40 Million year old Cowboy boot found!

40 Million year old Cowboy boot found!
Everyone has heard the story. "We know absolutely for certain, it takes millions and millions of years for fossils to petrify." Oh yeah? How old do you think this boot could be? Millions and millions of years old? I suppose it could be made from T. Rex skin. Do you really think so? The rubber-soled boot with petrified cowboy leg, bones and all was found in a dry creek bed near the West Texas town of Iraan, about 1980 by Mr. Jerry Stone, an employee of Corvette oil company. The boot was hand made by the M. L. Leddy boot company of San Angelo, Texas which began manufacturing boots in 1936. Gayland Leddy, nephew of the founder, grew up in the boot business and now manages Boot Town in Garland, Texas. He recognized the "number 10 stitch pattern" used by his uncle?s company and concluded that the boot was made in the early 1950's. Only the contents of the boot are fossilized, not the boot itself, demonstrating that some materials fossilize more readily than others. The bones of the partial leg and foot within the boot were revealed by an elaborate set of C.T. Scans performed at Harris Methodist Hospital in Bedford, Texas on July 24, 1997. The Radiologic Technician was Evelyn Americus, AART. A complete set of these scans remains with the boot at the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas. The fact that some materials can fossilize rapidly under certain circumstances is well known by experts in the field and is not really a scientific issue. However, the general public has been misled in order to facilitate the impression of great ages. The dramatic example of the "Limestone Cowboy" immediately communicates the truth of the matter. Fossilization proves nothing about long periods of time.
Here is the sight informationcentre.tripod.com...

[edit on 24-4-2005 by gothica91]

that must be an old boot that Ronnie R$eagan lost when he was just a young boy.....long befor4e his acting career or his role as president of the U.S.

It might be a misconception some hav e but I was never taught in school that if something was fossilized it was old. In fact a couple years back I found a dog femur fossilized when lake St. Clair was at it's lowest levels in several years. Actually, It does take a fairly long amount of time to have something "Fossilized in rock" which is what I think you are getting at.

Hmmm. This is gonna turn into one of those threads where all the bible nutjobs come out to play.

Never seen a dog turd fossilized? It can only take a short time to fossilize, sure, but to get set in stone that is millions of years old is a different thing. Thats how they measure the age (partly, anyway) by seeing where it is in the rock layer.

Oh yeah,WAY TO PLAGIARIZE. You copied and pasted that whole post from the other website.

Lol!

That is a completely misleading title. To sum up the article:
Only the bone is fossilized (not the stupid boot) and the article itself says its a well known phenomena.

he could have mentioned the fossilized hat. what was coppied was a summery of the story. for all we know it was his summation.

stumason i take a bit of offence at your statement, "Hmmm. This is gonna turn into one of those threads where all the bible nutjobs come out to play." i am not a nutjob just because i choose to believe in a higher power, and that the bible is correct. i could call you a nutjob just for jumping to that conclusion. perhaps you should not name call, it realy makes you look pathetic. have at least some respect for what people believe.

as for learning in school that fossiles take millions of years to form, yup that was what i was taught. it is used to try and prove that things have evolved over millions of years. "see we have these fossles that are part of the evolutionary changes, they must be a few million years old to have been fossilized". perhaps dinasaur fossils are only a few thousand years old. we have no real way of knowing.useing how deep something is burried, is only a guesstimate. the question is how much do we realy know about the formation of the earth? all we realy have are theories. theories as we all know are not proven fact. we may be right, partialy right, or even compleatly wrong.

this type of find should have been front page news, but why wasn't it? because it dosn't fit in with the theories of many. this has a bad habbit of occuring in sciance. an anomily to "known" facts. even experiments can be squewed by the very fact that someone is trying to prove something. this can happen by accident, or even on purpose. sometimes results are ignored because "something was wrong" with the experiment. this fact was explained by my chemistry teacher in highscool, who was a university phisics profeser who stepped down to be able to spend more time at home.

this type of finding makes one wonder what else has been found and ignored due to it not fitting currant thoughts. just like when the catholic church tried to surpress gallileio, and the fact that the earth was round. these findings did not match the "known" truths, therefor they had to be surpressed so others would not be led astray.

good find gothica

This comes from one of the stupidest creationist sites around (no, not this one. It's cut from another site that's full of ridiculous claims.) Don't try this one at home, folks, because you'll feel embarrassed if you encounter someone up on their science.

It's not a fossil. Fossils are items whose original material has been replaced by stone.

The boot is leather. It's still leather. If it was a fossil, then the leather would now be stone.

The bones are actually COW bones and are NOT fossilzed. They're not particularly old, either. The stuff around them is a calcite concretion and those things can form quickly.

