text:
Science museum or playground? » « I have never been a fashion model before
Transparent fakery
What do you think of this "fossil"?
It's supposed to be a human footprint with that of an Acrocanthosaurus on top of it, showing that dinosaurs walked the earth after human beings.
Unfortunately, they both look ridiculously fake. The human print has toes like tubes and a wierdly dug-in big toe, and looks ridiculously fake. The dino print is even worse — it's basically a three-pronged flat plate, looking like it was modeled after the smooth bottoms of a plastic dinosaur toy. Here, for instance is a photo of a cast of an actual dinosaur print.
A fellow named Alvis Delk "discovered" this rock in Texas, and is now, naturally enough, trying to sell it.
A domestic fall from a ladder eight months ago nearly crippled Delk, resulting in surgeries, a long recovery and expensive medical bills. He decided to try and sell some of his archeological treasurers, so he turned to the large piece of limestone, thinking he could clean it up some and sell it to the Creation Evidence Museum located adjacent to Dinosaur Valley State Park near Glen Rose.
Heh. Right. He's also found a sucker — Carl Baugh, who is falling all over himself praising the authenticity of this blatant fake.
The only way this could be considered evidence for Baugh's godly vision is in the sense of that well-known quote from Voltaire: "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." And he keeps on granting it — religious explanations for the world are everlastingly ridiculous.
So you're saying that someone has put their foot in it?
Nerd of Redhead says
What? The creobots manufacturing evidence? The horror!
Certainly does make your job easier when it's that bad a fake.
If they lie about that, what else will they lie about?
echidna says
Because, of course, the Creation Museum is the proper place for creative fossils.
Bryan says
Oh. I guess that is supposed to be a big toe.
Looks more like a geologist took a plug for paleo-mag studies. I didn't know why they would do it on a slap that isn't in situ, but that was my first impression.
I saw something just like that on an episode of the Flintstones. I love the way the faker's knowledge of what all things "dinosaury" must look like comes directly from seeing the footprints in a Godzilla movie.
Tristan Croll says
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't limestone typically form under rather a large quantity of water?
King of Ferrets says
Maybe I should learn something about fossils; if I hadn't had something to compare to, I would have though someone had faked a human footprint on a perfectly good dino footprint.
jpf says
Maybe Carl Baugh would be interested in also buying Onyate Man?
Kaydon says
I eagerly await the explanation as to why humans walked like that back when they roamed with the dinosaurs from the Creation Evidence Museum. I mean, you gotta admit that a human putting that much weight on their big toe is a curious adaptation, no?
JoJo says
C'mon, PZ, ain't ya ever heard of time-travel? A human hopped into his time machine and went to the Jurassic. In his hurry to get there, he completely forgot to wear a right shoe or sock. While walking around, he happened to see an allosaur's tracks. Naturally he stopped to take a look. Then, behold, he saw in the distance a herd of stegosaurs investigating his time machine. As he ran back to protect his time machine, he stepped on the allosaur's foot print. Fortunately, our hero was able to chase off the inquisitive stegosaurs and return safely home.
If anyone buys that, I've got a piece of toast with an image of the virgin mary on it that I'm willing to give up, for suitable compensation of course..
OMG ze sleeztak!! I knews Land Of The Lost was a documentary disguised as a TV show!
Is that a line of drill holes running along the midline of the "dinosaur print," or is it just me?
I'll be scouring e-bay for this gem!
Good to 'see' you again Bride of Shrek! Been missing your sluttiness. I was almost afraid *gasp* the ol' pope had snatched you! ;)
As for your photos PZ – well hell, everyone from Oregon can identify that foot print. It's Bigfoot. Sheesh, the things I gotta teach you flatlanders.
Big chicken business in the morning, so goodnight sweethearts!
Bride of Shrek, #11, wrote:
I've got a piece of toast with an image of the virgin mary on it…
Has it got Vegemite on it?
Don Smith, FCD says
Ah yes, Carl Baugh has provided me with hours of entertainment of the fantasy kind! He who believes there was a firmament above the atmosphere that raised the pressure so large creatures could live 4000 years ago. How the universe was created small and all those galaxies moved very quickly (many times the speed of light, dog can do anything) to their present positions leaving behind those photons we see today. Of course, he never explains why, if that were so, those far away galaxies don't cover the sky with so much brilliance we would all instantly be vaporized.
I did learn something from him however, for which I will be eternally grateful: If there was no creation, there would have been no Garden of Eden. Without the GofE there would have been no original sin, Without original sin, there would have been no need for Jesus on a stick and all Christianity is living a lie.
Impeccable logic, that!
Look like a giant duck print to me. The thought of ancient humans co-existing with giant ducks quite amuses me.
There's also suspiciously circular marks in the upper dino toe and in the ball of the human foot.
at #6:
It depends, typically yes limestone (LS) forms under water. It needs to have a balance of variables, needs to be warm enough to allow the CO3 to precipitate (but not too warm), sediment influx tends to also shut the system down, salinity is also an important component. Depending on how deep you mean by a large quantity of water you might acually start dissolving the LS again if you pass the carbonate compensation depth. Mostly it is associated with warm shallow water.
However, depending on the setting you can develop beaches that are composed of carbonate, which becomes LS. Usually you will see something called ooids(little balls of limestone) forming these beaches.
A modern analog of this happening today is in the carribean. Lots of geologists make sure to study modern carbonate formation around Jamaica.
You can also get micrite deposits, which could indicate lagoonal settings (depending on the context). An example of that is the Solnholfen Lagerstaten in Germany. Many famous fossils come from there, including Arhaeopteryx.
Brian W. says
It would be wonderful if they tried to trumpet this as being definitive proof of creationism.
Cheezits says
I simply must learn how they make those things.
Patricia, fellow harlot
I had to take some time out- even sluts have to study occasionally… you know to help us improve our station in life and all that. Cause it is for want of a proper education that I find myself selling my body on the streets, sometimes earning up to $5 a day.
Wowbagger- of course it had vegemite on it, 2 inches thick- the way only a REAL Australian would eat it.
It can't be Bigfoot. He has six toes!
I'm trying to figure out how footprint could be made in limestone, wouldn't the foot have to be there as the limestone was still being formed? Meaning it would have to be there for years.
earning up to $5 a day.
Reminds me of a joke. "Which one paid you a quarter?"
I've got a big drinking night this Saturday so that's exactly the way I'll be having it on Sunday when I emerge very hungover.
Salt + Vitamin B = good.
sinned34 says
A little OT:
Brent over at Unscrewing The Inscrutable has a link to this at the National Post, describing a stunt performed by one of the guys on the awful Canadian TV show Kenny Vs Spenny which should have a lot of believers up in arms. Especially right on the heels of Crackergate!
rrt says
Can't wait to see the deconstruction of this one. Wonder how he weathered it.
Here's the photo of a six-toed bigfoot print. I wonder if Michael Medved would consider buying it for the DI library?
Apparently you drill a series of holes then chip away the rest.
shadowfax says
You're all missing the BIG story! the imprint in the upper left part of the cast is not a human footprint, IT'S AN ANGEL!!!!1!1!! Just before that flat-footed dino trod there, God himself reached out and touched that mud with his noodly appendage.
Damn, I mean his divine, er, finger.
Aw, forget it.
To #20: Thanks!
Dahan says
I'm no scientist. But this thing wouldn't have fooled even me. Before I read what PZ had to say, I was already asking myself "What's up with those toes?" and "Why does that dino track look so friggin flat?"
If this came across my path in one of my freshman art classes, I'd give it a "B". As far as what they're purporting it to be. Bwahaha!
This is almost as good as the fossilized fishing reel from a few years ago. Not much evidence of that episode remains, though.
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=100&m=1
waldteufel says
Carl Baugh is a fraud among frauds. Even the scumbags that prowl the alleys with Ken Hambone distance themselves from him. I guess the Hamster is afraid that Baugh will divert money from him.
trixie says
Obviously this is a very rare find because the humans were riding around on the dinosaurs and not leaving their footprints on the ground! Too bad the dinos weren't great swimmers to save them from that big flood.
OO, OO, I know! It's a BPD print! Explains everything!
Capital Dan says
Hmmm… Since I'm supposed to be an hell-bound immoral atheist, I think I might just start "discovering" some creationist-friendly fossils.
I think I could make enough for beer money.
Amplexus says
Why is it that creationists are so nutso about dinosaurs? Dr.dino Pawtuxy foot prints, etc. There are many organisms that were present throughout earth's history. Many of them very large as well. There's the mention of the 9 foot long Devonian deutersomes? What about labryrinadont?
Jeremy says
Looks like that Acrocanthosaurus needs to ease up on the people-eating.
Note to IDiots: Allosaurids were a little more lithe than that.
If they were really serious about having this vetted as a legitimate ichnite, they'd submit it for scientific analysis. Then again, they probably assume the evil scientists would just lie and say it was fake.
Brian X says
It figures Baugh would go for something like this. Fooled or not, he's a charter member of the Fake Diploma squad along with Hovind and a few others. There's a writeup on manufactured credentials on talkorigins.org.
Daniel R says
They are going to piss us off with that during decades, just like the so-called "shroud" of Turin, having proved fake since many years, but believers still continue to pretend there be a doubt about it. Pffff!
Teucer says
JoJo "C'mon, PZ, ain't ya ever heard of time-travel? A human hopped into his time machine and went to the Jurassic. In his hurry to get there, he completely forgot to wear a right shoe or sock. While walking around, he happened to see an allosaur's tracks…"
That's crazy talk, like that Ray Bradbury story where some guy went back in time and stepped on a butterfly and Bush won a second term.
Milo Johnson says
Looks like a prop from a bad Fifties sci-fi movie.
DrFish says
My favorite parts of this were all on Carl Baugh's page. First, how did a limestone formation in Texas get named for a Fijian head of state? Second, as someone who got a Ph.D. in Missouri, I wish I had known that the city of Poplar Bluff (nice enough place on the transition zone from Ozark highlands to Mississippi River valley lowlands, great fish diversity!) gave them out in conjunction with universities in Australia. It would have been a lot easier to just send a check. Also, what convenient quotes he seems to have found regarding the damning effect that finding human and dinosaur footprints together would have on evolutionary theory. I wonder how accurate they are. Finally, how did Congressman Dannemeyer comment on the discovery of this "fossil" in 1983 when Mr. Delk claims to have only noticed it in May, 2008?
To me, it looks like Mr. Baugh mined some quotes while doing his correspondence course, got hold of a vague, but positive, comment from an elected official and then spent decades trying to find (possibly manufacture) a relic that fit his needs. As a scientist, I, of course, start out skeptical, as anyone should be of new evidence that flies in the face of all known evidence, that is how science works. Unfortunately, I fully expect that when it comes time for independent tests to be done by competent experts (no offense to the CAT-scan tech and Carl's fundagelical buddies) objections will be instantly raised about the potential risk to such a valuable "fossil", and no such tests will ever be done. The ID crowd's lack of interest in playing by the rules of scientific enquiry while simultaneously aiming to destroy the esteem for knowledge gained from that process threatens to push me past skepticism into the realm of disgust.
