Fossil Discovery put's another nail in Evolutions timeline

The fossils of this world are those that still cling to the superstitious nonsense of Gods & Demons e.t.c.. The proposition that man walked with dinosaurs is ludicrous beyond the extreme and it really astounds me that any God believer can espouse such nonsense.

Of course, when someone has told you all your life dinosaurs died out millions of years ago, and no other evidiecne (was allowed) to be presented that would counter that belief, naturally, one would tend to believe what they were told. Yet, when we see historical discovery, and are presented with facts that clearly show us that ancient man did see dinosaurs. Well, then only one who embraces nonsense would dismiss those facts. Consider the link below. No doubt when some of us were being taught the theory of Evolution in the public schools, such facts were never presented to us. And I might add here, there are a number of such examples like this that can be presented here.

omniology.com

It's called finding some clay, making footprints, letting it dry and then, while claiming carbon dating is BS, making the claim that it's an ancient fossil while not varying it's age.

What Seer said only adds to the truth of what I say. How can the footprints overlap?

Still you're technically correct. Birds are the most resent evolution of dinosaurs, so humans and dinosaurs do coexist.

Why do you creationist never get it that all the evidence is against you? We can see evolution happen. Indeed we can even force (and control) it in the form of breeding and GEing. Why is the fact that life (and every other system) evolves or dies when it's environment changes so hard for you to accept?

How can the footprints overlap? Are you being serious here?

Have you never been to a beach? This happens all the time. Someone will walk in wet sand, and another person will walk over their footprint later on, and then you will see two prints just as you see the human and dino print together here. I can't believe your even asking that question. What Seer said, only reveals his obvious lack of understanding of something that requires only the most basic understanding. And to believe that someone made the print from clay, would also mean that Alvis Delk and frineds are all bold face liars. And it would also show us they discovered a new way to make limestone from clay. It appears to me, this is pretty much how believers in evolution deal with evidence that does not agree with their theories. Forget the use of real science, especially when it is so much easier to use character assassination.

Of course, when someone has told you all your life dinosaurs died out millions of years ago, and no other evidiecne (was allowed) to be presented that would counter that belief, naturally, one would tend to believe what they were told. Yet, when we see historical discovery, and are presented with facts that clearly show us that ancient man did see dinosaurs. Well, then only one who embraces nonsense would dismiss those facts. Consider the link below. No doubt when some of us were being taught the theory of Evolution in the public schools, such facts were never presented to us. And I might add here, there are a number of such examples like this that can be presented here.

omniology.com

A new fossil discovery made in 2000 by Alvis Delk, now puts both Dinosaurs and Man together. This belief that was dismissed by believers in evolution from the beginning, now appears to be on much more solid ground because of this discovery. It also confirms what creation scientist have been telling us about man and dinosaurs coexistence together. A CT scan reveals that both the dinosaur track and man track was made by compression when the stone was soft, and this rules out any attempt to suggest the tracks were carved out, or faked. Consider the link below.

http://ianjuby.org/delk/Alvis_Delk_Print_overview_800px_dsc9293.jpg

There are a number of things I find suspicious about this:

1. The human Big-Toe is far too deep and juts off at a very strange angle.
2. The print was found in location where known hoaxes have been produced in the past
3. The print wasn't revealed until 8 YEARS after it's discovery
4. Alvis at the time was selling his personal possessions at the time to pay for medical bills.
5. It was found in proximity to a creation museum
6. The print was not released to the general scientific community
7. If the dinosaur making the print was several thousand pounds heavier than the human shouldn't the dino print be many times deeper?
8. The "staircase" between two of the dino toes clearly shows several different layers, if the print was created in a single action we would not see this.
9. the human toes are abnormally long.

