|Message||Dinosaur footprints are just big turkey tracks!|
|Message||With regard to the Carboniferous Kentucky man tracks, I first heard of them in the 1960's, looked up Berea College's Wilbur Burroughs in American Men of Science (as it was then called), found him living in retirement in upstate NY, and sent him a letter. He responded the tracks were genuine, verified by counting density of sand grains inside vs. outside the tracks, and by peeling back a layer of sandstone and exposing fresh tracks. Not believing in creation or a global flood, he attributed the tracks to a bipedal amphibian.
Reply: Thanks for your post. One thing that we have to be careful about is whether we are talking about the same specific prints. The images of alleged human prints in KY shown by Ingalls and reproduced by Henry Morris in The Genesis Flood were quite crude, showing oddly shaped tracks not consistent with normal human prints nor any known amphibian tracks. Nor were they demonstrated to be in striding sequences. My article explains how the grain concentration argument is not necessarily proof of authenticity. If Burroughs found new tracks under fresh sediment, it would be very interesting to know if these were at the same site, or in striding trails, and and how similar (if at all) they were to the images shown by Morris. Do you know if he ever published a paper on the prints reportedly found under newly peeled strata, or if he took any photos of them? Thanks.
|Message||I would like to be a participant|
|Message||thank you for the expose on "Dr," Carl Baugh,..|
what a phony. I've never read ,nor listened to such drivel in my existance.
|Message||The Apostle Peter warned us that scoffers would arise in the last days. Your site is proof. I suppose that you think that there was death before Adam, and that when God looked at His creation at the end of the 6 day creation week and said that it was all very good, that He was unmindful of all of the death that had occured or all of the dead creatures that His creation was built upon. So, in your opinion was there death before Adam's sin? If so, are the scriptures then in error? And if the scriptures are in error, which scriptures are not? Oh, and was Jesus just trying to pull the wool over peoples' eyes when He quoted the Book of Genesis? And perhaps you can answer this for me... What is the speed of light in deep space? As far as I know no one knows. There is still time to repent. |
Reply to Brad:
As I explained in my article on whether physical death existed before the Fall, there are strong scientific as well as Biblical reasons for concluding that the death spoken of there was spiritual, not physical. The Bible often speaks of life and death in spiritual terms. Since God told Adam he would die the day he ate of the forbidden fruit, and he did not physically die that literal day, then either the day or death or both were not literal; otherwise the Bible would contradict itself. I don't understand your ending comment about the speed of light in deep space. If you have some specific scientific evidence to offer, please do so. GK
|Message||In a film published and named Forbidden Archeology, photographs of a well formed footprint in fossilized cretaceous stone is said to have originated from Dinosaur Valley at Glen Rose, TX. In addition a fossilized human finger digit was shown in in the same video along with a high tech scan of it that indicated fossilized skin, bone and ligaments from Glen Rose, TX. It seems none of these finds were mentioned and may have been left out inadvertently or intentionally. This is a simple observation not an accusation of intentional deception. Any comments to this is appreciated.
Reply to Dave:
If you check my main menu carefully, you'll find an essay dealing with the Forbidden Archaeology claims (the one referring to the NBC program), as well as separate articles on the alleged human finger fossil, and various alleged human footprints. The one focused on in the footage you refer to is called the Burdick Print. My article on that subject shows that it is an anatomically incorrect print whose subsurface features show it to be a definite carving, and which is acknowledged to be a carving even by most creationist workers. Thank you. GK
|Message||Thank you for your web site. I have had a number of discussions over the years about various creation vs evolution controversies and invariably they come down to stalemates with neither side willing to concede. The true value of your web site, and one that lends considerable credibility is that you have chosen to provide references back to the opposing claims. Thus, anyone professing to be a true scholar can look at all of the written (and other) evidence presented and draw their own conclusions. |
I agree that the proof of claims ultimately resides with the claimant. However, the inability (not refusal) of a claimant to provide conclusive proof beyond the scientific evidence at hand should not irrefutably be evidence that the claims are invalid. I made claims in my MS thesis about the origin of minerals in the upper Midwest; claims based on the best evidence I had at the time. Having not witnessed the formation of those mineral deposits, I cannot offer any additional proof beyond what I believe the available scientific evidence suggests. Key word: suggests.