Amplexus@39:
I also find it amusing that they focus on non-avian dinosaurs like they're the only extinct form of life on earth. It shows that their comprehension of the fossil record and geologic history is on par with a five-year-old's.
The same can be said about their fascination with eyes, while simultaneously ignoring other senses. They seem to think eyes are the most important sense, and the only thing worthy of consideration, despite innumerable species doing swell without it. Again, a five-year-old's grasp of science.
The only people buying into this hogwash are their uneducated hillbilly followers, which are unfortunately too numerous.
Alvis Delk is a frickin genius. I hope he got the creationists to part with a ton of money.
lauram says
I thought it was a dinosaur footprint (albeit faked) shown below a fossilized angel. I thought the IDers were trying to show that even dinosaurs had guardian angels and that sometimes the dinosaurs stepped on them and accidentally killed their little angels while making great fossils suitable for display (TM) ;*)
clinteas-Columbo says
*drapes trenchcoat over arm,hold left hand over mouth,puts on thinking face*
The big toe hole looks suspicious,something made that much deeper than it should have been.
And if this was a surface that was soft enough to retain the human footprint at the time it was put there,shouldnt the dino print be somehow be changed? And yet,especially the second dino toe looks totally undisturbed.
Suspicious !
Are trilobites Kosher? They are related to shrimp and lobsters. Then again is it really paradise without breaded trilobite with cocktail sauce?
"I'm going to make you extinct in my tummy!"
Just realized dino is meantr to have stood on humans print LOL
Same applies tho,wouldnt expect them to be so clear cut.
LordJiro says
@42: That's how the Creationists work. They dig up some faked piece of crap, and make a huge fuss about it. Then, they make MUCH less noise when it's debunked, so their followers never hear about it.
Hessenroots says
So, a guy 'finds' a 'fossil' that 'clearly' shows 'man walked before dinosaurs' and he sits on it for eight years?
Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer says
Looks like both sides like to fabricate evidence to support their claims.
I think it's a PAC Man ghost.
MikeinJapan says
So is this a cast of a print off a piece of limestone or is it the actual block of limestone? It would be elementary to fake the former, and the original formation **SHOULD** still exist out in the wild somewhere, but if it's an actual block of limestone… i mean how do you fake that? (carving?) I only want to know so I can go out and make some bank off the guillible. xD
Randy@54:
This is how science works:
1) Observe
2) Make hypothesis that might explain observation
3) Test hypothesis
4a) If test fails, go back to 2
4b) If test succeeds, test it again
5) Keep testing it
6) If you test it a billion times and it's never proven wrong, it's a pretty good indicator that it's correct
No need for fabrication. It's pretty straightforward. On top of that, a lot of different people are going to independently test your hypothesis as well. There's no conspiracy here, only a quest for truth.
Compare that with ID:
1) Believe with all your heart that God made everything
3) Try to explain how God explains your observation
Plenty of room for fabrication, since the IDiot is only trying to show how God explains the world, not what really explains the world. There's no quest for truth, only a quest to reinforce ancient superstition in the face of overwhelming contradictory information and evidence.
Science: Test
Religion: Lie
pcarini says
Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer @ #54
Stimpy you fool!
Numad says
Giant duck spells doom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullockornis_planei
Julian Gall says
How is saying the footprints "both look ridiculously fake" different from saying "the eye looks intelligently designed"?
Both statements are true about the appearences but prove nothing.
arachnophilia says
before the real paleontologists step in, i'd like to note a few facts about the REAL dinosaur print shown above.
1. it's the same genus, but you're not getting a good comparison: the mud collapsed on the digits. a large theropod like acrocanthosaurus had beefy digits to support its weight. however, the faked one above does not have the digits properly splayed in their correct bird-like formation (and the ball of the foot is completely the wrong shape). the faked one also has the wrong proportions, lengthwise, of the digits. looks more like he was trying to fake a sauropod print.
2. it's ALSO in limestone. this in and of itself is not suspicious as limestone can be an evaporite — considering that drying river beds are a prime candidate for footprint ichnofossils, it's not too surprising. if i recall, a fair portion of the paluxy river tracks are in limestone. if i had to place a guess, that's where i'd bet this was SUPPOSED to have come from.
i can't tell too much without bigger pictures, but it looks like it was carved, or perhaps partially carved. displacement doesn't look right.
anyways, pz, might i recommend you change the REAL fossil photo to this one: http://paleo.cc/casts/mcf1.jpg
it's much more representative of what acrocanthosaur footprints generally look like, and won't have people making false comparisons based on digit width.
k9_kaos says
Er, umm… yes, but this fossil was made pre-Fall back when humans and dinosaurs could breathe underwater. I think. ;)
Galactus78 says
I think this fossil proves conclusively that man and dinosaur shared the Earth. It also proves that on the day it was made, Fred Flinstone must've been very eager to leave work as to jump off his brontosaurs with such force as to make such a deep print. Creation Science can only deduce from this point further that he must've been in a great hurry to enter his paddle car and eat a comically oversize portion of ribs.
Brandon P. says
@ #10
I know I am being pedantic, but that's not an Allosaurus footprint from the Jurassic, it's an Acrocanthosaurus footprint from the early Cretaceous. Replace "allosaur" and "stegosaur" with "acrocanthosaur" and "iguanodont", and you would be accurate.
Randy@54 again (I just wanted to make this plain):
Science will readily reject any hypothesis which has been disproven. ID proponents will not, under any circumstance, reject the God hypothesis. Therefore, they aren't honestly evaluating evidence. They only seek to make the evidence fit their God hypothesis. Scientists, on the other hand, have no motivation for making new evidence fit existing hypotheses. If anything, a scientist will get noticed for shaking up their science.
Julian@60:
"The eye looks intelligently designed". This is an extraordinary claim, given the presumed supernatural cause. It's been tested and examined, and thus far there's no evidence for intelligent design. The evidence shows how "half an eye" is useful, and how eyes evolve. No need for sky fairies, it's pretty straightforward if you understand the research.
"This track looks fake". Given the mountain of evidence showing that dinosaurs and humans are separated by about 65 million years, the validity of this track is an extraordinary claim. Every time a track like this is found, it's proven to be fake. While a valid track of this nature would certainly call our understanding into question, the odds of it being viable in the face of all the other evidence is astronomical. Therefore, we doubt until verified.
In other words, doubt the extraordinary until proven otherwise.
"How is saying the footprints 'both look ridiculously fake'different from saying 'the eye looks intelligently designed'?
The philosophical implications of this comment seem deeply wrong, but I don't think it's within my capacity to explain why.
But there's a fundamental disconnect in the comparison that I'd explain thus: when one says "the eye looks intelligently designed" you're making a baseless claim. You're saying 'all eyes are intelligently design, as if comparing existing eyes to something that doesn't exist: the eye that wouldn't look intelligently designed.
Not so with the fossil. When one says: this fossil is a fake, one is making a real comparison between a specific fossil and the body of all other fossils and existing animal prints. So, when one says that, it might actually mean something, unlike the "intelligent design" example. But no, saying it doesn't prove anything. The observations, the facts, the statement is based on does.
scooter says
This is obviously the enlarged footprint of a creationist webfooted cretin being stomped upon by the mighty Hallbach , or whatever-the-fuck-his-name-is, in the Land Before Time!!!
R. C. Moore says
This is what I love about creationists:
He has led three scientific expeditions into the rain forests of Papua New Guinea in search of living pterodactyls.
–from Carl Baugh's Bio
You can't make this stuff up.
DjtHeutii says
"Voltaire: 'I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." And he keeps on granting it — religious explanations for the world are everlastingly ridiculous."
If only we could get them to see how ridiculous they are.
ProudTheist says
This atheistic trend adopted by the "scientific community" is nothing short of discouraging and will end up hurting humanity in the long run. Even Einstein said that science is blind without religion. Yet you fools and the likes of Richard Dawkins use science to preach atheism and hope to convert the world into abandoning faith and embracing science as an alternate to religion. Yet neither can fill the role of the other, and abandoning the faith in a higher power and the afterlife will only hold us back. I'll just have to trust that those like you will never come to power in my country.
Now I have Conservative values and I believe in theistic evolution, yet the rest of you seem to think that all conservatives are of the extreme far right, many of whom I dislike almost as much as you far lefties.
ProudTheist @ #70: (rant)
And this has fuck-all to do with fake dinosaur prints how?
ben says
This is how the creationists can think that the devil plants fossils to fool people. Because they do it.
ProudTheist@70:
WTF is "theistic evolution"? Is there any part of evolution that requires a God in order to function? No. It works just great on its own. Adding God to the solution only confounds it. There's no evidence of God in evolution, no NEED for God in evolution, and there IS no God in evolution. There's no reason to believe there's God in anything.
"Faith" is for small-minded children that can't or won't understand the world as it is. They need to believe in fairy tales in order to make them feel warm and fuzzy about the world, and their own mortality. Now THAT is sad.
wrpd says
#54: What evidence has the scientific community made up?
ProudTheist wrote:
Yet you fools and the likes of Richard Dawkins use science to preach atheism and hope to convert the world into abandoning faith and embracing science as an alternate to religion.
I'm an atheist and I no more 'abandoned' faith (since I never had it) than I 'embraced' science; I simply accept that science is the only means we have of understanding the natural world – a world which has, as yet, shown no evidence of god.
What exactly do I need a god for?
Good thing science isn't about proving things then. It might be closer to the truth to say that science is about disproving as many hypotheses as possible, and then looking really closely at the ones that obnoxiously refuse to be disproven.
That "print" looks so obviously unlike any of the prints found by legitimate paleontologists that it strains credulity to even imagine it's real. The comparison to an "intelligently designed" eye is simply absurd. A better comparison would be if you were to take a marshmallow and draw a black "pupil" on it with a sharpie, then claim you had found a human eye, then expect us to take you seriously.
… quote from Voltaire: "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."
This is one of my favorite quotes ever.
R. C. Moore @ #68
You can, apparently. :(
"and abandoning the faith in a higher power and the afterlife will only hold us back."
Hold us back? Please elaborate. As far as I can tell, "faith in a higher power" and the "afterlife" have done nothing but hold us back. When you throw up your hands and say "my sky fairy will make it all better", you're saying that humans have no control over the fate of the world. THAT is what holds us back.
We can all have control over the fate of humanity. What is more productive: studying the world and seeking to understand it for the betterment of all mankind, or throwing your hands up in despair and attributing the fate of the world to a fairy tale? Is it better for mankind to attribute a deadly disease to God and not seek a cure, or to understand the science behind it and save people's lives? We study the science, we find the cure, we save people's lives. God has no part in it. Faith only undermines our efforts to solve problems by confusing otherwise straightforward answers.
Superstition results in no progress. Science does. Why else was the progress of humanity stagnant during the oppressively theistic dark ages, yet profoundly productive in the explosion of reason since the Englightenment/Renaissance?
To make you feel guilty simply because you're human… duh! Who here among us doesn't just absolutely love the concept of Original Sin? While I'm at it, I think that guy a couple of months back who was trying to make me feel guilty because I was born a male was onto something…
Sigmund says
Clearly this is the most important scientific discovery ever made, yet you atheists, so blinded by your need for rational explanations, fail to see its significance.
This fossil has managed to capture the crucial second in human history – the exact moment the fall occurred!
