Quote:
The fact that the big toe presses harder than the little toes would explain (if it were observed) a less pronounced feature under the little toes than under the big one.


thank you , you seem to have observed that correctly.
and that is what I am focusing on to establish evidence that
can be used to determine if this footprint was faked or is an actual footprint.

Quote:
But that isn't what we observe. We observe the feature under the ridge BETWEEN the toes.


I observe the entire body / amount of evidence , I dont pick what would be appropriate for my observation , in this case by denying that the whole body of evidence exist by singleing out specfic areas of the picture and acting as if the remaining evidence does not exist.




look at the picture above... now picture in your mind a soggy waterless or slightly dried up river or creek bed.

Im sure you have seen these , they are litteraly filled or covered with algae depending on their geographical location
and climate etc...and they resemble a swamp or marshland.



now if you place your foot on this soggy mud surface covered with algae you would depress the top of the algae into the mud
and this is what shows up in the rock that the cross section is taken from.

the undisturbed soil is seen showing less pressure lines in the
sample.

the disturbed soil shows the distinct outline of the footprint underneath the surface IN THE SUBSOIL.

HOW DO YOU THINK THE SUBSOIL WAS CARVED TO REFLECT THE FOOTPRINT?

just answer that then.

if you cannot think for yourself and answer the above then I dont think that you are approaching this with a scientific mind only a closed mind that has been influenced by the teachings of evolution and that evolution will not change and should not be associated with science as science itself is not a closed dicipline.

the question Im asking you has nothing to do with evolution
it is just a question about a foot , some pressure , and mud with algae on it.



Quote:
Not sure if I'm going to respond to the rest of your message, since most of it conveys an implicit misunderstanding of evolution and you could pretty easily figure it out, if you wanted.


Im trying to understand it , I really am , its just that I have the ability to think beyond the textbooks and am not locked into the knowledge they convey.

I personaly believe that evolution is correct in many ways only that it tends to want to adhere that we humans evolved from apes
showing extreme prejudice in that direction , where the imense amount of evidence has not yet been found that could change its direction.

it is a theory and not a fact.

just like the footprint above where extreme prejudice has been displayed as to the validity of it in itself , not to mention the evidence that has been denied in the past such as the california gold tunnels finds.

Quote:
This issue is a little more broad. Since the evidence demonstrates that the Burdick track is a hoax, it's not just that the data is bad, but that it was intentionally fraudulent.


I would be more inclined to agree that the presenters of the evidence against the validity of the footprints were the ones hoaxing , and the the data they presented as evidence was not just bad , it was fraudulent and intentionaly fraudulent.

but that does not not dismiss that evolution itself as a dicipline is fraudulent , it only shows the extreme prejudice that accompanies the dicipline of evolution.















3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.