290 million year old human footprint

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: borntowatch

You have to be a troll or an ignoramus.
How many times do we have to tell you we are all transitional animals.
As for the foot lol really?
You will attempt anything to dis prove evolution won't you.

Wow boy monkey,l

originally posted by: borntowatch
Krazyshot, I am sorry I disagree with you in the other thread, sheath your knife.

You may want to check the timestamps on that post, it was posted before you started posting in that PP thread, or at least before I started responding to you in it.

I dont believe that the footprints 290 million years old, I think sarcasm may be above your paygrade

Yea, when it comes to YOU, I always apply Poe's Law to anything you say. So it's not that I don't "get" sarcasm, I just don't consider that it can come from you.

I have said I dont believe in the geological time scale, if you put all the pieces together, if you thought, connected the dots you would see

If you were to put the pieces together correctly instead of letting your confirmation bias do it for you then we'd finally be able to have a real conversation about the ancient past. I mean it CLEARLY flew over your head that I was insinuating that your footprint is a fake since there aren't any other footprints near it.

Oh never mind

Yea that happens to me a lot when I type responses to you. Many times I just click out before posting and leave the thread since I tend to get more interaction talking to a wall than I do you.

originally posted by: howmuch4another
do these ancients step in molten rock to leave their footprints? I see the "african footprint" is pictured in the link. That is in granite if I recall. There was a couple threads on about it.

Not only that but granite is a plutonic igneous rock not volcanic. IE, it solidifies for a long time under the earth's crust....Which means there is no one stepping in a batholith, dike , sill etc...

Wow. People really HATE science with a passion. Unbelievable. The conclusion of the paper that was used to research this says:

The Zapata track has not been demonstrated to be a real footprint, nor has any evidence been provided that the rock came from a Permian rock formation. Without more substantial evidence regarding its origin, the print is a curiosity at best, not reliable anti-evolutionary evidence.

Sounds like the usual standard for Born to believe something. So basically it's just a picture, and no evidence of its authenticity has ever been provided. Hmmmmmm.

The paper was posted on page 1.

Another creationist hoax bites the dust. Thanks for making us aware of this one, Born. We appreciate it. More lies and deception from creationists. Keep digging that hole deeper.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Halfswede

as i have already asked the OP - can you recreate it then ? - using a human foot - and the media of your choice - OH and PS - document how it was done

No need to replicate when there is google. As I said, it may be a hoax, but as for not looking realistic, having lived on the beach in the past, you can get any number of types of footprints from deep and crisp edges, to flat and shallow so it looks like you made them with a board.

Again, I just don't think the realism of the print is the tell of it being fake or not. I am confident that If I drove 6 hours to the beach, I could get pretty darn close just walking around. Add in some weathering etc.. That doesn't mean it isn't fake.

Here is just one similar example. Take a peek on the google, and I think you will find that it falls within the bounds of possible natural footprints as far as shape.

a reply to: Halfswede

gthankyou for demonstrating my point - its not a human footprint - and the key defference between your prints and the OP is obvious

HINT = big toe

its a key to the way we walk - and it falsifies the OP claim

originally posted by: Barcs
Wow. People really HATE science with a passion. Unbelievable. The conclusion of the paper that was used to research this says:

The Zapata track has not been demonstrated to be a real footprint, nor has any evidence been provided that the rock came from a Permian rock formation. Without more substantial evidence regarding its origin, the print is a curiosity at best, not reliable anti-evolutionary evidence.

Sounds like the usual standard for Born to believe something. So basically it's just a picture, and no evidence of its authenticity has ever been provided. Hmmmmmm.

The paper was posted on page 1.

Another creationist hoax bites the dust. Thanks for making us aware of this one, Born. We appreciate it. More lies and deception from creationists. Keep digging that hole deeper.

I dont think I have met anyone who hates science as much as you Barcs, you hate all science, probably all scientists, anything related to science

You hate anything that could oppose your religion and your first position is to call it all fake

You science haters are all the same

Another religious atheist that is scared that a footprint could challenge his worldview so rather than acknowledge any probability calls fake fake.

So scared of science that you wont question it.

You are in fear of science

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Halfswede

gthankyou for demonstrating my point - its not a human footprint - and the key defference between your prints and the OP is obvious

HINT = big toe

its a key to the way we walk - and it falsifies the OP claim

SShhh
Dont tellanyone in case someone looks foolish

One footprint is in beach sand, the other not

a reply to: borntowatch


Shhhh... Don't tell anyone but if the alleged human foot print was actually found at Prehistoric Trackways National Monument then it was made in sand because the area in question was under water and coastline during the Permian so...

a reply to: borntowatch The second photo in the Ancient Code article shows the depth of the front foot more clearly.Makes the toes appear to be in a lifted posture. Looks like the foot squished the medium. Big problem with the igneous rock. Unless they were fire walking.

originally posted by: Barcs
Wow. People really HATE science with a passion. Unbelievable.

Yeah, and when they want to prove how old something is, they run right to the dating methods used by guess who... science... and bleat about it on the Internet, which was created by... you guessed it... science.

They love science when it reinforces what they believe. Otherwise, it's a tool of the Devil.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: onequestion
When's mainstream science going to admit, "hey we just have no idea but we can manipulate a few things and that's it".
Still waiting for it.

Well, that can't be Jesus's footprint, because he wore sandals and besides, he was carrying me when times got tough so there is only one set of footprints.

Well as Jesus was white Anglo
Saxon and protestant, those
would have been Birkenstocks
so kindly get your facts straight.

a reply to: Blue Shift

you are on a roll today!

Looks like a Rock to me!

Gosh. A thread by borntowach. All about a fake footprint that's been debunked here a dozen times already.

Zowie. Also wowie.

a reply to: borntowatch

still waiting for someone to provide a demonstration of how to form a " footprint " matching the OPs in any media

HINT - this would be actual science - so i understand why the religious avoid such things

Are there a series of tracks, or only one? There are some interesting features , that make it look like art work. For instance, there are faint traces of a button on the left side of the foot, and a strap or cord going across to the right. Then another button, or something ... faintly. The real interesting feature is the face in profile in the heel! There is a bald guy in the heel looking to the left, like on a coin. It might be later art work, cut into the stone. A clear digital image in HD is needed.

a reply to: borntowatch

Did you write that about yourself? .
Look don't even try it we know your game and it is full of lies.
You lie and attempt to decieve all the time.

a reply to: boymonkey74

The only reason people buy into this stuff at all is because of confirmation bias.

originally posted by: borntowatch
I dont think I have met anyone who hates science as much as you Barcs, you hate all science, probably all scientists, anything related to science

You hate anything that could oppose your religion and your first position is to call it all fake

You science haters are all the same

Another religious atheist that is scared that a footprint could challenge his worldview so rather than acknowledge any probability calls fake fake.

So scared of science that you wont question it.

You are in fear of science

Yawn... So do you have evidence to show it's real? Dating research? Any evidence whatsoever aside from a black and white picture? There is no science here for me to hate. You hold evolution to such ridiculous standards of proof and deny all evidence, yet believe a picture of a footprint blindly with no supporting evidence whatsoever because it reinforaces a worldview. Keep that hypocrisy coming.