 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| FFT wrote: | | Actually that was an invitation for you to repost the studies of the compressions in the so-called print. I don't remember where they were and need a refresher. |
HERE. 
| Quote: | | And luckily, since this is online and not verbal, we can talk about multiple subjects at once without getting sidetracked (making your accusation of misdirection a misdirection in itself); since the entire "debate" is available for review. So, care to respond to the fact that burrows have been found in supposed flood deposits? |
Nope... I haven't done any reading or research on them... other than what you have posted I don’t know anything about them. I have read somewhere before something about fossilized dinosaur nests, but beyond that ... what do you want me to say? The only thing I could retort off the top of my head is... how does the author of your article discern between pre and post flood sedimentary deposition?
Sorry to spoil your party brother... but I don't know dink about those burrows.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
admin
Beloved Admin
Joined: 28 Sep 2000
Posts: 1803
Location: Macau, China
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| My favorite threads are the Trinity/FFT dialogues. Thank you both for your thoughtful posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6287
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Actually that was an invitation for you to repost the studies of the compressions in the so-called print. I don't remember where they were and need a refresher. |
HERE. |
Okay so who's to say that the compressions weren't from something else?
Why does the "top" of the footprint slab, the face with the footprint on it, look totally different from rock at the same site the rock came from?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | The only thing I could retort off the top of my head is... how does the author of your article discern between pre and post flood sedimentary deposition? |
Well what other creationist explanation would there be for thousands of feet of sedimentary layers in the deserts of Mexico?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Okay so who's to say that the compressions weren't from something else? |
Empirical Science. Did you read the citation. They made prints themselves and compared the compressions. Humans make the same exact compression the as we find under the Burdick track. This is how science works... or at least that is what I constantly reminded of. Repeatable, falsifiable, etc... Patton did the work that evolutionists either can't do, or refuse to do as they know what the implications are.
Now, when the track looks human. When the compressions underneath it are completely consistent with a human print, I am left to conclude a human made the print. (kinda like if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.... you get my point).
| Quote: | | Why does the "top" of the footprint slab, the face with the footprint on it, look totally different from rock at the same site the rock came from? |
I don't understand this... who made this statement? Are you saying that the footprint didn't come from where Patton says it did?
| Quote: | | Well what other creationist explanation would there be for thousands of feet of sedimentary layers in the deserts of Mexico? |
Tell you what... I'll try to get some learning done on this subject. I am extremely busy right now though so you are going to have to (a) be patient and (b) prolly remind me from time to time. I'm carrying literally a double load at school, working, and still trying to participate here.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| admin wrote: | | My favorite threads are the Trinity/FFT dialogues. Thank you both for your thoughtful posts. |
Well... my favorite website is this one. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to dialogue.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6287
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Empirical Science. Did you read the citation. They made prints themselves and compared the compressions. |
I saw in the article where they compared the prints, but nothing where they compared the compressions. Did they?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | I don't understand this... who made this statement? Are you saying that the footprint didn't come from where Patton says it did? |
Compare the Burdick print itself with the last photo on the page.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schuckdaddy
Alley Cat
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 188
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
(In my most mocking voice possible)
"I read this thing once and it said that creation is true and then I read this other thing and it said evolution is true, and now I'm confused, cause they were both written with words and stuff, so I don't know which to believe, cause sometimes words are true and sometimes they aren't, you know." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Barbarian
Hamster
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 86
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bottom line?
In 1990 the Burdick track was re-sectioned across the toes and heel under the direction of Carl Baugh and Don Patton. Subsequently Patton promoted the track in the MIOS newsletter, which requested donations for a new museum display of the track (Patton, 1990). At the 2nd International Conference on Creationism in 1990, Patton displayed and sold photographs of the new cross sections, claiming that they showed subsurface deformation lines proving the print authentic. However, others at the conference, including the current authors and creationist paleontologist Kurt Wise, observed that the alleged pressure features were algal structures truncated by the print depression, indicating that that track was carved.
Ironically, YE creationists were largely responsible for exposing this fraud. Kurt Wise is a dedicated YE creationist, but he's honest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