10. the dinosaur track does not look the dinosaur it is said to be from...

this is the delk print:


and this is a real print from the same dinosaur:




some of the differences you will notice

> The middle toe on the real track is MUCH longer than the other toes
> The real track shows distinct claw marks
> The Delk print is unusually wide
> The real print shows outside toes curving outward


ALSO

there is a series of odd indentations running down the length of the middle dino toe, you cannot see this in the picture provided above, but in this picture you can see it clearly: http://linesden.com/cem/delk/Alvis_Delk_Print_overview_full_dsc9293.jpg

I see no problem with the Delk track. And when you look at any track that is made in the sand, they often take on strange shapes because of the way the track was laid down. If the track was a perfect print, now doubt you would say that was evidence that the print was faked. Of course we have much more evidence for mans existance with dinosaurs, and just like the Delk track, that evidence is ignored or dismissed. And they do this without any scientific review.

There's nothing wrong with it? Look at the human big toe, there is clearly something wrong, it's way too deep.

The series of indentations down the middle toe makes it look like it was forged and the fact that it hasn't been submitted to the scientific community is suspicious.

Unless it can be verified as authentic I'm going to say it's faked

Both scientists and creationists have criticized Baugh's claims. In 1982?1984, several scientists, including J.R. Cole, L.R. Godfrey, R.J. Hastings, and S.D. Schafersman, examined Baugh's purported "mantracks" as well as others provided by creationists in the Glen Rose Formation.[12] In the course of the examination "Baugh contradicted his own earlier reports of the locations of key discoveries" and many of the supposed prints "lacked human characteristics."[12] After a three year investigation of the tracks and Baugh's specimens, the scientists concluded there was no evidence of any of Baugh's claims or any "dinosaur-man tracks".[12]

Baugh has a history of deception.[12] On September 27, 1984, Al West, a Baugh co-worker for two years, who followed the mantrack claims since 1974, and friend of Glen Kuban, publicly announced that Baugh "never had evidence for manprints as claimed.[12] Gayle Golden, writer for The Dallas Morning News, reported that Baugh "paid $10,000 for his Moab skeleton and confirmed that Baugh knew at their purchase that the bones had already been dated at 200-300 years. However Baugh later claimed that the bones were found in Cretaceous deposits."[12]

One of Baugh's more famous claims, aside from the dinosaur tracks, is an alleged out of place artifact of an "18th century miner's hammer" found in million-year-old Ordovician rock (he has also claimed it is in Cretaceous rock) found in 1934 from London, Texas.[18][19] Baugh asserted this as evidence against scientifically known ways that rocks form.[18] However, laboratory tests discounted his claim about the hammer's being formed in the rock.[18][19] J.R. Cole wrote, "The stone concretion is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artifact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble."[20]

In July 2008, Baugh was in contact with Alvis Delk and James Bishop, who claimed to have found a dinosaur-human print fossil.[21] Bishop is a convicted murderer and Delk has a history of selling faked artifacts.[22] Baugh bought the "fossil" from Delk who used the money to pay his medical bills.[23] On the authenticity of the claims, reporter Bud Kennedy noted, "since no scientists were involved, about all we really know so far is that the museum has a new rock."[24] Biologist PZ Myers critiqued Delk's "fossil" saying Baugh "is falling all over himself praising the authenticity of this blatant fake."[25][26]

Creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis have criticized Baugh's claims saying he "muddied the water for many Christians. . . . People are being misled."[4] Don Batten, of Creation Ministries International wrote: "Some Christians will try to use Baugh's 'evidences' in witnessing and get 'shot down' by someone who is scientifically literate. The ones witnessed to will thereafter be wary of all creation evidences and even more inclined to dismiss Christians as nut cases not worth listening to."[27] Answers in Genesis (AiG) lists the "Paluxy tracks" as arguments "we think creationists should NOT use" [emphasis in original].[28] Also Answers In Creation reviewed Baugh's museum and concluded "the main artifacts they claim show a young earth reveal that they are deceptions, and in many cases, not even clever ones."

So outside of he said, she said, and character assassination, can you show us any scientific review that would allow us to dismiss the Delk Track? You would think by this time hundreds of scientist would be pounding on Baugh's door trying to get a closer look at that track. Yet, I suppose when you can dismiss something from your armchair, who needs a scientifice review? The fact is, human foot prints are found in rock in numerous places around the globe, yet like the Delk Track, they are just dismissed. How do you think this human foot print got into this 50 million year old rock in the link below?

THE RAIN / A FOOTPRINT IN STONE 50 MILLION YEARS OLD