YEC explanation of the fossil record

[jillery]

For those who think YEC PRATTs are "strawmen", and for those who think
YECs have given up the Creation v Evolution argument, the following is
a link to a 40-minute Youtube video produced by AIG Canada and posted
by Genesis Apologetics:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDK0r88Y70M>

A sample:
******************************************
@20:20
STUDENT A:
Did you know that dozens and dozens of human footprints have been
found alongside dinosaur footprints or even in dinosaur layers? It's
all over the world.

STUDENT B:
Yeah but it's been a while since i've looked into them.

STUDENT A:
Well hey check this out. So check out these human prints at the Paluxy
river in Texas. For a hundred years they've been digging up dinosaur
tracks in the riverbed right next to human footprints oh here's the
taylor tracks where they found 14 human prints right next to dinosaur
prints.

STUDENT B:
These are cool but didn't several creation scientists classify these
human prints as just eroded dinosaur prints?

STUDENT A:
Well yeah yeah but but it sure looks like they have heels and toes in
a lot of these. Check out these human prints stepping into dinosaur
prints. I mean look it looks clearly human.
*********************************************

To associate the above with another contemporaneous topic, the Paluxy
"footprints" are good examples of intelligent design.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Robert Carnegie]

For which of these is "a creationist with a chisel"
an accepted explanation?

[RonO]

When I was a postdoc in Michigan (1993) the CRS (creation research
society) was based there and was still active. They had spawned the ICR
(institute of creation research) but that faction had decided to limit
membership to people with graduate level degrees and moved to
California. They were still collaborating with the ICR and when the ICR
made the press release that they had removed the Paluxy man prints from
the creation museum in San Diego it made the Lansing newspapers with
acknowledgments by members of the CRS. They tried to spin it as
something positive and that the rest of the junk in the museum could be
considered to be of a higher scientific quality.

The AIG put pakicetus and ambulocetus on their Ark. These were animals
that the ICR had claimed never existed. No transitional whale fossils
was a standard part of the Gish gallop. The AIG could be implying that
whales evolved after the flood. In the good old days of TO we had
creationists putting whale tanks on the Ark so that sea mammals would
have survived the flood. They didn't seem to care about the aquatic
reptiles, but they needed everything with the breath of life to die
during the flood except for what was on the Ark.

Ron Okimoto

[Gary Hurd]

The footprint scams have been done and done.

I collected a small sample from the Carl Baugh collections;
https://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2014/05/carl-baughs-many-frauds.html

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 27 May 2023 10:37:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Gary Hurd
<gary...@cox.net>:

Unfortunately, "have been" is actually "continue to be".
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[jillery]

Nowhere does your quote above appear in my post or in the article I
cited. Nevertheless, the intelligent design of human footprints at
Paluxy are of two types; materially carved as your quote alludes, and
metaphorically carved by viewers' imaginations.

A documented example of the first type is the Budrick print:
<http://paleo.cc/paluxy/wilker6.htm>

A documented example of the second type are from the Taylor site:
<http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/tsite.htm>

[Pro Plyd]

RonO wrote:
> On 5/27/2023 7:28 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Saturday, 27 May 2023 at 10:32:35 UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>>> For those who think YEC PRATTs are "strawmen", and for those who think
>>> YECs have given up the Creation v Evolution argument, the following is
>>> a link to a 40-minute Youtube video produced by AIG Canada and posted
>>> by Genesis Apologetics:
>>>
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDK0r88Y70M>
>>>

>>>

>>> To associate the above with another contemporaneous topic, the Paluxy
>>> "footprints" are good examples of intelligent design.
>>
>> For which of these is "a creationist with a chisel"
>> an accepted explanation?
>>
>
> When I was a postdoc in Michigan (1993) the CRS (creation research
> society) was based there and was still active.  They had spawned the ICR
> (institute of creation research) but that faction had decided to limit
> membership to people with graduate level degrees and moved to
> California.  They were still collaborating with the ICR and when the ICR
> made the press release that they had removed the Paluxy man prints from
> the creation museum in San Diego it made the Lansing newspapers with

They're still flogging it on their website

https://www.icr.org/articles/print/81

> acknowledgments by members of the CRS.  They tried to spin it as
> something positive and that the rest of the junk in the museum could be
> considered to be of a higher scientific quality.
>
> The AIG put pakicetus and ambulocetus on their Ark.  These were animals
> that the ICR had claimed never existed.  No transitional whale fossils
> was a standard part of the Gish gallop. The AIG could be implying that

Obi Wan, now there's a name that - er, I mean, GISH, there's a name
I haven't heard in a while... Ted Holden anyone?

> whales evolved after the flood.  In the good old days of TO we had
> creationists putting whale tanks on the Ark so that sea mammals would
> have survived the flood.  They didn't seem to care about the aquatic
> reptiles, but they needed everything with the breath of life to die
> during the flood except for what was on the Ark.

Really? Dolphing, porpoises, seals, etc too?