havnt there been accounts of many lake monsters.

No crocodiles are not dinosaurs. They share a common ancestor with dinosaurs and are about as closely related as modern humans and Orangutan.

It will always be a theory if it can't be proven.

That's not how science works but since you refuse to engage in due diligence you might have missed that tidbit. A theory is established on a body of established facts. That evolution occurs is indeed a fact with less than 5% of degreed scientists in the NAS dissenting. The "theory" part of evolutionary theory serves only to establish HOW evolution works, not whether or not it's real. Gravity? Yup, that's a theory too. Do you doubt the affects of gravity on your own mass?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: DeviantMortal

Well. the foot prints themselves when dated, reveal the age of the rock, not the foot that made them.

That should start a storm.

Compelling though, for our forebears to find prints walking up the side of stone. They had no clue what this meant.

link to images

Could be from when the earth was flat.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Raggedyman


As opposed to you having all the answers or science having all the answers or your own confirmation bias.

As for me believing man walked with dinosaurs, yes

Are crocodiles dinosaurs, havnt there been accounts of many lake monsters.

No crocodiles are not dinosaurs. They share a common ancestor with dinosaurs and are about as closely related as modern humans and Orangutan.

It will always be a theory if it can't be proven.

That's not how science works but since you refuse to engage in due diligence you might have missed that tidbit. A theory is established on a body of established facts. That evolution occurs is indeed a fact with less than 5% of degreed scientists in the NAS dissenting. The "theory" part of evolutionary theory serves only to establish HOW evolution works, not whether or not it's real. Gravity? Yup, that's a theory too. Do you doubt the affects of gravity on your own mass?

Ok so not Crocs but birds

Meh, whatever Wikipedia

Dinosaurs are a diverse group of animals of the clade Dinosauria. They first appeared during the Triassic period, 231.4 million years ago, and were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for 135 million years, from the start of the Jurassic (about 200 million years ago) until the end of the Cretaceous (66 million years ago),[1] when the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event led to the extinction of most dinosaur groups at the end of the Mesozoic Era. Until the late 20th century, all groups were believed to be extinct; however, the fossil record indicates that birds are modern feathered dinosaurs, having evolved from theropod ancestors during the Jurassic Period.[2] As such, birds were the only dinosaurs to survive the mass extinction event.[3]
en.wikipedia.org...

Listen carefully, I doubt evolution because it doesn't have empirical evidence

I dont have to engage in due diligence, I asked for evidence, remember

I am not selling your religion, dont expect me to go find it, evolution is a faith.
Prove otherwise

I agree with the less than 5% degreed scientists, what are you going to do, brow beat me till I accept or bring on the evidence

I would think that the problem really arises that we really have no way of proving how long mixtures of mud, sand and stone really take to solidify. We can simulate with artificial pressure and heat, but never the way it was really done, since we have never tested a few million year old cast.

Some combinations of material most likely solidify faster than others. And there is the likelihood that strata uplifts and erosion works in ways we have not been able to calibrate. Find a dead bug squished under that foot, and now you have something that can really be dated.

originally posted by: Raggedyman




Ok so not Crocs but birds

Meh, whatever Wikipedia

Dinosaurs are a diverse group of animals of the clade Dinosauria. They first appeared during the Triassic period, 231.4 million years ago, and were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for 135 million years, from the start of the Jurassic (about 200 million years ago) until the end of the Cretaceous (66 million years ago),[1] when the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event led to the extinction of most dinosaur groups at the end of the Mesozoic Era. Until the late 20th century, all groups were believed to be extinct; however, the fossil record indicates that birds are modern feathered dinosaurs, having evolved from theropod ancestors during the Jurassic Period.[2] As such, birds were the only dinosaurs to survive the mass extinction event.[3]
en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not sure I follow what point you're driving at. Birds have a common ancestor in Theropods. Are you implying that the fantasy of HSS and dinosaurs walking the earth contemporaneously is true because birds are descended from theropods?

Listen carefully, I doubt evolution because it doesn't have empirical evidence

Do you know what empirical evidence is? It's information gained through observation and experimentation. There is plenty of empirical evidence for evolution. But this thread isn't about evolution. It's about footprints in volcanic tuff dated to 3.6-3.8 MA IN Laetoli Tanzania.

You have made the claim that the specific dating methodology used on this site is flawed. This is YOUR claim, not mine. The onus lies on you to describe and explain the errors with K-Ar dating. You refuse to touch the topic and keep moving the goal posts by trying to turn this into another episode of the raggedymandingo magic hour. Please, address the flaws.