If you look closely you will notice two things about this fossil.
One, Adam has clearly stepped on the dino's toes – thus proving that dinosaurs both existed and were gentle coconut loving vegans in the pre-fall times.
Second there is a clear depression in the place of Adams right big toe that can easily be filled by a piece of fruit – say the sharp end of a pear or the atheists nightmare.
Now why would Adam have dropped the fruit?
Occam, folks, Occam, he's clearly in shock after getting caught by God! I bet you would drop it too in similar circumstances.
Now the second important factor that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that it captures the moment of the fall.
Count Adams footprints.
Only one?
Obviously stomping on a newly carnivorous dino's toes isn't a good idea when he's hungry, cranky and just about to embark upon a new protein rich diet.
Isn't creation science great!
Feynmaniac says
I have no experience whatsoever in paleontology or archaeology and this looks like an obvious forgery even to me. Okay, maybe they couldn't use Google to find a decent dinosaur foot print but what excuse is there for the human foot? When I was 8 I could make a more realistic foot print with play doh.
Finally, why does all this ridiculous shit seem to come out of Texas? I'm sure not all Texans are batshit crazy, but from what I've seen there seems to be a disproportionate number of Texans who are.
"Even Einstein said that science is blind without religion." – ProudTheist
Please supply the source and the exact quotation from Einstein in it's actual context.
#70: …abandoning the faith in a higher power and the afterlife will only hold us back.
From what? Shedding medieval superstitions? Fine.
The indefatigable frog says
The shape of the Fig leaf was intelligently designed so that it perfectly covered Adam's whatsit.
It's undeniable.
Don't forget Florida. That's where the Texans put their batshit crazy when it's time for it to look forward to the Great Guano Factory in The Sky.
[ok, that was just odd. Time for sleep.]
"abandoning the faith in a higher power and the afterlife will only hold us back."
Hold us back from what?
This atheistic trend adopted by the "scientific community" is nothing short of discouraging and will end up hurting humanity in the long run. Even Einstein said that science is blind without religion. Yet you fools and the likes of Richard Dawkins use science to preach atheism and hope to convert the world into abandoning faith and embracing science as an alternate to religion. Yet neither can fill the role of the other, and abandoning the faith in a higher power and the afterlife will only hold us back.
Yeah, read the rest of "Science and Religion" by Albert Einstein and see what he has to say about your "faith in a higher power and the afterlife".
Proud theist, who don't know how to read, I guess. I can see where the pride comes from though! (Hint: ignorance.) Thank you.
@ #52:
Yes, except that, for the "shroud", they continue by 1/ telling that the scientific experiments were bad done and falsified (what is false) 2/ arguing with stupid stories of pollens and other bullshits. Even with evidences, they continue. And not only creationists: "normal" believers also do.
DaveH says
Mr A Delk? Naw, obviously a misprint; it's Ann Elk (Miss)!
I can see how you could fuck up a fake dinosaur footprint, but how do you fuck up a human footprint? I mean, the person who made this presumably had a human foot to work with, right? Were they so absorbed in the fakery that they forgot they didn't have to fake that part? Is Alvis Delk a double amputee?
@89 Presumably he carved it because A, if he used his own print it'd be a simple matter to just compare the 'fossil' to his own foot, and B, he couldn't leave a real footprint in solid rock.
Logicel says
ProudTheist (thought pride was a sin?) wrote:
Now I have Conservative values…
…will only hold us back.
Holding us back is the conservative's raison d'etre. In addition, the conservatives confusedly think regression/clinging to the status quo is progress. A silly bunch of frightened, selfish gooses.
I'll just have to trust that those like you will never come to power in my country.
There are atheists in various political positions throughout America, they are for the most part in the closet, but they are atheists all the same.
Dave Hone says
People seem quite happy to jump in here with a verdict despite not being palaeontologists, and assuming anyone is still reading this far down the list, I *am* a palaeontologist who works on dinosaurs, who happens to have just sent off a paper on theropod footprints.
And yes, it really, really looks fake. There are all kinds of subtelties wrong with it in the shape of the digits, the 'heel', the claws, the shape of the depression, diverication angles, toe orientation and more. One last thing, the *whole* of the human foot is represented. Even in a 'deep' track, surely the arch of the foot would be far more shallow than the rest, especially the ball and heel, or this guy had the flattest of flat feet in history.
craig says
Drilling the pilot holes which he he accidentally drilled the big toe hole too deep.
allonym says
ProudTheist @70:
Even Einstein said that science is blind without religion.
Let's assume Einstein meant this in exactly the way you seem to assume that he did. So what? He was a brilliant man with some novel ideas about the relationships between matter, energy and time that have proven testable and scientifically sound. Beyond those things which are subject to scientific enquiry, his words hold no special authority. I'm willing to accept (assume, even! but that's just me) that he was wrong about this science/religion dependency. If he in fact meant it that way, which is not at all clear absent further context.
Scott Rhoades says
It's easy to see how they made the fake. Not only is Tristan @#13 correct about the line of drill holes in the median of the "dino" print, but there are obvious tool marks at the edges. There is also a line of chisel marks running parallel along the heel of the "human" print. Apparently this guys doesn't know you are supposed to blur your fake photo or at least use photoshop to get rid of the really obvious stuff. He should have talked to the UFO people for tips first.
Chen says
It's a sad irony that creationists always cry out that fossils are fake and then gladly embrace an obviously fake one.
elbuho says
Not defending this obvious fake at all, and speaking as a complete ignoramus in the matter, but a quick Google does indicate that limestone seems to be an acceptable place to find fossilised footprints:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichnite
Special conditions are required, in order to preserve a footprint made in soft ground (such as an alluvial plain or a formative sedimentary deposit). A possible scenario is a sea or lake shore that became dried out to a firm mud in hot, dry conditions, received the footprints (because it would only have been partially hardened and the animal would have been heavy) and then became silted over in a flash storm.
A famous group of ichnites was found in a limestone quarry at Ardley, 20 km Northeast of Oxford, England, in 1997. They were thought to have been made by Megalosaurus and possibly Cetiosaurus. There are replicas of some of these footprints, set across the lawn of Oxford University Museum of Natural History (OUMNH).
LaTomate says
#94 :
Authority, my friend, authority.
Theists – and especially Christians, Muslims and Jews, believe in authority. If someone is deemed an authority, then everything he / she – although mostly he… we all know the place of women for most of them – says is gospel, not to be questioned.
Of course, you can pick and choose, like in this case. Just don't mention the context, and sure as hell don't mention the other side either.
Actually, I think Einstein was sick and tired of being considered an authority on things he was not an expert in. He was tired of being questioned by one side or the other about religion and get his answered used like this fellow seems to be.
It's pretty clear he was an atheist but that fact is irrelevant. Let's get over Einstein. Yes, he was a brilliant man, his scientific theories are amazing and he was probably a lovely and jolly fellow but let's stop gilding in gold every mutter that ever left his lips. He was just one of us humans, smarter than most and full of inventiveness, but he did not have all the answers.
If one were mischievous one might even postulate that Mr Delk read the Wikipedia entry above before starting his creative paleontology project.
Is it just me or does the foot look wrong because there's a set of toes for a right foot on a print for a left foot. Little wonder the hallux has left a big impression with such a malformation. I have heard of situs inversus but this is ridiculous.
Dave @92:
1. Yup, that's Pharyngula.
2. This far down? Bah, this is Pharyngula – this is nothing.
3. Yay! This is what I expect from Pharyngula!
Peter @100: Well, I just looked at my (bare) foot and then the picture and I laughed.
I'm not deformed, but my big toe sticks out about the same as my index toe on either side. Heh.
Emmet Caulfield says
Einstein quotes for theist quote-miners:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.
multipath says
What kind of deformed foot made that human imprint? How did they get their big toe to point in a different direction and form such a deep hole? Creationists will never ask these questions, but will dismiss all legitimate fossils.
Also, the placement of the "dinosaur" print to overlap is just enough to make sure it looks like the dinosaur print was made after the human print, but not so much that the human's print is obscured. As Randy Pausch said: Isn't that a little…transparent?
Dave, thanks for the expert input as well.
BobC says
From comment #70:
Is this why you believe in a magical sky fairy? You're so cowardly you can't accept the idea your death is final. So you live in an childish fantasy world where souls fly off to heaven after a person drop dead. Are you also afraid of the dark?
Theists are morons. They're insane. They have never had an original thought in their lives. But most of all they're cowards. They are so terrified of reality they are willing to believe any nonsense, no matter how idiotic it is.
Perspix says
PZ, I put it to you that your example of a cast of an actual dinosaur print is also fake. It's clearly a magic Eucharist cracker.
Evolving Squid says
The article says the rock came from Paluxy… I'm sure I've read about fake dino/human prints coming from there before, although I can't find an article just now.
Dutch Delight says
Where does this pride thing come from when debating theists? Is it supposed to bolster their claims or something?
It's a riddle to me why anyone would think that it makes a difference to me whether they are proud of their ideas or not. Maybe it's meant for the other believers reading here, and the person who proclaims his pride here among the amoral unbelievers is considered some sort of a hero?
Qomak says
So, what's next? A genuine dino footprint with "Made in China" tag?
Randy, you're quite good (lame) at the drive by.
Care to back up your assertions? What evidence has been fabricated by "our side" that hasn't been exposed by the same?
Notkieran says
LaTomate @ #98
Actually, even within physics, Einstein was not an unfettered genius. He spent eight years trying to come up with the equations for general relativity, and after a brief chat with Einstein, Hilbert came up with a more elegant solution in eight months, just before Einstein.
His "space-time diagrams" are in fact the creation of his old maths teacher Minkowsky.
Finally, let us take note of the fact that most of the philosophical quotes from his lips were far after his best work, at a time when he was unable to accept the reality of quantum mechanics (ironically based on his Nobel Prize-winning work) and an expanding universe (ironically based on his General Relativity work).
A classic case, perhaps, of rejecting the answers because you dislike the conclusions, and also, perhaps, a classic case of becoming more and more conservative as you grow older.
I must be weird. The older I get the more liberal I become.
True Bob says
I find a few things striking in this bogosity.
First, the "manprint" is nice and flat. Walking people leave a different looking footprint. This charlatan should've gone to the beach, FFS. There should've been a deep indent for the heel, and a deep indent for the front part of the foot, from pushing off. This leaves an exaggerated arch in the center. See some examples here.
Second, the transition of the ball of the foot to the great toe is preposterous. What sort of freaky foot would create that deep deep ball, a high ridge and a deep toe?
Ah well, this won't be last example of fakery from the cdesign proponentsist crowd.
Dancaban says
Rotate said "fossil" through 135 degrees anticlockwise.
It's pac-man! Can't wait for Defender to put in an appearence…
ha! That is frigging hilarious. Seriously, it's so obviously a fake… I was laughing my ass off before I even read what the article was about. Who knew that dinosaur prints were so smooth and cartoon like. Wow.
ChrisKG says
Is it possible that goD just put it in the ground to "test" us? In other words, was it a "special creation"?
ChrisKG
Stephanurus says
Rarus.vir says
When you said it was from Texas, I knew it had to be a lie.
