Response to Evolution Deniers - 06/10/11 06:58 PM
This is my response to some comments by Paul to my post about the evolution of Homo Erectus. Notice that I am trying to keep that discussion free from the dissension brought on by the typical deniers comments. So, as I said in my original post I have brought the discussion over here.
The problem with the human footprints you are referring to is that it would have been impossible for humans to have made footprints at the time of the dinosaurs. Humans did not evolve until millions of years after the end of the dinosaurs. Any reputable geologists who have examined the tracks reached the conclusion that they were fakes. Here is a link to a site that discusses the tracks. Notice that even a lot of Creationists have dismissed the tracks.
One way to decide on the viability of a scientific report is to examine the credentials of the authors and the publication it was published in. In this case the main author seems to have been an anthropologist at the University of North Texas, in Denton, TX. The report was published in Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. Both of those seem to give a lot of credibility to the report.
Bill Gill
Originally Posted By: paul
human footprints have been found in the U.S. alongside dinosaur footprints , the footprints ended where water erosion did not uncover the prints so they lifted up slabs of sediment to follow the footprints and underneath the slabs the footprints continued.
The problem with the human footprints you are referring to is that it would have been impossible for humans to have made footprints at the time of the dinosaurs. Humans did not evolve until millions of years after the end of the dinosaurs. Any reputable geologists who have examined the tracks reached the conclusion that they were fakes. Here is a link to a site that discusses the tracks. Notice that even a lot of Creationists have dismissed the tracks.
Originally Posted By: paul
is there anything that can be viewed or should we just think of it as a hoax?
One way to decide on the viability of a scientific report is to examine the credentials of the authors and the publication it was published in. In this case the main author seems to have been an anthropologist at the University of North Texas, in Denton, TX. The report was published in Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. Both of those seem to give a lot of credibility to the report.
Bill Gill