I dont have to engage in due diligence, I asked for evidence, remember

Well sure, I guess you don't have to as long as your point is to never learn anything and sit there trending water in the deep end. Did you ever stop and consider that if you bothered engaging in proper due diligence, you might be able to make a more cognizant argument by empowering yourself through knowledge?

The fact remains though that the OP is based on a specific site and you commented on this site several times without reading anything aside from the OP and commented on the OP several times from a position of absolute ignorance. Why should people spoon feed you data if you can't be bothered to do basic due diligence? It's an insane notion based on willful ignorance and purposeful deceit.

I am not selling your religion, dont expect me to go find it, evolution is a faith.
Prove otherwise

Im agnostic, I don't have a religion. Unlike your faith, I'm fine with people questioning the science. Unlike your faith, ,ES is quantifiable, observable and reproducible. Since you have made the claim that the dating is flawed, please elucidate me on where this method is flawed and then support your assertion.

I agree with the less than 5% degreed scientists, what are you going to do, brow beat me till I accept or bring on the evidence

No, not at all. You've been given the evidence multiple times. I'm not playing your game today. You wouldn't know empirical evidence if it sat on your lap and told you what it wanted for Christmas.

originally posted by: charlyv
I would think that the problem really arises that we really have no way of proving how long mixtures of mud, sand and stone really take to solidify. We can simulate with artificial pressure and heat, but never the way it was really done, since we have never tested a few million year old cast.

Some combinations of material most likely solidify faster than others. And there is the likelihood that strata uplifts and erosion works in ways we have not been able to calibrate. Find a dead bug squished under that foot, and now you have something that can really be dated.

In the instance of the site in the OP, it can be tested. Because we still have volcanos erupting all across the world today so it is easily reproduced with fresh volcanic tuff and it can be compared to the volcanic tuff in which these footprints were made.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Raggedyman




Ok so not Crocs but birds

Meh, whatever Wikipedia

Dinosaurs are a diverse group of animals of the clade Dinosauria. They first appeared during the Triassic period, 231.4 million years ago, and were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for 135 million years, from the start of the Jurassic (about 200 million years ago) until the end of the Cretaceous (66 million years ago),[1] when the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event led to the extinction of most dinosaur groups at the end of the Mesozoic Era. Until the late 20th century, all groups were believed to be extinct; however, the fossil record indicates that birds are modern feathered dinosaurs, having evolved from theropod ancestors during the Jurassic Period.[2] As such, birds were the only dinosaurs to survive the mass extinction event.[3]
en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not sure I follow what point you're driving at. Birds have a common ancestor in Theropods. Are you implying that the fantasy of HSS and dinosaurs walking the earth contemporaneously is true because birds are descended from theropods?

Listen carefully, I doubt evolution because it doesn't have empirical evidence

Do you know what empirical evidence is? It's information gained through observation and experimentation. There is plenty of empirical evidence for evolution. But this thread isn't about evolution. It's about footprints in volcanic tuff dated to 3.6-3.8 MA IN Laetoli Tanzania.

You have made the claim that the specific dating methodology used on this site is flawed. This is YOUR claim, not mine. The onus lies on you to describe and explain the errors with K-Ar dating. You refuse to touch the topic and keep moving the goal posts by trying to turn this into another episode of the raggedymandingo magic hour. Please, address the flaws.

I dont have to engage in due diligence, I asked for evidence, remember

Well sure, I guess you don't have to as long as your point is to never learn anything and sit there trending water in the deep end. Did you ever stop and consider that if you bothered engaging in proper due diligence, you might be able to make a more cognizant argument by empowering yourself through knowledge?

The fact remains though that the OP is based on a specific site and you commented on this site several times without reading anything aside from the OP and commented on the OP several times from a position of absolute ignorance. Why should people spoon feed you data if you can't be bothered to do basic due diligence? It's an insane notion based on willful ignorance and purposeful deceit.

I am not selling your religion, dont expect me to go find it, evolution is a faith.
Prove otherwise

Im agnostic, I don't have a religion. Unlike your faith, I'm fine with people questioning the science. Unlike your faith, ,ES is quantifiable, observable and reproducible. Since you have made the claim that the dating is flawed, please elucidate me on where this method is flawed and then support your assertion.

I agree with the less than 5% degreed scientists, what are you going to do, brow beat me till I accept or bring on the evidence

No, not at all. You've been given the evidence multiple times. I'm not playing your game today. You wouldn't know empirical evidence if it sat on your lap and told you what it wanted for Christmas.

