Originally posted by gemini6767
no it isnt fake.
Indeed, the tracks are fakes, they were created by creationists to back up their 'ideas'. Thru fraud.
The short refutation is available here
. A link to that index is one of our 'stickied'
threads at the top of the forum, available [ulr=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread150345/pg1]here[/url]
site also examines a number of the assortments of tracks and provides references,
some apparently even from creationist magazines, that find for fraud, alteration of the tracks.
i was there.
im not a creationist so i have nothing to gain either way, but along with my college science class, i observed this to be a genuine
, whats more, its been carbon dated
Carbon dating can not be used on dinosaur fossils or anything of the sort. What 'college science class' did you take? ANd what do you mean
'class'? THere is no single class that is going to permit a college student to identify all of these things while acting as a tourist.
...the rest of your comments are just not worth responding to...you need to be better read
...oh, but one last thing nygdan...evolution is nothing but faith: read on:
Oh, so now we're going to drop the whole 'there are man tracks' at paluxy and 'switch gears' to another, probably similarly falsified and
baseless 'attack' on evolution eh?
it is always kept in mind that the old theories might fail to explain the new experiments and observations.
And this is well known and well established, its part of why science has been so incredibly successful, and its precisely how evolutionary biology
operates, its a branch of science. Evolutionary theory is well tested, and has been for over a hundred years, and has more than withstood the
excellent tests that researchers have put it too.
There are many types of ``pseudo-scientific'' theories which wrap themselves in a mantle of apparent experimental evidence but that, when
examined closely, are nothing but statements of faith.
Yes, this is exactly what creationism is. Clearly. If you are not a creationist, then you'd be focused on how creationism is obviously
pseudo-science, not pretending that the thouroughly scientific evolutionary biology is one.
The argument , cited by some evolutionists, that science is just another kind of faith is a philosophic stance which ignores the
trans-cultural nature of science. Science's theory of gravity explains why both creationists and scientists don't float off the earth. All you have
to do is jump to verify this theory - no leap of faith required.
WHich is precisely why creationism is not a science, it would not exist were it not for the bible and a cultural-theological interpretation of the
bible as literal. Creationism takes the bible, and tries to find interpretations of 'evidence' that seem to back it up. Whatever evidences refute
or erode support for those bilibcal conclusions, are ignored. Literally, members of creationist 'research' groups have to affirm that they have
faith in creationism and that they're only publishing stuff that supports it. Science is critical of itself, and evolutionary biology, being a
science like chemistry or phsyics, does just that.
in other words: to be scientific, you have to include the following:
There is far more required for a system to be scientific than this rather basic and elementary description. Science requires that there be certain
aspects of those hypotheses, and that there are restrictions on the methods of experimenting and the phenomena that can potentially be examined, and
the like. Since this is the exact sequence that is taught in high school and 100 level science courses, take it that the 'class' you took on
science was an introductory one? How did this allow you to distinguish between the tracks of humans and the tracks made by the metatarsals of
got any evolution happening right now that u can cite as observable??
Along with the change in allele frequencies over time within a population that is the very definition of evolution, scientists also have
Observed Instances of Speciation
. Infact, there are
more examples of it. These are observations of what's often (somewhat incorrectly)
refered to as 'micro-evolution' and
An example might be: why am I here? The word why implies purpose, and begs an answer from a creator. This question cannot be answered by
science as we cannot test a creator for humans by the means available to science.
You don't seem to understand. Thats an arguement for why we can't scientifically examine super-natural events, such as those stated to have occured
by creationism and intelligent design. Evolution does not ask these 'why are we here' questions, but rather deals with that which can be studied
scientifically, which, it turns out, is quite a bit.
If you have carefully designed your hypothesis to be sure it is falsifiable,
Evolutionary Theory is perfectly falsifiable. Attempting to falsify evolution is what
evolutionary biologists do.
II Ross Koning is sleeping...
Then his breathing will remain slow and even
When I brush his cheek with a feather
This statement made me realize that you are possibly plagarizing from multiple websites, as possibly revealed from
, and even
, search for specific phrases in your text. Lets just be clear. According to the
that you agreed to when signing up to this board:
This is a discussion board
You will not cross-post content from other discussion boards (unless you receive my advance permission).
. People come here to talk about and hash over lots of different topics. If you want to talk about evolution and
creationism, then by all means, do so. But cutting and pasting or regurgiquoting
information from other boards is completely and utterly
pointless, and actually rather dishonest.
A prediction is the expected results if the hypothesis and other underlying assumptions and principles are true and an experiment is done to
test that hypothesis.
A statement that is right out of
biology deparment's webpage. Please cite your sources when you are clearly
cut-and-pasting from them. That
only turned up for that school, and two
other webforums. Do you at least go to that school, the university of cincinati at clermont?
Indeed, that is the way in which Neptune was discovered in 1846.
And evolutionary biology makes predictions, tests hypotheses, and is entirely falsifiable and potentiall refutable. But rather than having been
refuted, its been corroborated time and time again. Its predictions have been confirmed, its been an incredibly successful too thru which nature can
be studied. In science this means its a 'powerful' theory.
got a question to prove or better...disprove the evolution claim? or creation claim? both are clearly religions.
You have done absolutely nothing to show that evolution is not scientific. You've stated that its not, then showed examples not involving evolution
that are scientific, and now ended with your original statement. At no point did you make even a weak case for evolution being unscientific.
In science when testing, when doing the experiment, it must be a controlled experiment. The scientist must contrast an “experimental group”
with a “control group”.
Your understanding of how science operates is defficient. This is not how most scientific endavours operate. There are no controls for cosmological
theories nor many advanced physical experiments, and indeed its rare that one has two groups, a control and an experimental, outside of medical
research, and even then its not allways at hand. Fortunately in evolutionary biology there are such groups
, we've seen species arise and
differentiate when one group is subjected to selection pressure and another is not, acting as a control.
TELL ME, CAN U CONTROL ANY ASPECT OF EVLOUTION? OR REPEAT IT FOR THAT MATTER????
Have you ever researched any aspect of actual evolutionary biology? I don't mean as a degree holding scientist, but rather just as an interested and
you are obviously uneducated on the matter of what is and what is not science.
But you, with your 'science class' and theft from other science websites are 'thoroughly educated' no?
if it were like phyiscs and chemistry, then it could be proved wrong
The repitition of your cluelessness is wonderfully astounding.
In contrast, the theory that ``the moon is populated by little green men who can read our minds and will hide whenever anyone on Earth looks
for them, and will flee into deep space whenever a spacecraft comes near''
Do you have any orignal material in this post? Practically everything that is checked turns out to be a cut and paste from another website. And
worse, its all a bunch of bs.