Diego says
To #18:
What about dromornithids?
haha, thanks for the link Stephanurus, that was hilarious! Retard fish squirrel, nice.
Bob L says
The snarky reply to that stupid fake it is clearly "a dino stepping on an angel foot print" and therefor is not proof that dinos and humans co-existed.
…Wow. that fake dino foot is… I think they were drawing them way better in cartoons.
COME ON!!!! Oh well, way to make a buck off a gullible chap.
Epinephrine says
Dave @ 92
It really doesn't take much academic training to spot drill marks. Maybe that's why?
One last thing, the *whole* of the human foot is represented. Even in a 'deep' track, surely the arch of the foot would be far more shallow than the rest, especially the ball and heel, or this guy had the flattest of flat feet in history.
And clearly, a paleontologist who sent in a paper of theropod dinosaur footprints is also a subject matter expert in kinesiology? Or podiatry?
If you are going to jump down everyone's throat because we're not paleontologists, perhaps you should likewise not comment out of your specialty.
Or we could enjoy the conversation and take the chance to learn from one another.
Basking-in-sinful-pride, proudtheist writes: Now I have Conservative values…
Prey tell, are they of the patriarchal variety of value? The ones that we must all have in order for you to feel secure? Big Daddy in the sky, big daddy in the home? Your values are not facts, they do not need to be shared by everybody in order to practiced by some. Others have different values that are just as important to them.
Iain Walker says
Numad (Comment #66):
Evidently it's well within your capacity, since your explanation was spot on. ;-)
Detecting fakery, as you point out, depends on having a background knowledge of genuine and fake articles and the characteristic differences between them.
Similarly, detecting design depends on having a background knowledge of the kinds of things that are designed and those that are not (basically, detecting design is about telling the difference between things that are artificial and things that are natural).
The Argument for Design basically ignores (and indeed undermines) this distinction, which means that the creationist claim that the eye "looks designed" is baseless.
If the creationists just spent as much time doing actual research as they do quote mining and faking evidence….
Well, I guess it wouldn't matter, would it? Not like they'd actually find any scientific evidence.
AJ Milne says
Hey, if the Creation museum's into that, I've got a whole 'nother raft of limestone 'fossils' I can pull out of my b… erm… backyard, for them.
1) Rare collectible tracks of Fred Flintstone's beloved pet 'Dino'. Comes with articulated action figure and sculpting-grade clay, so you can make your own, too. (Ceramic media, see page 4 in our catalogue.)
2) Fossilized wheel tracks. From the Flintstones' car. Also, there are fossilized tracks of the waitress who brought 'em the brontosaurus burger at the drive-up diner. (6×3, limestone, mixed media, see page 3 in our catalogue, please bring your own transportation for this piece).
3) And from our signature collection, a really, honest-to-god, I swear fossil of a demon. *Planting* a fake fossil of a brachiosaur's skull. To deceive us. See, he was in the middle of doing that diabolical deed when the floodwaters rose. Poor devil. (4×3, limestone, mixed media, truly a lovely piece of bas-relief, page 2 in the catalogue). Get here early for this one. We only made the one.
Paleontologist Han Solo says
It might have looked less fake if it was frozen in carbonite! LooL361
dtlocke says
Sad thing is, I was told about such "fossils" by my church, and I believed they existed all the way through high school. And no, I didn't live in "the hills". My family was completely average American. Man, I feel so swindled!
We need to continue and up our efforts to get the truth out there!
Pablo says
Shit, I have to update my bio page!!! I don't remember if I ever did a search for a living pterodactyl, but I know I did dinosaur digs in the back yard when I was a kid.
Pablo: "He has led at least 5 dinosaur digs"
I didn't think he was saying "you all aren't specialists, so you shouldn't be commenting", it looked more like he was saying "Not only does it look stupid to the untrained eye, here are the specific problems an expert sees".
clinteas says
@ 54:
//Looks like both sides like to fabricate evidence to support their claims.//
ARGUMENT FROM HAULING ASS
(1) [Theist creates message board account and logs in.]
(2) "GOD IS REEL AND ALL YOU HEATHEN ATHEIST INFEDILS WILL BERN IN HELL FORE-EVER MARK MY WERDS!!!!!!!!@#3FD"
(3) [Theist logs off and never returns.]
(4) Therefore, God exists.
Of course now he can say it was "featured on the most popular science blog!"
CosmicTeapot says
Is that a cross headed screw print in the heel of the "human" foot?
No one takes pride in their forgeries anymore. It's sad.
Well, the first statement is true and the second is bullshit, for one thing. "The eye looks designed" compared to what?
Actually Randy comes back, just not usually in the same thread.
He's a world class buffoon, but he's an engineer so he thinks he's a genius and better suited to comment on Evolution than others…
Because of this engineering credentials.
/shrug
Damn you, RBC. Not all of us engineers think we are geniuses (genii?), and we aren't all nutjobs and wackos. You'll find nutjob and wacko scientists, too, and plenty who incorrectly believe themselves to be genii.
True Genius Engineer
Epinephrine @123: I reckon your snark is unwarranted. Sheesh. If he is an expert, not to disclose it would've been poor form; besides, he's obviously not a regular here.
OHHH I know True Bob, it's just that he thinks because he is an Engineer that he is better suited to see the signs of ID than others.
It's not his engineering that makes him an idiot, it is his idiocy that does.
hinschelwood says
#6 Tristan Croll
Quite. But that's just the clinching proof, don't you see? There's a lot of water after 40 days of rain. QED.
ProudTheist (Comment #70):
No, he didn't:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein, from "Science, Philosophy and Religion: A Symposium", 1941
And given Einstein's non-theistic view of religion, one could probably substitute "a sense of wonder coupled with moral responsibility" for "religion" in the quotation and still retain the intended meaning.
Furthermore, that sense of wonder and moral responsibility is far from being unique to religion (Dawkins actually being quite a good example of someone who combines both).
Nope, wrong again. At best, science can only replace religion in one particular area – that of explaining the features of the natural world. And since science has proved remarkably successful in this area while religion hasn't, it would probably be in religion's best interests to cede the territory (which is something that most non-fundamentalist believers already do).
neither can fill the role of the other
True, but there are things other than science that can replace religion in its other roles. Explore questions of meaning and value? We've got philosophy, literature and art for that. Bring communities together? Well, religion isn't the only communal activity that brings people together with a sense of common purpose, either. This isn't about science vs religion, it's about the redundancy of religion across the board. Face it, you don't actually have any unique role or territory to defend.
abandoning the faith in a higher power and the afterlife will only hold us back
So, how exactly will taking responsibility for ourselves in this life hold us back? Not seeing the logic here. Please explain.
Ferin says
Wow. You can even see the dremel lines on the edges. Must be from that intelligent designer.
Yeah Rev,
He is also looking for what he expects to see. That's the cdesign proponentsis paradigm. "I see goddesign, and NOTHING can dissuade me from my preconceived conclusion."
When I see things claimed to be design, often I see where it's a sucky design. Nothing against evo-devo, but how hard would it have been for magic sky pappy to give us THREE eyes for superior ranging? Hiow about less variation in eyesight quality? A better, longer lasting back (feeling this one personally) and better knees (ditto). Horns like a ceratopsian, 'cause wouldn't that be friggin cool? Hell, howzabout wings? Howzabout some useful claws or fangs, or at least a decent coat of fur (why oh why did my ancestors not stay where it was warm?) and on and on.
Anyway, the dickweeds abound, and I don't think any particular discipline has a "lead" as it were.
E.V says
The Paluxy River @ Dinosaur Valley State Park, Fossil Rim, Glen Rose Texas. There is a section of limestone exposed by river erosion that has uncovered very real dino tracks. This section of Texas was shallow sea 60 + million years ago. However, there is a Creationist outfit that has set up a museum in the park next to the tracks and since they can't discredit the prints they've added people tracks when no one is looking or take slabs of the limestone and reproduce there own dino/human fossils.
qbsmd says
Shorter version: this "fossil" was designed, but not intelligently.
BAllanJ says
Re: proudtheist
Um, isn't Pride a sin…and a deadly one at that?
Just askin'
Hortan says
Mkay, these threads are very troll friendly, the feeding of said trolls is sad to see.
So what's your problem? You, by definition, want to be held back.
Liberals like me founded the US and are keeping people like you from wrecking it even worse than you have for the last decade.
http://edgeeffect.blogspot.com/2006/07/thank-liberal.html
Lilly de Lure says
BAllanJ said:
Only when other people do it. If we weren't all arrogant atheists around here, we'd understand that. ;-)
the feeding of said trolls is sad to see.
Then I guess I shouldn't respond to you.
Celtic_Evolution says
Damn you, RBC. Not all of us engineers think we are geniuses (genii?)
Don't genii live in a lamp?
No, Celtic_Evolution, they live in lamps.
John Morales @139
Wasn't trying to be overly snarky; most of those commenting aren't commenting on aspect of the "fossil" that are relevent to paleontology – the round impressions running on the centerline of the print for example. I'm not a fossil expert, but I've worked with a drill. I wouldn't comment on the "diverication angles", but I'd feel pretty comfortable saying that when I run a drill into cement it leaves impressions that resemble those holes.
I was just trying to point out that one can make a comment without needing a ton of (academic) background; Dave@92 made a comment about the person's feet and the human print – does being a person who has seen foot prints qualify one to make a comment, or does one need to study the field?
If we all refrained from commenting outside of our specialties it would be very quiet here. And while it's nice to explain why you feel you are capable of providing more insight (actually being a paleontologist who studies theropod dinosaurs, for example), anyone can make such a claim. I'm not saying he isn't, but essentially telling others that they shouldn't express an opinion because one is an expert is poor form. Maybe that's not what he meant by, "People seem quite happy to jump in here with a verdict despite not being palaeontologists," but it's the impression I took from it.
Summary: Not being snarky, trying to breed some tolerance.
True Bob #153
aiabx says
Obviously fake. Homer Simpson only has 4 toes.
Steve Dutch says
This ranks up there with the giant man tracks in The Genesis Flood or the human footprint in Footprints in Stone. If you're going to fake a human footprint you could at least take your shoes and socks off so you have a real human (or semi-human) foot for a model. And I challenge anybody to leave a footprint in mud where the toes are spread apart.
Geolub says
The last paragraph of the story from the Mineral Wells Index is most telling. I'm no conspiracy theorist but, the timing of this "discovery" seems very well designed.
"I don't think it is going to displace the theory of evolution," said Baugh. "My hope is that the scientific concepts of archeology and paleontology will be used under the guidelines of the Texas schoolbook committee. Any evidence supporting that should be presented, and hopefully this particular fossil will be presented, for the students to be able to see that there is evidence supporting an alternative concept as opposed to just evolution."
So does this mean mankind has been around 65 million years or that dinosaurs were around 6000 years ago?
I'm so confused…
Not being snarky, trying to breed some tolerance.
Have you tried plying her with wine and gently blowing in her ear?
The tracks of Man and Theropod
Were planted, by a playful God
To test the use of Human minds
Confronted with such puzzling finds.
The first upon Jehovah's list
To see it, a Creationist;
He swallowed hook, and line, and sinker,
Showing God he was no thinker.