PV, it seems I am wise enough to see we disagree

I think your scientists believe and accept fairytails, I think rock dating is not a science, I think that scientists see things in rocks and imagine what they are.

I have no interest in wasting my time with you

You have shown no empirical evidence ever and never will. You cant because it doesnt exist.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I like how you hold others to the standard to empirical evidence but don't hold your self to the same standard. I will delete my account on ats if you can show empirical evidence for anything you said.

originally posted by: Raggedyman



I think your scientists believe and accept fairytails, I think rock dating is not a science, I think that scientists see things in rocks and imagine what they are.

Cool... Let's see your empirical evidence then. One last time... The site in the. OP is volcanic tuff. We can see and test the appearance of and subsequent eruptions, on a regular basis. Further more, the elemental half lives of the isotopes in question are well known, peer reviewed and it's results have been independently replicated all across the globe.

I have no interest in wasting my time with you

Yet here you are.

You have shown no empirical evidence ever and never will. You cant because it doesnt exist.

No, I have you just don't understand what empirical evidence is let alone the science you know so little about because you feel threatened by it.

Quite the contrary to your assertion, I have and it does exist. You admit you refuse to engage in due diligence and after multiple attempts to get you to support any of your ludicrous claims it just isn't forthcoming.

Care to discuss how K-Ar dating works and what it's flaws are in relation to the OP? Are you capable of doing such? Or are you so caught up in maintaining your charade that you just can't see the forest for the trees.

The irony riddled buffet of ignorance you attempt to serve up is beyond disingenuous. You insist on my due diligence and demonstrations of empiricism yet you are just dandy over there tossing out hyperbolic rhetoric with nothing to support a single one of your assertions.

Just once, try being honest and explain what the flaws are in Radiometric dating, specifically K-Ar as this is the method used on the. Laetoli footprints. Your fluff 'n buff is getting old. See, you made a claim as to faults in the science, the onus lies on you it support it yet you don't seem capable of doing so for some reason. Stick to the topic at hand because your field looks like a golf course from moving your goal posts so frequently.

OK this thread has derailed so far its unreal, I will attempt to put this argument to rest. Wish me luck.

I found and interesting article that I to a degree, agree with. It describes what Radiometric dating, that being said I feel as if the man as an agenda, and I dont generally like that. Pushing that aside for the moment his argument about how the test is flawed is valid, and the commentary on this site at the bottem is very amusing.
I would normally try to quote part of the article but I am sleepy ATM and cant decide what bit to quote w/o quoting the whole thing.

Flawed Testing?

And this article claims why you should trust it. Seems very well researched and shows sources for the article at the bottem of the page.
Trust in the carbon.

Now, here in is the problem (for me at least). Do you trust the specific scientist doing the test?

My opinion after reading both of these articles, is that most of the dating is more than likely close. Sadly, I have presented articles where people whom are better versed in the subject than I and both are convincing. Now the two of you that have been doing most of the arguing, I have a challenge for you. Do you have what it takes to read the opposing view points article in full before commenting? If not please let this thread die. If so, tell me what you think, I am honestly curious.

Clearer Polite Mod Reminder...

Hi People,

On Page 3 I made a polite request to please keep things civil.

Civility is not condescension.
Civility is not getting snarky about things with someone else.

I'm going to ask people now to be real honest with themselves regarding the manner in which they may choose to reply to one another going forward...if you're thinking about putting in some barbs, some quick little side-jabs blended into your point - then please don't.

You know exactly what I mean...so let's not plead innocence now.


Please.
Debate. Discuss.
BUT do so civilly.


Any further repeat of the snark is going to get snagged.

Removed, Warned, and if needs be benched for a bit...


Thank you for your understanding.


-Alien

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Raggedyman

I like how you hold others to the standard to empirical evidence but don't hold your self to the same standard. I will delete my account on ats if you can show empirical evidence for anything you said.

It's not my buisness what you do with your account, nor do I care

I am not claiming faith is a science.
You on the other hand are claiming your beliefs are a science, the burden is yours

a reply to: DeviantMortal

C14 dating is irrelevant to this subject

a reply to: Raggedyman

I disagree.

car·bon-14

ˌkärbənfôrˈtēn/

noun

a long-lived naturally occurring radioactive carbon isotope of mass 14, used in carbon dating and as a tracer in biochemistry.

Radiocarbon dating (also referred to as carbon dating or carbon-14 dating) is a method for determining the age of an object containing organic material by using the properties of radiocarbon (14
C), a radioactive isotope of carbon.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Potassium–argon dating, abbreviated K–Ar dating, is a radiometric dating method used in geochronology and archaeology

Its all the same kind of dating method, just testing different radioactive material.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: DeviantMortal

Well. the foot prints themselves when dated, reveal the age of the rock, not the foot that made them.

