Completely off the deep end!

[Archae]

I posted this "LiveJournal" entry by a guy who's getting ripped up something fierce, regarding his belief in creationism.

So here's his latest rant, (and it is a total rant,) "This proves I'm right and you're all wrong! Nyahh nyahh nyahh!"

Enough, already
Listen up, you intellectually lazy sods.

You wanna diddle about the sacred Old Earth model, start reading here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html
http://genesis.amen.net/earth.html
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-layers.htm
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/coal/se_coal.html
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-035b.htm
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm
Note with this link: YES, lots of "brave" scientists came forward and debunked these as frauds.... claiming with perfectly straight faces that a couple of local rednecks had carved the Paluxy tracks... in the riverbed... under 15 feet of water... for no damned reason. (One speculates on the precise construction of hillbilly scuba gear ....) And then courageously ignored the particle compression under the footprints, and the raised ridges around them (picture stepping in the mud, and the way it "squishes" up around the foot) which no carving method, no matter how clever, could possibly duplicate....
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-fossils.htm
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-art.htm
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-fossils.htm


Some sites are better than others.. some are run by armchair scientists and "trivia" collecting theologians, others are run by more dedicated and professional scientific researchers. (Yes, Virginia, there are lettered professors and researchers who have problems with the much-lauded Old Earth model.) Some of the evidences are repeated on various sites, with minor technical inaccuracies. However we note that minor inaccuracies and differences do not invalidate the overall argument--- arguing about the eyewitnesses' varying recollection of the automobile's trim is irrelevent when the question we're asking is whether or not we've just been hit by a car.

Do your own research for once.

Christ. Slander their wives or their mothers, they'll let it wash. Threaten their worldview by suggesting their gradeschool science teacher was wrong, and they'll call a jihad on you. Show them evidence contrary to evolutionary models, and they'll pick it apart with a toothpick... but hand them a human skull with a monkey jawbone glued to it and they'll have a Piltdown Epiphany.

A pox on all of 'em.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/rhjunior/

[WoodrowFan]

1. footprints

I though even some creationist groups admitted that the Paluxy tracks* had been faked. First off there were photographs of the tracks before the "human" prints appeared. Second, during a drought more of the dinosaur tracks were uncovered and the "human" footprints were not there. Third, if it WAS a human, given the space beween the tracks, he would have been somehing like 12 foot tall or more.

(Added)I forgot, the supposed 'human' tracks are like 20 inches long!


*Paluxy Tracks: A set of dinosaur tracks in a stream bed (unde rlike a few inches of water, if not above water) which had an indentation on the back of the track. The indentation was from the dinosaur's heel. In the 1980s, well after the track had been discovered, photoraphed and impressions made by scientists, some yahoo went in and carved 'toes' into the heel print to make them look like human footprints. An even cruder fake that the Piltdown man, but some creationists grab at ANYTHING.

here's a GREAT site debunking the tracks as "human"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html