The second looked, and laughed and laughed
To see the shoddiness of craft;
His open eyes would not be guiled,
And God looked down and simply smiled.
The third to look was just a boy
Who looked at it with open joy
And thought "that looks like so much fun,
I'll try to make another one!"
When even children plainly see
A fake, it is no mystery;
But as we grow, we often find
Some choose a path that leaves them blind.
And it should come as no surprise
They trust their faith, and not their eyes;
And will not hear if you explain
That–maybe–God prefers the brain.
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/07/oh-ye-of-little-faith.html
Re: #161
Has anyone mentioned recently that Cuttlefish rocks?
Mark B. from Austin TX says
This has probably been stated before, but there are quite a few examples of authentic dinosaur footprints in limestone. A quite famous example is now preserved at the Texas Natural History Museum here in Austin. I'm not sure of the exact mechanism of formation, but I don't think it's all that dissimilar to other forms of fossilization.
There are also a few example of fake dinosaur footprints in Texas. The mechanism for creation of these artifacts is quite well know. They are carvings. In a few cases, the artisans that created the carvings have actually owned up to it, and in a couple of other cases, known carvers have been in possession of rocks that later showed with both 'dinosaur footprints' and 'human footprints'.
In a few cases, there were actual dinosaur footprints and so-called human footprints were carved in. This is a form of vandalism. At least in the example above, it's all fake, so the only thing destroyed was a normal rock instead of a valuable fossil record.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
Carl Baugh has been doing this kind of crap for a long time.
Paul Riddell says
The really funny part about all of this is that everyone looks surprised that someone carved this. Shortly after Roland Bird sent back word to New York about the Paluxy dinosaur tracks, any number of scammers made quite a bit of money by carving fake human tracks in Paluxy rock and selling them to credulous creationists. I don't have it any more, but I remember Natural History publishing a big article on the Glen Rose tracks in 1986, both noting Carl Baugh's gibberish and the real geology of the area.
Incidentally, speaking as someone who regularly goes to Glen Rose for the Fossilmania rock and mineral show at the end of October, I highly recommend stopping by the Creation Science Museum. It's deliberately set on the direct route to Dinosaur Valley State Park, and you can drive by on the way back from the park. Baugh now has the Museum closed on Sundays so as to prevent unbelievers from making fun of him: his much-hyped "museum" is still in a trailer because his big facility is still unfinished, he still has an old Cold War-era bomb shelter on site that he pitches as a "hyperbaric biosphere" (every six months or so, he contacts every credulous reporter in Dallas and Fort Worth with incredible claims of the new discoveries he's going to make with the damn thing, and has been doing so for the last 20 years), and he'll literally run and hide in the back of the trailer if anyone comes in who starts poking holes in his "evidence". For such an accomplished scholar, Baugh has real problems with defending his theses, so he prefers to lecture grade-school kids to "teach the controversy", keeping any adults or spry high schoolers well away.
amphiox says
The foot that made that print is obviously not human. There are only two rational explanations:
1. It's actually an angel footprint. Everyone knows that angels rode on the backs of tame carnosaurs back before the fall.
2. It's actually the right and left footprints of a Nephilim.
VegeBrain says
To me this looks like actually a fossil footprint of Quackosaurus partly overlaid with a footprint of Homo Creationist. Both of these creatures lived during the late Credulous period.
hje says
… humans and dinosaurs living together … mass hysteria!
We've got 3 kids, apparently Bailey's and a tickle fight are good enough.
BlueIndependent says
#166, that is priceless.
Anyway, the dickweeds abound, and I don't think any particular discipline has a "lead" as it were
Oh I agree. I'm in IT. There are plenty of creo-nerds too.
kermit says
Jeremy@46: "The only people buying into this hogwash are their uneducated hillbilly followers, which are unfortunately too numerous."
The thing is, many of those hillbillies are hunters. I never was, but I grew up with them, and it's obvious that these two "tracks" weren't laid by any critter that actually walked, human or otherwise. Probably the best outcome would be if the Creationist organization that ends up with this doesn't let scientists study it, but lets the good old boys come to their own conclusions when they see it.
Shygetz says
Having lived amongst the hillbillies for almost all of my life, I can tell you that "hunter" doesn't mean "tracker" here in hillbilly world; it means "guy with a gun (and possibly a beer) in the woods."
I love a good sciece/religion debate says
IDers remind me of people who believe OJ was innocent.
Her blood was in his car!
hmmmm, musta been planted by a racist cop.
Her blood was on his socks!
hmmm, planted.
We have his DNA!
hmmmm, musta been contaminated and magically turned into his DNA.
The other Dan from Milwaukee says
The upper dino-toe shows some marks that bear a curious resemblance to the tread of a Vibram soled boot.
Hell yes, wring the "Xian charity" out of those suckers.
Lord knows that paying this guy for an obvious fake is a lot better than spending money on more propaganda.
And yes, I know that they'll be using it as propaganda, if they're stupid enough to buy it, but who cares? It will just make Baugh look even more like the chump he is. Likely very few of his fellow chumps will intelligently learn from it, yet it's hardly going to boost their prosperity gospel.
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Quidam says
Baugh said he knows there are and will be skeptics, especially since the find is very recent and so far has been tested only in a medical laboratory by a medical doctor. Still, he said he is so confident in the authenticity of the specimen he is ready to put his reputation entirely on the line. He said he is willing put the rock to any non-destructive tests.
Baugh's reputation is on the line? Oh, the irony. He thinks he has one!
I'm not sure about "treasures", but they're slightly less wrong to call this junk "archaeological". It's definitely of human origin, and from an ancient culture if not actual ancient origin.
Rolan le Gargéac says
Pinoccio … Boy (not Dead Boy)
Snitzels says
Were they trying to emulate this?
I love a good sciece/religion debate @ 173,
Just because he was framed doesn't mean he didn't do it. I think the separated pair of gloves is frame-up material, but FFS, everything else…
What's so ironic about this is that Piltdown man is one of the staples of creationist/ID bullshit, even though it was a respectably good fake (not so good that it should have gotten a pass for so long, though), was discovered to be fake by those horrid evilutionists who supposedly would never question it, and has been discounted for over half a century (while genuine fossils have documented a complex hominin history).
They're (not all, to be sure) falling for the most transparent fakes at the drop of a hat. And even the "sophisticated" IDiots fall for the same ridiculous "microevolution/macroevolution" (which do not mean what they do in real science, of course) excuse that the rubes do.
Truth is, Behe, these are your people.
Whoops ! Cocked that up ! Never mind, more wine will sort that out and only a couple of hours before Batman Begins, er, starts.
Baugh said he knows there are and will be skeptics, especially since the find is very recent and so far has been tested only in a medical laboratory by a medical doctor.
Because, you know, that's the first thing I do with a fossilized footprint. Get an MD to test it.
What ummm…
What tests would an MD in a medical lab perform on a fossilized footprint, anyhow?
"Yup… I've examined it and it definately is a rock"
What sort of medical tests does one run on a fossil footprint?
At the least he could've taken it to a podiatrist*.
*I had to go to one. I chose a guy who turned out to be defrauding insurance, and got sent to the hoosegow.
Dammit Jim, I'm a Doctor, not a gneiss guy. But if you insist: Temperature 20C, no pulse, zero brainwave activity, tricorder shows no life signs… He's dead Jim!
Rayven Alandria says
You'd think they'd be better at making fake stuff considering they spend their lives making up fake stuff. The *fossil* is laughable.
The holes running down the middle of the dino look like the impressions of the nails they used to attach the fake dino foot to a post/handle. The humanoid *footprint* has the weight distribution all out of whack.
Is it verified to be limestone, or is it cement? That would tell us whether the thing is a cast or whether the impressions were drilled into it.
rowmyboat says
My goodness, could he really find no actual human feet to make the print with?? I mean, those are still around, ya know.
Well, in fairness, it's not likely that the imprint was made in soft clay and then hardened. That would be too easy to test how old the "fossil" realy is.
As has been pointed out before, it's more likely these were "carved" into an existing piece of rock, then the slab cut out. That's why this is so obvious a fake… the toes on the "human print" are so long and "tubular", and the ridge from the ball of the feet to the toes is so large and pronounced that it's easy to see how this was carved.
No displacement of sediments, either, unlike what would be expected. Apparently the sediments simply compressed underneath the weight of the feet. Don't they even know that muck is squished out by the feet (and that it wouldn't slump down again (certainly not entirely) in any medium that keeps such distinct impressions)?
Back to the dino footprint for a second: is that really a "thumb" sticking out to the left?
Wow, the comparison with Homer Simpson is not so crazy!
Brownian, OM says
"So, what do we have here? [Reading off chart] 'Patient is a 3.18 million year old female, presenting with hypermineralisation of skeletal tissue, and a complete lack of soft tissue.'"
"Doctor, that's a fossil."
"I don't care! We're not losing her on my watch! 50 ccs of Lidocaine, and for Pete's sake, somebody get her on Ringer's, STAT!"
Rev Big Dumb Chimp on IDiot Randy Stimpson:
he thinks because he is an Engineer that he is better suited to see the signs of ID than others.
I am an engineer. There is not the slightest speck of evidence for ID. There never has been. There never will be. All the IDiots who claim to have such evidence are either fools who think worthless bullshit proves something, or frauds who never put their cards on the table because they know they have nothing.
An interesting thought: Imagine for a moment that the creationist asshats were correct. If every scientist on the planet was involved in some massive conspiracy, wouldn't there be evidence of it? Why then, has not one single speck of this evidence been found? IF every measurement of the age of the Earth was off by a factor of a MILLION, there would have to be enormous, glaring errors in every such dating method, of exactly the same magnitude. Why has no one found any of these errors in all this time? If humans lived alongside dinosaurs, there would be some fossil evidence. Why then, has every such piece of "evidence" been not only a fake, but a laughably obvious fake? If humans were some totally separate order of being, completely unrelated to any other animal, then there would have to be some alternate explanation for the massive amount of genetic markers we share with so many other species, which they also share with still others. Why then, has no one come up with even a halfway plausible explanation for these facts besides evolution? Why has no one found a single speck of evidence for such an alternate explanation, or even figured out where to look for such evidence?
I'll tell you why. Cdesign proponentsists aren't in the evidence business. The very idea is against their religion. Even if they were right (and they clearly aren't) they would never be able to offer any evidence whatsoever for their IDiotic claims. Because they don't have the least interest in looking for it. They're very interested in pretending they have evidence, fabricating frauds and such, but they fail because they don't really understand the concept of evidence. They don't give a flying fuck about understanding reality, because the concept of "reality" is something their twisted faith commands them to reject.
There are no honest and rational creationists interested in finding evidence for their claims, because if such a creature existed, it would have found such evidence by now, or realized it didn't exist and ceased to be a creationist. This is why creationists are such constant liars. The honest ones all realized long ago that they didn't have a leg to stand on.
The only thing that I like about the production of this fake is that it looks weathered.
I wonder if it isn't, in fact. It could have been carved into the bedrock or a block left outdoors, and likely would have weathered to look like that in just a few years in limestone (thank you acid rain).
That's an aspect that earlier fakes ignored in many cases. This is pretty bad regardless, but at least the tool marks are long gone.