So this isn't a fossil, and the word has gotten out to most of the Biblical and Creationist sites (who acknowledge that it's not a fossil.) However, there are a few who persistantly refuse to understand what fossils really are and try to use it as a refutation of geological processes.

The "creation science museum" has been caught faking a lot of things, including the "Paluxy Man Track" (a carving of a footprint that they tried to pass off as a real footprint in stone.) Most of the creationists have now distanced themselves from it.

[edit on 25-4-2005 by Byrd]

this is bull , cowboys boots are kinda new fashion in the global history timeline.. unless its a cowboy from space . Nah somebody just stuffed some bones in an old pair of boots.

Originally posted by Byrd
The bones are actually COW bones and are NOT fossilzed. They're not particularly old, either.

Duh, he said it was a COWBOY!


This is proped up as one of those 'oops' things, 'out of place artifacts'. Like sparkplugs in concretions and the ica stones and the like.

Originally posted by stumason
Hmmm. This is gonna turn into one of those threads where all the bible nutjobs come out to play.

At least you're open minded

I'm rather shocked at people's willingness to look into this new piece of evidence, knowing that science still doesn't have all the answers. Oh, wait, no I'm not

Seriously, if we are to just dismiss possible exceptions of a rule, say using the exception proves the rule theory, you'll be able to get science to completely stagnate with current theory and never go as far as it could. Y'all want to keep religion out of politics, but what about keeping politics out of science?

Byrd, where did your information come from?

Stories and news like this make me wonder as how hard creationist are trying to discredit time.

What is next Noah riding a dinosaur.

Aw gee Byrd, you struck down my theory...

An inventor in 1936 invents a time machine and then starts a small select business of taking millionaire hunters back in time to go on dinosaur hunts.

Well, it worked for Bradbury....

so someone was trying to use the boot to say dinosaur fossils aren't ancient , thus getting rid of the annoying evolution question ? whew, thats weak to say the least.....

how about radio carbon dating ?

I find it interesting that Byrd says what people want to hear, and no one even questions where it came from. Now people are working off of Byrd's comments as though they are now established fact. Immediately Gothica91's sources are thrown into question because it's not what people want to hear. Byrd gets away with it (almost) scott free. Deny ignorance, or perpetuate it?

Originally posted by junglejake
I find it interesting that Byrd says what people want to hear, and no one even questions where it came from.

Hey I am open to any other prof, do you have one? Is something you know that will challenge Byrd post?

By all means spill the beans we want to heard from your sources......so far hers is most reasonable.

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by junglejake
I find it interesting that Byrd says what people want to hear, and no one even questions where it came from.

Hey I am open to any other prof, do you have one? Is something you know that will challenge Byrd post?

Not yet, and I don't even know if what Byrd is saying is false. I heard about this boot in passing on Thursday on the news, and that was the last I heard of it. I'm at work right now so I haven't had time to look into it myself. I was just observing the group mentality on this thread, that's all. For all I know, Byrd could be 100% right and it's a hoax. It's just funny that Gothica presented a link and a bunch of information, and Byrd just returned with a bunch of facts with nothing to support them. People believed Byrd, with nothing backing his/her (sorry, Byrd, have no idea) evidence presented.

So in short, without knowing the facts, it really appeared on here that people believe what they want to believe, no matter the evidence or lack therein.

In defense of some of my fellow christians....not all of us believe in young-earth creationism. I am a christian and believe in old-earth creationism where we dont accept abiogenesis and species changing to other species evolution(not sure if its called macro or micro evolution). I think its unfair and somewhat, IMO, ignorant to dismiss us all as some sort of bible-thumpin pew-jumpin anti-science morons....but then again e=what do I know

"Limestone Cowboy" would have been a cooler thread title...

I find it interesting that Byrd says what people want to hear, and no one even questions where it came from.

Well for starters, many of us here have learned that Byrd's trade is anthropology, so her words carry a lot of weight in the subject.

Second, see the picture above, as she stated, the boots aren't fossilized, just the leg in them. Other claims made are likewise even stated in the article. Her "source" is the same as the thread's author....

Originally posted by junglejake
I find it interesting that Byrd says what people want to hear, and no one even questions where it came from.

I don't recall seeing you question where the boot came from in the first place.

its a leather cowboy boot that has bones in it.

Deny ignorance, or perpetuate it?

The people who offer major support for the boot have been invovled in fraud in the past. Thats almost enough as is to reject any 'fabulous' claims that they make. What evidence do you, or anyone have to suggest that this boot is actually anything?

I mean, first off, the boot is presented as supporting one of two things. Either 40 million years ago there were cowboys wearing cowboy boots, or fossilization can occur rapidly. Its a leather boot, with its stiching and all, its not 40 million years old. As far as 'rapid fossilization', its not fossilized. Its simply a stinky old boot that has some bones in it.



How can you possibly suggest that that is in anyway meaningful about anything???