If humans did not appear on earth until approximately 60 million years after dinosaurs became extinct, then..?

Question

'how is it possible that man's footprints are fossilized and coexist with fossilized dinosaur footprints of the same time period and are molded into the same material that later become rock?

The debate: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/mantrack.html

The evidence:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm
http://www.grisda.org/origins/02064.htm
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/foot/foot.htm

Is this not the same method Atheists subscribe to and defend? If not, then answer why.

The bog- yes I did, like I stated in the details, this is the debate. This is evolutionist argument. I did not intend to suggest nor did I intend to represent that this debate and point of view does not exist. You have no reading comprehension, your point of view on anything you read is subject to scrutiny from here on.

Girl- By everyone, are you under the understanding that evolutionists are the entire population of people? I would argue that everyone is not of that opinion and provide evidence to support my assertion. The fact that someone created this site with the thought that they don't believe the information therein is 'full of it' or false. I would ask you, from what independant agency (one without bias) has evolution been theorized?

Meatbot- I like your response but I am force to ask, do evolutionists source from non-evolutionist evidence? Obviously, those that seek evidence of evolution believe evolution is rational and agree with it. The same is true of creationsists.

Tucking- I think you missed the point. The first link is an evolutionist link. All of you arguing my evidence is creationist and quoting my debate link- have ensnared yourselves into my trap. The evolutionist information you quote as an argument and just discount the creationist links because they oppose your theories. Even though the creationist links are creationist (I didn't try to hide the fact), the pictures cannot be refuted as 'an' evidence of the creationist theory from the distance you are from the actual evidence. Most of you needed an evoltutionist's explanation to tell you why it isn't true. Some of you just became angry and felt a need to hurl insults at something you could not argue against.

Evolution is your religion as is evidenced in your responses. You defend it as fervently as a religionist defends their particular denomination.

Some of you have had some very rational responses and are proven to be true believers of whichever side you chose. The dim-witted have shown themselves quite clearly. Regardless of what you believe, it is your ability to debate without emotional interference that is the first sign of intelligence.From the evidence here, I'd say evolution attracts a large amount of the dim-witted, but then so does the creationist mentality.

Bob- you obviously have zero reading comprehension. To create a fair argument, one must acknowledge all sides of the debate. talkorigins link was my acknowledgment of the evolutionist argument, not my assertion that it is truth.

jenn- Bravo...*claps hands* Here you are, an example of rational AND intelligent posturing. You may have earned 10 points.

bubba- very well thought out, deserving of praise.

Fred- Is that not what evolutionists do? They parrot the evolutionist scientist and the conglomeration of these very scientist. Despite popular belief, not all scientists subscribe to evolution theory. My admiration of Jenn's answer is proof I am not a parrot. She opposes my belief (which I am just now telling you IS my belief) that creationism is a rational AND plausible science that is gaining ground and compiling evidence. Does this scare you? If so, why?

Answer 1

Well, first one must question the authenticity of the footprints. Of course, you are going to get a great deal of negative responses because all of your links are pro creation, although I'd like to point out that most contradicting sites are probably anti creation, so they are also biased (as much as evolutionists hate to admit it). I personally don't believe these footprints are real, they mimic others I have seen that people try to use as proof of bigfoot every couple years or so. On another note, just because these are fraudulent, it doesn't mean all other evidence contradicting current evolution theories is false as well. You won't ever see that in main stream media however, because scientists base their entire life's work on this stuff, so if it is questioned, their careers are ruined (but don't accuse them of lieing just yet, most scientists honestly believe what they tell the public, even if there isn't sufficient evidence to support it).

Answer 2

Well, evolution will tell you that Humans did not just appear, but worked their way up from Primeates to Homosapien
(what we are today) Human history throughout time had several species evolve from these primates...many existing at the same time with the stronger of the species prevaling and paving the way for the next evolutionary turn...until the modern day Human actually became the dominate species on the planet. And no humans did not appear until about 5 million years ago with Ardipithicus ramidus...and with Homosapiens (modern man) not appearing until about 200,000 years ago. Get your facts straight and not from a book that says the Earth is only 10,000 years old.

Answer 3

That is only because science has got it wrong and people did coexist side by side with dinosaurs not because God created the world. Just because people lived in the same time period as dinosaurs, which I believe is true, doesn't mean that there is a God. Ok? There is no evidence of a God whatsoever apart from a book. So guess that makes Harry Potter real as well. I think there are many unanswered questions as to how this planet even managed to become so full of life and so many different species that have already become extinct. But to say that God created the earth 6000 years ago and man in his own image is a fairytale. Science tries to explain it but it is not always correct.

Answer 4

They are actually not in the same strata and are a common/purposeful misunderstanding used to support creationalism. Don't be convinced by the first biased site that you read. Most of the footprints of that age only appear to be human because of erosion and originally were made by much smaller animals. No human, or human evolutionary ancestors footprints have ever been found in strata dated to the same period as the dinosaurs. They have been found with other more recent animals though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_footprints_of_Acahualinca
Many, many hoaxes such as this have been attempted and are clearly fraudulent. Here is a discussion about the actual findings of many of the artifacts listed in the links you provided. http://www.geocities.com/athens/agora/3958/weekly/weekly56.htm
The artifacts were not recovered by a team of scientists recording the location and authenticity of their discovery.

Answer 5

The fossil record of dinosaurs is tremendous. There is 150 years of peer reviewed scientific analysis on evolution, with millions of reputable and well understood specimens.

I don't know if these few things are just errant geologic occurrences (i.e. the footprints were laid down 60Myrs apart, but due to circumstances appear to be together), or whether the foot prints aren't human, or it's all just a load of hooey.

Regardless. A handful of questionable fossils hardly wipes out a 150 years of well understood science.

But- believe what you wish.

Answer 6

Please read the 2nd paragraph of the first link you provided:

" However, initial critical work in the early 1970's,[1] and more intensive scientific studies in recent years, have convincingly refuted the "man track" claims, and led to their abandonment even by most creationists. The alleged human tracks involve a variety of phenomena, including elongate dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of unknown origin, and a few carvings. "

Even most creationists have abandonded the find at this point, because it turns out that the evidence doesn't really indicate what you claim it does. Human footprints have several distinctive features, these prints were just vaguely foot shaped apparently.

Hell, there's FAR more conclusive proof of bigfoot tracks existing than these supposed ancient human tracks, as the bigfoot tracks at least seem to have dermal ridges at first to the observer....

Answer 7

I agree. I think some aspects of Anthropology act like a Church. They have their doctrine, their theories, which they promote and will resist any changes to, even when faced with actual physical evidence. 'It's just an anomaly', they would say. Sure, it's strange, but there it is. They seem to promote a view and deny things that don't agree with it. That's not what science should do. I may not agree with your religious views, but I also think something odd is going on.

Answer 8

Wait so did you read your first link?

" Conclusions. Although genuine dinosaur tracks are abundant in Texas, claims of human tracks have not withstood close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been largely abandoned even by most creationists. Alleged Paluxy "man tracks" involve a variety of spurious phenomena, including erosional features, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, indistinct markings of unknown origin, and a few loose carvings."

Answer 9

Not one of those sets of "human" footprints is definitive. They are all oversized and disproportionate. There is no evidence of an arch. If you photograph them from odd angles, they begin to look vaguely human, but other than having a heel and toes, they do not really have any human characteristics.

Answer 10

I have so been to the creationist museum in Texas. I went in with a fundamental Christian, who is my brother in law, and he ripped them apart making fun of them as I giggled inanely because it was so funny. The books were so great and I laughed so hard at the movies they were showing. Even crazy people have their outlets.