How Old Is The Earth?

[Bowman]

I looked at both sides of the question. That is why I read Glen J. Kuban' s analysis of the prints. He thought it was a fake but, the arguments were shallow and speculative and ignored a number of nuances about the track. For example, there are no signs of tool marks on the pint. If this were faked, there would be evidence of having been worked. As the site I posted claimed, "Multiple spiral CT scans have been performed on the Delk print to verify its authenticity, and over 800 X-ray images document density changes within the rock that correspond precisely with fossil footprints. Spiral CT scan technology provides an effective means of analyzing fossil footprints without physically destroying them. The CT scan allows visualization of the inside of the rock, specifically, under the footprint. These spiral CT scans prove that the Delk Print is a genuine fossil human footprint." He addressed none of these findings that I can recall. The evidence seems to be much in favor of its authenticity.

Here is a link that should shed some light on your foot print...

The Delk Print

 

[oldhermit]

Here is a link that should shed some light on your foot print...

The Delk Print

That is the one I read by Glen J. Kuban

 

[eternally-gratefull]

That is the one I read by Glen J. Kuban

lol he gave ya one you already read, how ironic is that!

I think it is obvious he is not listening to a word you say. The very post he responded to howed you already read that one.

thats just too funny!

 

[oldhermit]

lol he gave ya one you already read, how ironic is that!

I think it is obvious he is not listening to a word you say. The very post he responded to howed you already read that one.

thats just too funny!

Maybe he should look up the definition of the word plagiarism before accusing someone of plagiarizing.

 

[Tintin]

Well I can see there some debates over the dinosaur tracks with human tracks. As I said before I personally err on the side of caution and from what I have seen assume the tracks in question are either a hoax or are mistakenly identified dinosaur tracks. I also accept I could be wrong here and that these could be human tracks, but I suppose I haven't done enough research on this specific case.

HOWEVER even if we discard this particular set of tracks there is still some questions Old Earth Creationists and Old Earth Atheists cannot answer. Lol whereas they think dinosaurs are their best proof for an Ol Earth, I personally think dinosaurs maybe a great evidence for a young earth.

Here is a lil video/power point montage of different Dinosaurs/Dragon artifacts made in the Ancient Human Past either depicting many dinosaurs, men, and creatures that are thought to be myth. Note: not all the artifacts are primarily dinosaurs, some are famous taxidermist renderings of the Thunder Bird, giant insects and sea life, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-wrBuWLj9s

Now I suppose we could dismiss all this evidence in a number of ways from saying its just Ancient Fantasy Artwork. However, even if we assume all these artifacts to be mere fantasy artwork this really begs two questions (to me personally at least).


1. Was ancient mankind really as primitive as the evolutionists and OEC say when we have evidence that ancient man was extremely sophisticated as evidenced by their ability to create intricate artwork and buildings?

2. If we pre-suppose the artwork is mere fantasy of the ancients and that mankind lived way after the dinosaurs and was so primitive according to the Old Earth model; how did the Ancients even have concepts such as the dinosaur/dragon, much less their artwork depicts some dinosaurs in ways we didn't even re-discover until the 19th and 20th Centuries AD?


Lol so there's my two questions in regards to Ancient Human-Dinosaur Artifacts, ya'll are my peers so review them at your leisure

I'm not going to debate evolution any further but I do want to add my thoughts to the discussion about dinosaurs. The Inca Stones are most likely a hoax, the decomposed plesiosaur is no more than a decomposed basking shark but even if half of those pieces of evidence are true, that's a lot of evidence for people having lived (at one time) with dragons (dinosaurs) and dragon-like creatures. The photos of the pteradons are particularly enlightening. I've never seen them before. Were those photos manipulated? If not, why aren't the general public getting all excited about such findings?

Here's a great video about dragons (dinosaurs): Part One.
Duration: 53mins.