No scientist should be so arrogant as to believe that others might not find evidence contrary to current belief. Similarly, no believer in faith should be so arrogant as to dismiss the evidence of science. God gave us the ability to think scientifically even as He promotes faith. Faith and science are not incompatible.
Reply to Keith:
Thanks for your comments. I agree with many of them. Your comment "the inability (not refusal) of a claimant to provide conclusive proof beyond the scientific evidence at hand should not irrefutably be evidence that the claims are invalid." is fine as far as it goes. However, the important point is that poorly supported claims are not worth much, especially in science. If I claimed that a pink elephant was sitting next to me as I type this, the fact that I have not demonstrated it conclusively would not prove it false, but by the same token, there would be no reason to assume it was true, or even plausible. In regards to many of the Paluxy related claims, we not only find an absence of compelling evidence for the claims, but in many cases we have strong contrary evidence, based on extensive research by both creationist and noncreationist workers. as well as admissions from former "man track" supporters that their early work and conclusions were questionable or incorrect. Thanks! GK
|Message||Great site!! Went through it and found some interesting stuff.I'm not into the same kind of thing but |
make sure you check out mine
|Message||Hi Glen Kuban.|
Great web site.
I saw that you are offering dino castings!(pun intended)
Cool! Do you have any castings of the prints which were destroyed by you and Scott Faust on the Paluxy river?
I hope so, if yes, could you sign them please?
Reply to anonymous quest:
Its interesting that you are bold enough to encourage an unfounded rumor, but don't have the courage to leave your name. Please read the essay entitled "Reply to Unfounded Rumor" on my Paluxy menu demonstrating that this rumor was false and malicious. It is unfortuately that someone would start such a rumor, but sadder still that others with little or no firsthand knowlegge of the evidence would assume it is true and help spread it. I don't think this is very charitable or Christian behavior. By the way, in case you are interested in the evidence and not just rumors, the allegation that a human track in the infilling of a Taylor Trail track was destroyed was not only unfounded, but geologically impossible. Core samples of the Taylor Trail tracks showed that the track infillings associated with them lack bedding planes, and real tracks always occur on bedding planes. For more information please see my article on Color Distinctions. Best wishes, GK
|Message||We where visiting my Grandmother (Dad in Army 21 years) thus she convinced the lady it would be such a special treat for her to let us see them while visiting her. I know what I saw and it wasn't anything as sorry as your mantrack.htm pictures are, if that is all I had to go on I wouldn't believe they where man made either, but what I saw was definitely man made by a very large being. One was a clear print while some of the others not all the toe prints where as clear due to erosion. Now I know exactly how privileged I have been in life, to have seen and know and understand more than people who have spent hours and years and are still in the dark ages.
Reply to Kay:
I am sure you are well intentioned, but human memories are notoriously fallible. In a number of cases individuals have made comments like this to me, but then when they locate their own photos, are surprised to see that the "tracks" are not nearly as clear as their memories indicated. You call my photos "sorry" but refer to only one of my articles, whreas I have numerous articles addressing many aspects of the controversy, with many more photos and diagrams, produced during more than 25 years of on sited research, not just a single brief visit.
At any rate, if you and others believed you saw clear human tracks, certainly you (or someone with you) would also have realized the importance of such a find, and thought to take some photos. Could you please post some of the photos so that we may all examine them? If you have none, and don't know of any by others, then your comments about my "sorry pictures" seem pretty inconsistent. Thanks, GK
|Free guestbook provided by UltraGuest.com|