Dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy riverbed.

[Tcg]

.
The Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas has dried to the point of revealing dinosaur tracks, again. This time apparently to the point that previously undiscovered tracks have been found. This caught my attention because in the 1930s, some creationists claimed that human tracks were found there in the same rock level as dinosaur tracks. It was later determined that they weren't human tracks and there was some evidence that the tracks may have been modified to more closely resemble human tracks.

This article provides some of the issues:

Paluxy Man -- The Creationist Piltdown

Creationists, by citing examples of fossils that are supposed to be in the wrong order for evolution, often try to prove that the geological time scale is in error. In particular, they claim that human footprints have been found in rocks containing traces of dinosaurs and other animals that died out millions of years before humans actually appeared on the earth. As we shall see, however, these alleged footprints are either natural objects that have nothing to do with humans or are deliberate frauds. On the whole, the leading creationist authors are intelligent and sincere, but it seems that they have a very strong will to believe when it comes to defending their model.

https://ncse.ngo/paluxy-man-creationist-piltdown

The Piltdown Man is often presented as a reason to mistrust science, but are there any scientists today who don't accept that it was a fraud?

Are there any creationists today who still accept the human footprint claim and if so, what does that say about science's ability to correct and reject false claims compared to the creationist approach?


Tcg

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Tcg in post #69]

Catholic early church fathers did not all take the stories literally. Even Augustine said that the 6 days of creation are not literal days. He did not try to explain what it meant, though. He said it is a mystery. So that was in 300ad that he said there was not a literal 6 day creation.

If an all powerful God chose to write a book with a message for everyone, it is not logical that it would take pastors, priests, theologians or the Catholic Church to relay the said message from the all powerful, all wise and all knowing God to humanity.

Obviously there were reasons churches didn't want their congregations to read the book themselves.

And wouldn't the best way of spreading the "good news" be to ensure that every Christian had direct access to the Bible? That's not what happened. The Church actually discouraged the populace from reading the Bible on their own -- a policy that intensified through the Middle Ages and later, with the addition of a prohibition forbidding translation of the Bible into native languages.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-chri ... _b_3303545

Look at this book from God! Don't read it though or you might not need us!
It's just not logical.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #69]

Catholic early church fathers did not all take the stories literally.

I couldn't care less about these "fathers." I presented a present-day Catholic who does. That is what you asked for and is what I presented.


Tcg

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Tcg in post #69]

Catholic early church fathers did not all take the stories literally. Even Augustine said that the 6 days of creation are not literal days. He did not try to explain what it meant, though. He said it is a mystery. So that was in 300ad that he said there was not a literal 6 day creation.

If an all powerful God chose to write a book with a message for everyone, it is not logical that it would take pastors, priests, theologians or the Catholic Church to relay the said message from the all powerful, all wise and all knowing God to humanity.

Obviously there were reasons churches didn't want their congregations to read the book themselves.

And wouldn't the best way of spreading the "good news" be to ensure that every Christian had direct access to the Bible? That's not what happened. The Church actually discouraged the populace from reading the Bible on their own -- a policy that intensified through the Middle Ages and later, with the addition of a prohibition forbidding translation of the Bible into native languages.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-chri ... _b_3303545

Look at this book from God! Don't read it though or you might not need us!
It's just not logical.

I am not sure who is, but I am not claiming God wrote the bible. That would be an odd thing to believe.

Yes, Peter says that no scripture is for private interpretation. It was always the case that Rabbis studied the scriptures so they could teach them properly. That same tradition Jesus gave to his disciples, and the disciples raised the next line of meant hat could understand the bible.

What happens when people go on their own understanding and ignore the tradition? They come up with Momonism, Jehovah Witnesses, Southern Baptists, TBN, etc. A bunch of contradictions and heresies. This is why the church did not want people reading the bible on their own. This is exactly what happens.

[Tcg]

This is why the church did not want people reading the bible on their own. This is exactly what happens.

Right! But of course the "church" could interpret it properly. Other people couldn't, but they could. Sure, that's believable.


Tcg

[The Barbarian]

It's worth mentioning that creationists from Loma Linda University were the first to debunk the YE claim of "man tracks" in the Paluxy rocks.

And we should give them credit for doing it. Even "Answers in Genesis" won't fall for that one:

Creation scientists from various organizations have investigated the Paluxy River fossils. Given the ambiguity of the evidence and the fact that much of what may have once been present is no longer available for study, we do not believe those claims of coexisting human and dinosaur prints are wholly supportable. Dr. John Morris in 1986 reported similar conclusions, deciding “it would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution”1 unless further research brings new facts to light.
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... spotlight/

[Tcg]

It's worth mentioning that creationists from Loma Linda University were the first to debunk the YE claim of "man tracks" in the Paluxy rocks.

And we should give them credit for doing it. Even "Answers in Genesis" won't fall for that one:

Creation scientists from various organizations have investigated the Paluxy River fossils. Given the ambiguity of the evidence and the fact that much of what may have once been present is no longer available for study, we do not believe those claims of coexisting human and dinosaur prints are wholly supportable. Dr. John Morris in 1986 reported similar conclusions, deciding “it would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution”1 unless further research brings new facts to light.
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... spotlight/

But they will fall for this. From the link you provided:

"But the question remains, even though we know from the Bible that mankind and dinosaurs coexisted, did they walk together at Paluxy River? And should anyone’s acceptance of creation science and the biblical record of Genesis depend on the coexistence of human and dinosaur tracks?"

<bolding mine>


Tcg

[The Barbarian]

But they will fall for this. From the link you provided:

"But the question remains, even though we know from the Bible that mankind and dinosaurs coexisted, did they walk together at Paluxy River? And should anyone’s acceptance of creation science and the biblical record of Genesis depend on the coexistence of human and dinosaur tracks?"

<bolding mine>

Yes. They are still YE creationists, albeit unwilling to accept obvious frauds.

[Tcg]

But they will fall for this. From the link you provided:

"But the question remains, even though we know from the Bible that mankind and dinosaurs coexisted, did they walk together at Paluxy River? And should anyone’s acceptance of creation science and the biblical record of Genesis depend on the coexistence of human and dinosaur tracks?"

<bolding mine>

Yes. They are still YE creationists, albeit unwilling to accept obvious frauds.

The claim that mankind and dinosaurs coexisted isn't an obvious fraud?

[The Barbarian]

But they will fall for this. From the link you provided:

"But the question remains, even though we know from the Bible that mankind and dinosaurs coexisted, did they walk together at Paluxy River? And should anyone’s acceptance of creation science and the biblical record of Genesis depend on the coexistence of human and dinosaur tracks?"

<bolding mine>

Yes. They are still YE creationists, albeit unwilling to accept obvious frauds.

The claim that mankind and dinosaurs coexisted isn't an obvious fraud?

For many, this is a delusion, not a fraud.

[Clownboat]

I am not sure who is, but I am not claiming God wrote the bible. That would be an odd thing to believe.

It is not logical that an all powerful and all knowing God would inspire the writing of a book with a message for everyone, only to then require pastors, priests and theologicans to properly interpret said message.

Surely you agree? If not, why build in a mechanism that has led us to Momonism, Jehovah Witnesses, Southern Baptists, TBN, etc? A bunch of contradictions and heresies as you claim.

If only the message was clear...