[video=youtube;IF7JUdWOwRw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF7JUdWOwRw[/video]

 

[Tintin]

Here's the second half to the dragons (dinosaurs) video:
Duration: 43mins.

[video=youtube;U_vfPFnmQPg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_vfPFnmQPg[/video]

 

[Bowman]

That is the one I read by Glen J. Kuban

Then you also saw the update at the top...

July 2013 Update: Young-earth creationists Carl Baugh, Don Patton, Ian Juby, and Jeremey Auldaney have been promoting the Delk print for several years, but as far as I know, still have not published any rigorous paper supporting its authenticity. Perhaps in view of this, and their own recognition of serious problems with the print, major creationist groups have not supported it, or even said much about it. For an interesting blog discussion on the Delk print, see: StonesBones Blogspot In 2010 David Lines, who initially supported the Delk print claims, removed the photos and related CT scans of the print from his website.

Curiously, no YEC wants to have the rock dated...nor promote to the world of this supposedly 'great discovery'.

 

[oldhermit]

Then you also saw the update at the top...
Curiously, no YEC wants to have the rock dated...nor promote to the world of this supposedly 'great discovery'.

Yes, I saw it. I have absolutely not confidence in their dating processes. This entire principles upon which these estimates are arrived at are shot full of holes. It is completely unreliable. If the multiple CT and x-ray scans prove its authenticity, what difference does it make about how old it is?

Incidently, do you know the difference between a hog track and a deer track?

 

[Bowman]

Yes, I saw it. I have absolutely not confidence in their dating processes. This entire principles upon which these estimates are arrived at are shot full of holes. It is completely unreliable. If the multiple CT and x-ray scans prove its authenticity, what difference does it make about how old it is?

Incidently, do you know the difference between a hog track and a deer track?

Look at how you YEC's dwell on the compression results from CT scans!

What matters is how OLD is it?

What if it is millions of years old?

That would destroy your position, entirely.

What if it was newly made?

Well...that would destroy your position as well...



Did you buy your ticket to see the dead 'bigfoot' from your local Texas-man on tour...?

 

[oldhermit]

Look at how you YEC's dwell on the compression results from CT scans!

What matters is how OLD is it?

What if it is millions of years old?

That would destroy your position, entirely.

What if it was newly made?

Well...that would destroy your position as well...



Did you buy your ticket to see the dead 'bigfoot' from your local Texas-man on tour...?

Then the first place you need to start is do try to disprove the results of the CT and x-ray scans. If people do not want to believe, they simply will not believe no matter what the evidence.

 

[Bowman]

Then the first place you need to start is do try to disprove the results of the CT and x-ray scans. If people do not want to believe, they simply will not believe no matter what the evidence.

For the sake of argument, let's assume both tracks were made at the same time.

So what?

What matters...and what YEC's are afraid of.....is the date!

 

[oldhermit]

For the sake of argument, let's assume both tracks were made at the same time.

So what?

What matters...and what YEC's are afraid of.....is the date!

You are totally missing the point. AGAIN! It does not matter how old the tracks are. If they are authentic, it is definitive proof that men and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Also, I am not afraid of the date. I simply do not trust the methodology they employ for arriving at these dates.

 

[Bowman]

You are totally missing the point. AGAIN! It does not matter how old the tracks are. If they are authentic, it is definitive proof that men and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Also, I am not afraid of the date. I simply do not trust the methodology they employ for arriving at these dates.

Again...for the sake of argument...lets say that the set of tracks occurred at the same time.

So what?

It could have been a bipedal hominid...and NOT a Homo Sapien Sapien.

What matters is the age of the supposed 'fossil'.

YEC's are quick to put down traditional dating techniques but offer none in their place.

Instead, they hide their supposed proofs behind glass and charge admission to see it...

 

[oldhermit]

Again...for the sake of argument...lets say that the set of tracks occurred at the same time.

So what?

It could have been a bipedal hominid...and NOT a Homo Sapien Sapien.