HolyRusk says
I think we finally know who was the anonymous recipient of the Casey Luskin Award.
Someone else who has had a close up, personal inspection of the stone is David Lines, who photographed the stone for Baugh, which Baugh has included in posters and on his Web site http://www.creationevidence.org
A technical writer for Texas Instruments in Dallas, Lines said he's no expert on rocks, but he said he has no doubt the Delk rock is real and the prints are legitimate.
Who could argue with that testimonial. A technical writer and medical diagnostic team are convinced. Now all they need is a journalist and they have a full house. Denyse … over here…
"but if it's an actual block of limestone… i mean how do you fake that? (carving?)"
Well as someone else pointed out it looks like a series of drill holes in the center of the "dinosaur" track. I'd guess he drilled and busted out the larger chunks and then chiseled out the rest, then probably hit it with a sandblaster or power washer.
Ha… am I the only one getting images of Doogie Howser in that new Old Spice commercial?
"That's why I can recommend it… I used to be a doctor for pretend."
Huh? Religion has held us back more than anything else in human history. It's about time we are starting to abandon blind faith in the supernatural and living in reality.
"You are all human beings who must make your way through your life by thinking and learning, and you have the job of advancing humanity's knowledge by winnowing out the errors of past generations and finding deeper understanding of reality." – PZ Myers
Or an engineer….
/ducks
"Baugh said he knows there are and will be skeptics, especially since the find is very recent and so far has been tested only in a medical laboratory by a medical doctor. Still, he said he is so confident in the authenticity of the specimen he is ready to put his reputation entirely on the line."
Baugh has a reputation?
They're claiming the human foot was distorted from the dino stepping into the mud, but it seems like a dinosaur stepping onto the mud would do far more distortion than what's apparent, and would do it closer to the edges of the print. There is also, of course, the fact that the human footprint is 11 inches long — modern Europeans have average feet just over 9 inches long, so this hypothetical person would presumably have been huge for his time.
Denk's daughter is a geology major, and indicates she's "skeptical" about it.
The other two people they have vouching for it are a fellow Christian fossil-hunter and a technical writer who can't think how it could have been faked.
Doug Little says
You would think that they would be a little more enthusiastic about producing a fake. This effort shows a serious lack of attention to detail. If this guy seriously thinks this looks real then I posit that a serious lack of attention to detail is the underlying cause of religious belief.
p.s. Although crackergate was fun I'm glad it's finally died it's natural death.
Yes, as a sucker. :-D
Iain Walker:
"Evidently it's well within your capacity, since your explanation was spot on."
When I composed the first line of my comment I didn't expect my explanation of what was wrong with the specific terms of the proposed comparison and an explanation of what's wrong with that type of comparison in general to connect in that way.
So I guess editing my own comments is what's beyond my capacity.
so this hypothetical person would presumably have been huge for his time.
Ah, but don't you remember: "There were giants in the Earth in those days" Possibly they had funny toes as well, though Genesis doesn't mention it!
Or an IT guy…
/umbrage
And 202, so now it's dinosaurs living with Bigfoot!
CortxVortx says
Re: #10 (yeah, I'm reaching way back)
Fortunately, our hero was able to chase off the inquisitive stegosaurs and return safely home.
Then he managed to avoid their thagomizers.
The eye looks intelligently designed
Which would presumably be why it's upside-down, has a dead spot in a critical area of the field of view, often comes very poorly calibrated (mine need intelligently designed corrective lenses called "glasses") and so forth??
The eye looks like it was designed by a committee of retards. Or, maybe a process of random trial and error. Gosh, could that be it?
Jason Failes says
#194: "This is why creationists are such constant liars. The honest ones all realized long ago that they didn't have a leg to stand on."
It's a form of selection. Beautiful in its own way, a smaller and smaller group of people getting crazier and crazier.
"Baugh said he knows there are and will be skeptics"
I think every single religion and woo-claim has made this "prediction" to make the inevitable criticism seem like something that would only be turned on the holders of the True Truth by those too scared of their wisdom .
My favorite is perhaps Luke 8:4, which basically covers all of the possible options:
1) Some people will see through my bullshit right away.
2) Some people will fall for my bullshit at first, but then see through it later.
3) Some people will fall for my bullshit at first, but then fall for someone else's bullshit later.
4) Some people will fall for my bullshit forever, and pass it on to their kids BTW.
It is not surprising that one possibility is not covered that someone will see through bullshit, then fall for it later. That only happens in books, Lee Strobel books to be precise (except for special cases of senility + a fear of death motivating religious conversion)
David M. says
Why would they do something like this anyways? It's already been done before, and was shot to the ground; although some IDers still use it as 'proof' of a young earth, it pretty much only subtracted from the movement's momentum.
The only thing I can think of them gaining through this is if they scream "conspiracy!", or to try to keep people misinformed about the truth, so that they never know that it was actually proven to be false.
I guess that's what they do already, anyways, but misinforming people about concepts is much easier than single pieces of solid evidence, as lines can't be easily blurred by far.
Why would they do something like this anyways?
Because they need to put something in their creation museum. Also they obviously think that the gullibility level of the general believer is quite high, as can be seen by the piss poor effort put into the forgery in the first place, and given the fact that it has all been done before means that their opinion of their respective audience's intelligence is really quite low. I mean where is the outrage from sensible believers over this, they seem to have gone eerily quiet all of a sudden.
I don't suppose there is any possibility that Alvis Delk being an anagram of "kill saved" is significant? Or maybe he just has something against Hindus.
Digging deeper, I think we could be looking for someone called Mike. "Evil Mike's slapdash job" is clearly the hidden message in Alvis Delk James Bishop.
#34 – you've been very naughty haven't you…
Hey PZ,
Ya know who causes as much if not more damage than the fucktard creationists? The radical feminists who through Catherine MacKinnon and others have written and write laws, laws used to determine hiring in science departments now, and used to put into place court bias against fathers, and that support all sorts of very doubtful (read debunked) statistics concerning rape that actually harms actual rape victims.
So PZ, do you ever take apart their evil patriarchal conspiracy theory? Or "social construction" which basically answers every "nature vs nurture" argument with "NURTURE and nature people are wifebeaters and rapists!"
Patriarchy theory as described by radical feminists has as much scientific merit to it than creationism, and to support it, the radical feminists ignore or deny much of biology and much of evolutionary theory.
But PZ you seem to support that nonsense.
So uh, you're about as intellectually honest as the creationists, may they rot.
I think that "Slaved Ilk" is more appropriate. Ha Ha Ha I love anagrams.
bric says
I would like to report another seminal fossil discovery
http://pranks.com/2008/07/26/fossil-remains-discovered-in-dc/
Papilio says
Now there is a challenge. Send forth the minions to produce fake fossils; sell them to gullible creationists; expose the lie later, keep the cash.
Everyone's a winner.
oldtree says
I would like to bid on that fossil of Elvis's 4 cheeks. Can you point me to the auction?
@ 214 Anon
I'd guess he drilled and busted out the larger chunks and then chiseled out the rest, then probably hit it with a sandblaster or power washer.
Followed by an acid wash and leaving it out in the sun for a season or so to get the correct surface coloration. Probably part of the explanation of why it took him so long to 'develop' the 'human' footprint and market it to Baugh.
I have no idea how he came into the possession of the original unenhanced fake dinosaur print, but such fakes are not uncommon at all, and are sold to tourists at curio shops. He either made it originally or bought it and decided to 'enhance' it at a later date. Good for him if he can make money out of it. Maybe I should call Baugh, and tell him that it's worth a million dollars!
Rev. BigDumbChimp #201
For ducks you want an ornithologist, not an engineer.
yuk yuk :)
Another amusing fake:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/07/29/national/a145001D08.DTL
(Warning: Hideous Photo in Story.)
I noticed this one at museumofhoaxes.com today:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/permalink/the_fishing_lures_of_faith/
This is from the Atlas of Creation by Harun Yahya (I think PZ has referred to this book in the past). Apparently, Yahya didn't realize that some of the photos of insects he was using in his book were actually photos of fishing lures. You can see the hooks in the pictures.
This is an OLD story, played out over many generations, btw:
Hull did it way back in 1868 (the famous "Cardiff Giant"), and managed to fool more than a few prominent folks of that time:
http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html
it's remarkable, if not terribly surprising, that creationists still haven't learned their lesson.
wwyoud says
I found the foot that made this print! (sorry if someone else posted this earlier; ya'll write too much!)
http://www.perpetualkid.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=2809
We've seen anon@214 before – or his ideological twin, calling himself "Napoleon MacKinnon" or "Napoleon Dworkin". Yeah, MacKinnon and Dworkin have, IMO, said some silly things, but the claim that radical feminism has social power comparable to religion simply shows that the person making the claim is a paranoid misogynist.
wwyoud @226: Nice!
There's duck footprints there too ;')
Monado says
I'd say by the depth of the print that the human massed a substantial fraction of the dinosaur.
This is from their website, "Amateur archeologist and Stephenville, Texas, resident Alvis Delk, 72, shows a lime cast replica of the limestone rock he found in July 2000 near Glen Rose, Texas. Initially he kept the 140-pound because it contained a dinosaur footprint. Two months ago, he was brushing the stone and discovered a human footprint in the rock – partially beneath the dinosaur print. The actual stone is now in the possession of the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas."
What? "[H]e was brushing the stone and discovered a human footprint"? Just like that. A "brush" stroke and poof, instant footprint?
How the hell do you miss that? It's cut into the dinosaur print?
The Bullshit detector just fucking fried.
Two months ago, he was brushing the stone and discovered a human footprint in the rock – partially beneath the dinosaur print.
Delk had had the stone for years and never noticed the other footprint before? Baugh puts that admission on his website? Baugh must be dumber than dirt if he believes that and must think everyone else is equally stupid if they accept it without a large bag of salt.
Delk's finding the "other footprint" doesn't pass the giggle test.
Oh I believe it. If by "stone" he means "phony fossil" and by "brushing" he means "worked it until he made a human footprint-like indentation".
It's an artifact of recent provenance, that's all.
Hey Paleontologist people
My calculations make that dino foot about 12.8 inches long (if we believe the 11 inch measurement given for the "human" foot- which by the way, is one big arsed foot). Further reading tells me the Acrocanthosaurus was about 40 foot long. Does a 40 foot long dinosaur have feet only 1 foot long? That seems awfully small to me. Anyone now the measurements of some real footprints that have been found?
@epinephreine: (#123)
And clearly, a paleontologist who sent in a paper of theropod dinosaur footprints is also a subject matter expert in kinesiology? Or podiatry? If you are going to jump down everyone's throat because we're not paleontologists, perhaps you should likewise not comment out of your specialty.
i don't think he was trying to sound snooty, just that it doesn't particularly take a ph.d. to spot a fake like this. and, frankly, even if he was trying to sound snooty, your comment is still rather out-of-line.
paleontology is a rather mixed discipline. it's like geology, crossd with biology, but it encompasses all kinds of other things too. while his specialty may not be HUMAN footprints, he has to clearly understand how such trackways are made, and that you do not simply get the outline of a foot at uniform depth. such things are almost always the sign of a faked footprint.
@214: This is relevant…how?