That should start a storm.

Compelling though, for our forebears to find prints walking up the side of stone. They had no clue what this meant.

link to images

Could be from when the earth was flat.

That was funny. Made me go "tilt".

Raggedyman

Actually you are correct, current THEORY, not FACT but that is something some people (not you) simply don't seem able to understand, nevertheless I digress, Current THEORY is that Bird's and other Avien Species are descended from the Raptor family of what we today call Dinosaur's.

Crocodillian's such a Nile/Australian and all other Crocodile species as well as all species of Alligator are actually not dinosaur's they are reptiles or in our coarse description Lizard's, they are cold blooded and they are from the older Reptilian period which is believed to have predated the rise of Dinosaur's and much like what they think happened at the end of the dinosaur period at what they believe to have been about 65 million years ago when the chicxulub crater was formed by an asteroid strike and another geological event when a supervolcano erupted in India pouring out enough smoke and gas to blot out the sun over the whole world and burying the indian sub continent in several kilometer deep layers of basalt rock (the Deccan Trap's) which together and also probably along with an already ailing population of dinosaurs may have been the main cause of the the end of there period of rule on the earth in what is today called an ELE (extinction level event) or a mass extinction, now according to the prevalent theory's this followed a period in which the Dinosaurs had been the dominant mega fauna (giant or large animal) species on the planet and which lasted for well over a hundred million years (about 165 million years though in truth insects and marine life have always been the truly dominant species by numbers).

Surviving several mass extinctions such as this turbulant period, the Crocodiles, the turtles and a few other reptile species not only survived this event but had already survived there own mass extinction prior to having lived survived right through the time of the dinosaurs, indeed right up to today.

But according to theory they also arose and took dominance from giant insect's whose reign as the dominant mega fauna they believe reached a peak about 300 million years ago and included spiders with body's the size of human head's which hid in burrows like giant funnel web spiders (though technically Spiders were arachnid's), dragonfiles several feet in length with wing spans in the meters etc.

And of course before them they believe there were semi aquatic scorpians the size of a volkswagon beetle that both roamed the sea and the land.

You know when you are riding your bicycle up hill on a hot day with your mouth open to ghasp at breath and you always swallow a darned fly, imagine one of those thing's?, talk about adding to daily protein intake.

Seriously though it is Theory, Idea etc, sometime's enough of a fossil survives to see what the creature must have looked like but that is seriously a very rare find, most of the time what they find are bone fragment's, displaced bone's and they then try to figure out what they have by seeing if they can piece them together, or to compare them to other bone's found elsewhere and see if they have a match so then from this incomplete jigsaw they postulate a theory (an idea) and then it is either accepted as likely by LIKE mind's or it is not especially when it is facing a competing theory with it's origin within in the same peer group and there is the real crux, if the theory is proposed from outside the peer group it is most often rejected out of hand.

BUT no where in Scientific tenet is a theory ever regarded as an immutable fact, you can have an immutable quantity or mathematic function but not an immutable theorem, in fact one TENET (Latin for it is held often shown as an un-beakable rule) of science that ANY theory may be supported by evidence (And that is based in this case on subjective analysis which can be quite biased) but never proven (never made immutable) but any theorem can be disproved by any evidence to the contrary - in recent years at the highest level's of theoretical physic's they have had to bend this rule as otherwise all theory's they work by would have had to be thrown out so they created the concept of Chaos theory to explain divergent results which would not happen if there main theorys were perfect (correct).

Most of there ideas for these period's are from fossil bed's such as those in the USA and China though many fossils have been found around the world of similar types.

So walking with Crocodiles is according to there believe one better than walking with a dynosaur as the Crocodile is older than the Dynosaurs were.

a reply to: LABTECH767

It is scientific theory, not a layman's theory...
Theories are not meant to be facts, they are meant to be explanations.

a reply to: Sremmos80

REALLY oh well I never would have guessed that since the guy whom taught us that was actually a PHD double doctorate with 15 years research under his belt whom had refused a job offer from an american pharam corp back in the 80's because he was also a Green Peace scientist? or had worked on some analysis for them several time's and was a firm Green Peace supporter, his doctorates were in biochemistry and physics as I remember but he also had other degree's, don't know if he is still around but last I heard he was retired to the isle of man, Mr or rather Dr Paul Reeves, not just a clever guy but a good one and very firmly proud of both his Liverpool and Irish root's.

Guess you must be more highly qualified then eh?.