What matters is the age of the supposed 'fossil'.

Bowman, you are an exasperating human being. Sometimes I think that if you made it as far as the sixth grade, you are educated beyond your intelligence. Anyone can see that that is a human foot print.

YEC's are quick to put down traditional dating techniques but offer none in their place.

Instead, they hide their supposed proofs behind glass and charge admission to see it...

Sure we do. The genealogical records of Genesis offer an astounding chronology of the time from creation to at least the time of Joseph. Beyond that, the time can be pretty well calculate from ancient records within a margin of error of only a few hundred years. You just don't like that dating method.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Again...for the sake of argument...lets say that the set of tracks occurred at the same time.

So what?

It could have been a bipedal hominid...and NOT a Homo Sapien Sapien.

What matters is the age of the supposed 'fossil'.

YEC's are quick to put down traditional dating techniques but offer none in their place.

Instead, they hide their supposed proofs behind glass and charge admission to see it...

They use carbon dating to find the age of things, and carbon dating has been proven to be wrong do to different variables like heat over time, or extreme heat for a short period, and so forth. I would love to have a way out there that would determine true dating, but unfortunately there is not. Example: A freshly baked cup cake was carbon tested and it came back saying it was 100,000 years old.

 

[Bowman]

Bowman, you are an exasperating human being. Sometimes I think that if you made it as far as the sixth grade, you are educated beyond your intelligence. Anyone can see that that is a human foot print.

Bipedal hominids are humans....just not modern humans.

Sure we do. The genealogical records of Genesis offer an astounding chronology of the time from creation to at least the time of Joseph. Beyond that, the time can be pretty well calculate from ancient records within a margin of error of only a few hundred years. You just don't like that dating method.

Show me the Biblical verse which states that you are to sum the generations to arrive at a date.

Scripture strictly warns against this, as it is.

I find it most interesting that you posit scholarly exegesis (not yours obviously) when it some to defending Jesus' deity and The Trinity....then you resort to thumb-sucking when it comes to the age of the earth...

 

[Bowman]

They use carbon dating to find the age of things, and carbon dating has been proven to be wrong do to different variables like heat over time, or extreme heat for a short period, and so forth. I would love to have a way out there that would determine true dating, but unfortunately there is not. Example: A freshly baked cup cake was carbon tested and it came back saying it was 100,000 years old.

Carbon dating is not usable at 100k years to begin with...and it is only good on testing the remains of once living matter.

Thus, you are perpetuating more YEC myth...

 

[oldhermit]

Bipedal hominids are humans....just not modern humans.

Human are humans Bowman. They always have been and always will be. They are not the product of evolutionary process.

Show me the Biblical verse which states that you are to sum the generations to arrive at a date.
Scripture strictly warns against this, as it is.

No it doesn't Bowman. If you like I can give you the chronological time line that I put together from just the Genesis record from the time of the creation event to the time of Joseph.

 

[Bowman]

Human are humans Bowman. They always have been and always will be. They are not the product of evolutionary process.

Never said that we evolved, brother.

You did.

No it doesn't Bowman. If you like I can give you the chronological time line that I put together from just the Genesis record from the time of the creation event to the time of Joseph.

There are provable gaps in the genealogies...you are not supposed to sum them to arrive at a date.

Are you one of those dooms-day preppers...?

 

[Tintin]

I'm not going to debate evolution any further but I do want to add my thoughts to the discussion about dinosaurs. The Inca Stones are most likely a hoax, the decomposed plesiosaur is no more than a decomposed basking shark but even if half of those pieces of evidence are true, that's a lot of evidence for people having lived (at one time) with dragons (dinosaurs) and dragon-like creatures. The photos of the pteranodons are particularly enlightening. I've never seen them before. Were those photos manipulated? If not, why aren't the general public getting all excited about such findings?

Never mind, I found out the old-timey pteranodon photos were staged for some fiction TV series. People need to be more careful when preventing said "evidence".