@bride of shrek: (#233)
Does a 40 foot long dinosaur have feet only 1 foot long?
feet? no. toes? maybe. dinosaurs, like most every animal on this planet except humans and wolverines, walked on their toes. their feet were much longer, and off the ground. modern birds walk the same way: that bit that looks their knee, but bends the opposite way is actually their ankle.
as for size, doesn't matter too much. dinosaurs, like most other animals on the planet, are born smaller and grow larger with age. the dinosaur that left tracks was not necessarily an adult. in any case, the REAL print above is about the same size.
for a human footprint, if it were real, 11 inches is not unheard of. considering we walk on our metatarsels, we leave longer footprints comparatively to other animals, relative to our sizes. and anyways, MY feet happen to be 11 inches long.
Resa says
Wow. I passed by the Creation Evidence Museum on the way to Fossil Rim (a drive-thru zoo) just the other day. My friends and I were making fun of its small size.
"I wonder why it's so small?"
"Well it's not like you need much to explain creationism; they just need to have a bible on display."
Resa, #237, wrote:
Maybe they need a statue of a giant hand waving a magic wand as well.
situationalscience says
I finally figured out why so many of you are on the offensive vs creationists… it's been years since you guys faked a missing link.
yeah, nobody could understand bothering to fake something that we were finding thousands of examples of in the fossil record anyway.
still haven't found any rabbits in precambrian rocks, though.
Well, the troll @239 might be a missing link, but casts of footprints sure aren't.
@240: If you're trying to say we've found thousands of human footprints with dinosaur footprints, I'd like to see a citation.
uh, no, you missed it.
read 239 again, then read 240.
If it's still unclear, repost and I'll explain in detail.
hint: note what 239 says scientists faked.
truth machine, OM says
If you're trying to say we've found thousands of human footprints with dinosaur footprints, I'd like to see a citation.
Let us know when you've master the concept and usage of pronouns.
argh … master -> mastered
anon@214 appears to have a form of Adkisson's Disease.
Yep, I misread. Been doing a lot of that lately…Probably means I should sleep more.
214: "the radical feminists ignore or deny much of biology and much of evolutionary theory."
Yes, much in the same way that aviation ignores or denies much of gravitational theory.
I think you're campaigning for the naturalistic fallacy here, that because women have some history as foraging, home-making, and child-raising specialists, we should force them to stay in those roles for all of eternity. I say "some history", because what we think of as "traditional gender roles" themselves came into being only a few thousand years ago.
Not that it matters.
Does gravitational theory mean we should push people off cliffs?
Does germ theory mean we should infect people with diseases?
Does the Big Bang theory mean that we should make a particle accelerator so big that….well you get the point, or you should, by now.
However, as obvious as these examples are, there seems to be a certain blindness to the naturalistic fallacy within creationist circles when it comes to evolution, and within patriarchal circles when it comes to human history.
So I'll feed this troll only one last time:
Is =/= Ought
…and if you think women ought to stay in the home, I think women ought to universally reject you so you don't pass your ancient ideas onto the next generation, and we can all enjoy a progressive ideal-guided future without you.
EyeNoU says
"Dr." Baugh is willing to stake his reputation on the "fossil" being genuine? Wouldn't that be along the lines of betting last week's garbage that a three-legged goat will win the Kentucky Derby?
Alex H says
The illustrious "Dr Baugh's credentials…what a joke.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/degrees.htm
Randallphobia says
I'm not upset about this idiot & his "fossil," but the Creation Evidence Museum located next to Dinosaur Valley State Park makes me want to vomit. My parents took us camping there a few times when I was a kid, & it was a place of childhood wonder for my sister & I. Knowing that these fools are pushing their delusional propaganda there has me wanting to go put Darwin bumper stickers on all the cars parked outside the place. Dang I'm pissed.
SciGuy says
@Randallphobia #251: Not to worry. My wife and 8-year-old son went camping at Dinosaur Valley State Park this past spring. It's still a place of wonder, one of our favorites… and the Creation "Museum" is just a couple of sheds, a tacky sign, and (as of spring '08) a still unfinished metal building.
ChristianFAQed says
Hehe, ever since I read about this a couple days ago I've been enjoying the conspiracy theories evolutionists have to come up with to explain this away.
Sure, you can make up your conspiracy theories but they won't be anything more than theories until you have evidence. The actually evidence has not shown this to be a fake. The fact that the foot print looks different than other might be because its not the same Acrocanthosaurus. You know they all didn't look alike, right?
There are even people that show such variations. Big, small, skinny, fat feet all exist in one species. So your claim that because it looks different, is not convincing.
The x-rays show compression, which means it wasn't carved and if it is limestone, then it didn't solidify anytime recently or by man made techniques. Those are the facts. What you presented was conspiracy theories. Which, though amusing, are not convincing anyone accept those who are scratching and clawing to keep the precious evolutionary theory alive. Probably the same kind that will believe in punctuated equilibrium because even evolutionists have accepted that the fossil record does not support gradualization.
For those that believe it does, you have to contend with the top evolutionists who say otherwise.
Have fun with your conspiracy theories, they keep me amused. ^_^
Posted by: wrpd | July 29, 2008 2:54 AM
you can't possibly be serious? what evidence has the scientific community made up??? LOL, good one.
anyway, read through most of these posts and still can't seem to find anyone willing to address the most interesting aspect of these claims… the x-rays. these prints can be quickly dismissed as have previous "finds" from this same area if this x-ray data can be debunked. agreed, these prints look comical, but this x-ray/compression evidence offers at least an interesting twist. anyone???
jp@254,
Where are these x-rays, and who has examined them? Has Baugh posted them on the web?
what evidence has the scientific community made up??? LOL, good one.
Answer the question, coward.
dick@255,
"coward"? didn't think i was coming across as confrontational… someone a little bitter about something? too much time in the lab make nicky a cranky boy? why so touchy??
i'm aware, as the original news story seems to make perfectly clear, this "evidence" has yet to cross the desk of a reputable expert. all i was asking is if it is even possible for x-ray evidence to validate these claims. instead, this thread, like so many others just seems to bring out all the aspiring comedians.
as for answering your question, i guess we could start with dr. kettlewell???
and just for the record, i think it was wrpd at #75 who asked the original question. so are we good here? or do you still feel the need to play the board DB???
i guess we could start with dr. kettlewell?
You guess wrong. Kettlewell's methodology has been questioned, but the claim he "made things up" is simply unjustified.
hplt says
I assumed I'd be looking at thought provoking replies to what may or may not be an interesting find. Instead I read a lot of sh… sorry, ditritus from closed minded people, not interested in examining evidence but trying to debunk that which may or may not be true. Most of you, immediately react like a bull to a waving cloak (Christianity and creation) and start charging in, trying to tear apart persons and reputations with loaded words such as fraud and liar. You immediately discount anything that doesn't tow the evolutionary party line and point the finger at those who dissent, calling them fools and intellectually ignorant. I have degrees in both science and theology from universities of good standing in the UK and and based upon both faith and observation I am a Christian and creationist. Evolution is not observable and is therefore a faith, as is Christianity.
Enough said. I fully expect the tirade to continue. After all, you are intellectual Goliaths. Well as for me, I suppose I'm just another David.
hplt,
This "fossil" is an obvious fraud, its "discoverer" is a liar, and so are you: evolution is not only observable, it has been and is being observed.
And thank you hplt for coming here to play modest christian, you are David and you surely slew us with your stone of Truth©. Unfortunately you are stunningly incorrect about your assertion that evoltuion can not be observed.
It's obvious your "science" degree did you know good because you somehow you learned how to use the computer but failed to understand the concept of search engines. I like google.
Click on that link (I assume you know what a hyperlink is?) and type in the name phrase Richard Lenski E coli.
Then after you've read up on that type in observable evolution and click the first link. Read up there. That whole site has plenty of examples and explanations for you to digest.
Try different phrases in the search field and you should find what you are looking for. However it is up to you to understand the material you are reading and try to keep the blinders of faith off during the search.
Thanks! I hope that helps.
know = no
time for coffee!
and you can rationalize it however you want, the bottom line is he falsified his methodology. is it really your contention that science is devoid of fraud???? because that's a very interesting viewpoint to hold.
now if you'd like to address my original question, that'd be cool… but i can see from your replies you're more interested in combative repartee.
this is simply too good to let pass…
nothing's funnier than a "we're smarter than your dumbass" tirade (#260), which is then rife with grammar errors. nice work bigdumbchimp. yet another pz wannabe self destructing. time for coffee indeed. seriously started my morning with a good chuckle, thanks.
Since no independent expert has yet seen the x-rays, there's nothing to say about them specifically. It may be that no-one commenting here is an expert on the interpretation of x-rays of fossils, and that's why no-one has answered your question. If you're really interested in finding out what x-rays can and cannot reveal, why not use google? You could even come back and tell us; but I don't believe for a moment that you are really interested.
Your evidence that Kettlewell falsified his methodology?
Yes, fraud does occur in science – which is different from "the scientific community" making up evidence, which clearly implies widespread conspiracy. Moreover, no fraudulent scientist would these days be stupid enough to present or to accept such an obvious fake as this.
It happens and I'm ok with it. I stand by my point. I bang it out on the keyboard and move on.
oh, i see how this works. it's okay for you to summarily dismiss the "evidence" without having expert analysis? i know you're smart enough to see where i'm going with this so i won't belabor the point.
as far as getting my question answered here, don't presuppose my motives for asking. you don't know me or anything about my background. i followed the original article to this thread and found numerous "experts" posting here. that is all. i know a little about the previous bogus fossils found in that same geographic area but none had ever been subjected to x-ray analysis that i was aware of. if you don't know, then don't answer. but spare me your defensive bs.
i'm am glad we agree that fraud absolutely occurs in science, as it does everywhere. and fraud implies nothing more than fraud. however, when you make statements like "no fraudulent scientist would these days be stupid enough to present or to accept such an obvious fake as this." either speaks to your unbelievable naivety or to your abject dishonesty. while we can argue about what constitutes evidence "fake as this", there is no arguing that cooked findings do get presented.
First, Jp to clear this. I fucked up. I hit send instead of preview and my penchant for shitty typing and even worse proofreading is there for the world to see. Yes it's funny as it came as I was being snarkily critical of someone else. Egg on my face. I'm ok admitting when I fuck up.
The question floats out there then, will others in the creationist circles point out this as a fake (if it indeed is)? In past examples, when fraud has been perpetrated on the scientific community it was that community that uncovered it. Is this the same with the creationists?
Rev.BigDumbChimp says…
"And thank you hplt for coming here…"
I didn't realise I needed your invitation.
As expected, the tirade continues…
"…. to play modest christian, you are David and you surely slew us with your stone of Truth©."
Just as pointed out, the bull charges again. What do you know about me? You have no idea whether I am modest or merely playing.
"Unfortunately you are stunningly incorrect about your assertion that evoltuion [sic] can not be observed."
It's obvious your "science" degree did you know good because you somehow you learned."
Stunningly incorrect? Bit like your grammar. Do I know good or did my degree do me no good? OK, I'll let you off. You were probably eager to post your views and let things slip. By the way, my science degree is biology based.
"…because you somehow you learned how to use the computer but failed to understand the concept of search engines. I like google."
