A recent discovery in texas is starting to shake up the entire science and religious communities beucase of a simple footprint! Seriously!

A fossilized human footprint has been discovered in Texas limestone BUT what makes that so significant? It's fossilized UNDER a dinosaurs footprint! This would completely change and/or destroy everything science, creationist, and the give more affirmation to religions about the origins of man. Since it either completely destroys Darwin's theory of Evolution since it shows man to exist at the time of dinosaurs. Which will create huge amounts of other questions as to what happened to the giant dinosaurs and gave rise to and divergence of the species we have had since their time.

Books have to be rewritten and so many things will change from this discovery which has already under numerous x-rays and ct scans to verify it was not carved or manufactured in some way. the religious nuts are going to crazy about this and then the big questions come up again. Where and how did man appear? At least evolution gave an answer. Well.... only time will tell

Here is the full story....

http://www.mineralwellsindex.com/homepage/local_story_210093256.html

fraternity party?

I never went to school in texas

Sorry, dude, the print is obviously fake: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/transparent_fakery.php#more .

It shouldn't be a surprise that the print has only been "verified" by nutball American creationist Carl Baugh. This guy is such a wackaloon that even AIG ("Answers in Genesis") disavows him. Amongst his "scientific" beliefs:

1. Before the Flood, the earth was surrounded by hydrogen which was so cold it was metallic and this collapsed when God shouted.

2. People could hear the 'singing' of the stars before the Flood.

3. People could 'feel' the time before the Flood.

4. People can affect radioactive decay rates with their minds.

5. Eggs do not hatch outside the earth's magnetic field.

6. Granites (which contain radioactive elements) are not exploding because they are in 'perfect balance'.

7. He argues that, in some way, radioactive minerals align themselves with the magnetic field, which is nonsense.

8. He says that people were smarter before the Flood, attributing this to a supposedly higher oxygen pressure.

(from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/whatbau.html)

Posted by paulgh3rd [ 1 August 2008 | 4:00AM ]

I never went to school in texas

Reading the above post, surely you missed the full stop after the word School !!

Of course it would be found in Texas.

How convenient!

I didn't say it made sense or was proven ... yet just what had been reported thus far. I didn't point out and I guess most people didn't bother to read the article but the guy who said he discovered the stone said he had kept it for a while thinking it only held the dino print but hever cleanered it or anything... seemed weird to me.

More on Carl Baugh:

CSF, as one of the major creationist organisations world-wide, wrote to Mr. Baugh two years ago asking for documentation regarding such astonishing claims as chlorophyll being found on a T. rex tooth, alleged tapes of Neil Armstrong, a NASA experiment showing that eggs do not hatch outs ide of a magnetic field, and a tomato plant that grew to 30 feet tall and produced 5,000 tomatoes when grown under light supposedly simulating pre-Flood conditions. The only reply we received had enclosed 'documentation' which was nothing of the sort.

Baugh is perhaps best known for his claims about "man tracks" and other "out-of-order" fossils from the Paluxy Riverbed of Glen Rose, Texas. Such claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been largely abandoned even by most creationists. Baugh's Paluxy claims have been among the least credible and most problematic, involving many ambigous and doctored markings promoted as clear human prints. He also has actively promoted several loose carvings as genuine prints, including The Burdick Print , which was featured in the recent NBC TV show. Detailed articles on the Paluxy controversy are found at:

Perhaps the most troublesome of Baugh's claims concerns his credentials. Baugh claims to have earned a Ph.D's in theology as well as advanvced degrees in several fields of science, yet there is no evidence that Baugh has any earned degrees whatsoever. For detailed discussion on this matter, please see the article A Matter of Degree. Although is is possible to do good work without advanced degrees, misrepresenting one's credentials is a serious matter which bears directly on one's basic honesty and integrity.

Anyone can see that's not a real human footprint.

I guess Dr. Myers is no fool, after all.

"Of course it would be found in Texas."

By a bible-thumper named "Alvis", too!

Religious, ignorant bible bashers. Religions lie all the time. Rubbish.

........... and I didn't think you could get any dumber.

Even scarier, he's getting interested followers.

It's possible to believe in both G-d and evolution.

Why ridicule this finding? Easy. Because the one and only "authority" claiming this is genuine is a creationist who has a track record of faking exactly these kind of findings in the past, and has been held up as a charlatan by several organizations of CREATIONISTS!

Just look at the "human" footprint. It's so obvious it's not real. Real toe prints are not perfect tubular shapes as these are. Next time you're walking along the beach, take a look.

I expect that the "artefact" will never be submitted for "rigorourous examination and testing" because it is so obviously fake.

If there was anything to it, Mr. Alvis (could he be Elvis in disguise?) wouldn't be engaging the help of an "expert" who even creationists call a charlatan.

Anyone with common sense who looks at the "footprint" and examines the record of Mr. Baugh, would dismiss this.

The reason I knew about this fake is that it has been a bit of an ongoing joke on science-oriented websites/blogs. The experts have already dismissed it.

Dating is expensive. About $1,000 a pop. No scientifically-minded person is going to waste money dating this piece of garbage.

Finding the mechanism is important, but that still doesn't prove it actually happened. Which is why evolution is a "theory." It is subject to investigation and debate. There is evidence to support the theory, but it still requires a bit of faith on the part of those who believe it.

I've never seen any convincing evidence supporting creationism, however, which relies almost solely on faith.

There is an immensely long forum thread on this on TF called "Evolution is a hoax", if anyone cares to look it up and revive it. If it hasn't been locked. lol

No, Loburt, "theory" has a different meaning in science than in general usage. It's a framework that connects numerous little facts into a coherent whole. Thus, the "theory of gravity". "Quantum Theory" predicts the behaviors of particles down to truly absurd tolerances.

For all intents and purposes, evolution is a fact. It has survived all tests designed to counter it. Almost inevitably, folks who debate evolution haven't really studied it.

Well, FS, while I'm a believer in evolution, I don't necessarily see the difference between theory in science and general usage. The framework, or coherent whole, is a human construction. The facts themselves are what they are. The framework may describe something that is real, or maybe it's wrong. The theory or framework still needs to be proved.

While the vast majority of legitimate scientists accept Evolution, there are still a few who question it, or question aspects of it. It's telling that you say "for all intents and purposes, evolution is a fact.'' That means that it can't be described as a fact in actual or absolute terms.

Now, once again, I don't see any better explanation for how we all got here than Evolution.

And I certainly don't want to re-open the Evolution is a Hoax thread.

Loburt, I didn't figure you for a fluffy postmodern deconstructionalist Feyerbendian kind of guy.

You're somewhat contradictory. Is the framework is a mere human construction and can never be proved, or it "still needs to be proved" (i.e. a framework is more than just a human construction and can be proved).

What sort of "proof" would satisfy you?