As a science software developer with published work I think I might know just a little about search engines. Hyperlink? What's that? O silly creationist me! Incidentally, I also like google.
Why are you patronizing me? OK, I think I can see why. I wasn't specific enough. The whole down through the ages macro-evolution is not observable and cannot be. You are referring to micro-evolution within species or among bacteria. Of course natural selection takes place. The well known argument about the peppered moth and the Industrial Revolution shows this. But both the dark and light variety existed in the population. All that changed was the balance with the darker variety more likely to survive. Creatures can vary and change within genus.
What is a 'blinder of faith'? And talking of faith, Rev, we both have the same evidence around us. It's just that your interpretation of it points to a mindless process whereas mine points to a Creator. You interpret evidence as pointing to uniformitarianism and evolution over millions of years whereas for me the evidence points to a past diluvian catastrophe. Evolution or catastrophe? You choose one, I the other. Both are based upon faith and I admire yours. It certainly takes a lot to believe it.
Thanks! I also hope that helps.
CJO says
And talking of faith, Rev, we both have the same evidence around us. It's just that your interpretation of it points to a mindless process whereas mine points to a Creator. You interpret evidence as pointing to uniformitarianism and evolution over millions of years whereas for me the evidence points to a past diluvian catastrophe. Evolution or catastrophe? You choose one, I the other. Both are based upon faith…
Bullshit. We have the same evidence around us, but you either willfully ignore most of it, or, more likely, dishonestly cherry-pick bits and pieces of it and lie about the rest.
A "diluvian catastrophe"! You bronze age lackwits crack me up. Let's see the evidence for your flood, and then let's see how a flood accounts for all of the available evidence better than the explanations of modern geology. You're either hopelessly stupid or you're a masochist if you want to offer that weak shit around here. Either way, it should be amusing to watch.
HG says
If it is a fake, then it is likely a product of a kindergaten craft class. Who else would make a fake that would undoubtedly face the criticism offered here.
Talking of charging bulls and detritus.
"We have the same evidence around us, but you either willfully ignore most of it, or, more likely, dishonestly cherry-pick bits and pieces of it and lie about the rest."
Again, attack the person. How can you know what I have looked at? Dishonesty and lies. How troubled you are!
"A "diluvian catastrophe"! You bronze age lackwits crack me up. "
What do you know about the bronze age? My theology/ancient history degree includes bronze age studies (ancient languages and archaeology) in the Middle East which I continue to pursue. I'd be interested to know what you mean by a lackwit. The finger pointing has four pointing back.
"Let's see the evidence for your flood."
Evidence for the Flood. Look around you. You wilfully ignore it or you are really ignorant.
"You're either hopelessly stupid or you're a masochist if you want to offer that weak shit around here. "
Why would you refer to me as a masochist on a science blog? Masochist, sadist, my personal life doesn't come into it. As for weak shit, you've either got a rather upset digestive system or you haven't a clue how to describe things properly. I have friends from the USA who have a good command of the language without resorting to phrases like 'weak shit', suggesting that your command is not so good. Or is it that you think that us naive Christians might be shocked by such language.
"…let's see how a flood accounts for all of the available evidence better than the explanations of modern geology."
The explanations of modern geology are based upon Lyell's philosophy of uniformitarianism and various theories such as plate tectonics (I assume you know the difference between a theory such as the theory of Evolution and a law, ie gravity).
"Either way, it should be amusing to watch."
Be amused my friend. But reading between the lines you don't sound so happy. Maybe you are missing something in your life.
How can you know what I have looked at?
By taking you at your word and observing that you must be willfilly ignorant or dishonest to claim to believe bronze age mythology over the hard-won understanding of modern empirical science.
Look around you.
Specifics, moron.
And, again, given some specifics, let's see how a mythical flood accounts for all of the available evidence better than the explanations of modern geology.
Maybe you are missing something in your life.
Maybe you are a self-satisfied, narcissistic liar. I don't really care; nor do you, about my life. Your execrable dishonesty and intellectual cowardice are noted, though.
chimp, if we can't laugh at ourselves…
as far as creationists accepting this as a fake if it is indeed ruled as such, i don't speak for them, but i don't see why they wouldn't. again, other fossils from this area were scrutinized and found to be fraudulent and everyone seemed to acknowledge them as such, even the creationists.
now as far as science policing itself… i agree. but this would only make sense. how would the lay community have even adequate means to evaluate potentially complex scientific data for potential fraud? the scientific community is the only group capable of policing itself.
as far as the last part of your question, "In past examples, when fraud has been perpetrated on the scientific community it was that community that uncovered it. Is this the same with the creationists?" the scientific community is best qualified to evaluate scientific data.
Frogger says
Just a couple of thoughts.
First, the lighting and shadows exaggerate some of the features depicted in the photo. The big toe is not as deep as it appears, there is not a thumb, the pushed up material in the foot is not as pronounced as it appears.
Second, I really doubt the acrocanthasarus print shown by Myers can be true. The dinosaur was huge, and photo depictions of the creature would show feet much different than waht Myers is proposing.
Although slightly smaller than gigantic relatives like Giganotosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus was still among the largest theropods ever to exist. The longest known individual measured 11.5 meters (38 ft) from snout to tail tip and weighed an estimated 2400 kilograms (5300 lb). Its skull alone was nearly 1.3 meters (4.3 ft) in length.[1]
The thing was big. About 10 times the size of man. Even a juvenile would be big. No way the Myers print could be that of a large, forward-walking dinosaur like the acro, based on what expert describe the creature being and how it walked and moved.
So, I know there are a lot of Internet experts on this topic, and have based their conclusions solely on the online photo, but there is a little more to it than that and hopefully some real experts and scientists will step forward and provide the necessary tests.
And while Baugh is controversial to say the least, he wouldn't attempt a hoax by claiming a print that is so common in North Texas and this area that would nbe easil disproved and dismissed. He would be more clever than that.
There is always the "What if" factor … closed minds can never learn.
And while Baugh is controversial to say the least, he wouldn't attempt a hoax,/I> – Frogger
The claim is that Baugh is the victim of a hoax by the "discoverer", Alvis Delk. And you can't rely on the findings of experts about Acrocanthosaurus in one sentence, and propose that they could be so utterly wrong that it and humans could really be contemporary in another. If you follow the link from what you call "the Myers print", you will find it described as "Acrocanthosaurus track with partly mud-collapsed digits".
MartinM says
He would be more clever than that.
I'm sorry, this is the same Carl Baugh who proposed the metallic hydrogen canopy, yes? 'Clever' is not a word I'd associate with him or his audience.
Gary Hurd says
My observations on this obvious fake are Here.
I can say based on the CAT scans and an independent review of those images verify that the rock was compressed, stepped into when it was soft. It is evidenced by the compressions, density and displacement of material. It is evident between the toes of the human print and the "dino" print, around the edges of the prints, and in the material pushed up by the intruding print.
The person reviewing the images ruled out tool or chemical etching, as the rock was definitely compressed by the two prints.
So that leaves when was it compressed, and by whom or what? But etching of the prints or portions of them, no, that did not happen according to the CAT scan images.
Gerald McKibben says
What bothers me (a lot more than this fossil report has obviously bothered most of the individuals posting comments here)is the sorry state of Science today. So someone has purported to have evidence that goes against a (very) popularly held scientific position. So what?
What are you afraid of? If I didn't know anything about the issue, I think I would initially choose a position quite the opposite of the ardent Darwinists, because such emotionally charged and religeously held opinions are usually proven false anyway. What are you afraid of?
I propose a radical approach: subject the fossil to all the relevant tests to verify – or falsify – its authenticity. Or had we rather argue about how many teeth the horse has without actually counting them? Science has served us very well in the past. I just hate to see it hijacked by those who have forgotten what real Science is.
Michael X says
For someone claiming to speak for "real science" you seem to have never done it. Ardent "Darwinists" are always looking to falsify information. That is how science works. You set up a theory and then you spend all your time trying to prove it wrong. The longer is stays standing, the stronger it is. Science is built on constantly challenging our best theories.
As for this fossil, one of the main ways we do science is by looking at things. If you are qualified enough to tell a fake fossil from a real one by looking at it, then you don't have much need to do any more tests. And yet, as for your radical approach, what makes you think those tests arn't being done?
So don't mistake our care for the truth, for fear. And also don't mistake our irritation at those who would dupe an ignorant public as weakness. And by the way, just what the hell are you arguing for?
http://www.emmanuelmsu.org/theological_thoughts.html
Ummm yeah. Gee, a Baptist and liar.
Gerald don't pretend you care about science. Your superstition is all you care about.
Glen Kuban says
As some of you may know, I've been working and writing on the Paluxy tracks and Baugh's claims for many years. This "Delk Print" is just the latest of many alleged human tracks and other dubious objects Baugh has promoted. In my assessment both the "human" and "dinosaur" prints on the slab show unnatural features and were either carved, or at best heavily enhanced from less distinct depressions. I've posted a draft of a more extensive critique of it at the following URL. I welcome any comments or corrections. When I'm satisfied the article is sound, I'll add it to my Paluxy web site menu. Thanks.
Delk Print critique: http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm/delk.htm
Paluxy website: http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm
Mars Turner says
You said other fossils do not have a flat profile; I found two of them that clearly have flat profiles directly from the link you use;
http://paleo.cc/casts/bish.jpg
http://paleo.cc/casts/mcf1-thm.jpg
To create a flat profile the mud would need to be wetter so that it takes away the detail of the print. Also, the computer tomography scan of the Delk track has revealed compression signatures in the matrix that cannot be forged.
Day late and a dollar short says
The town is known for fossil-faking.
http://www.star-telegram.com/197/story/820344.html
"During the 1930s and the Depression, Glen Rose residents made money by distilling moonshine and selling dinosaur fossils. Each fossil brought $15 to $30. When the supply ran low, George Adams just carved more, some with human footprints thrown in.
"Since at least 1950, preachers have walked the earth in Glen Rose claiming that the fake footprints refute the scientific theory of evolution. The plentiful supply of footprints — both real and fake — has stirred endless confusion and one entire ministry, the Creation Evidence Museum."
"Flash-forward to this summer, when fossil collector and Pentecostal lay preacher Alvis Delk, 72, of Stephenville decided to sell off some artifacts to pay medical bills.
"Delk and friend James H. Bishop, 70, of Stephenville, an ex-con with a 1969 murder conviction in Eastland, were using a stubby brush to clean up a 2-foot-wide dinosaur footprint that they found on a 2000 hike along a branch of the Paluxy River."
The article hints that Delk found an old fake that had been buried. The compression from the X-rays could be real even if the prints are not – it's not hard to find instructions on how to make a limestone cast.
Sandman says
I don't know about you city boys. But us country boys walk around in the mud with bare feet all the time, And yes, the big toe often does dig in and leave a deep imprint? Kind of makes it seem more real to me. The dino foot looked fake. Until I searched more pics of three toed dinos on google. They all looked pretty much same. Guess those creationist would be afraid to let the scientific establishment have a look. They might accidentally drop it or loose it. Not to put any ideas in any bodies head. LOL
P.S. Take your shoes off and step in some mud. It won't kill you. I promise.