According to evolutionists, trilobytes are among the oldest living organisms on earth. Trilobites were a Paleozoic marine animals living 600 to 280 million years ago, and have been extinct for at least 200 million years. Further validating this dating, the shale rock of the area is from the carboniferous period (290 to 355 million years ago).
This print seems to be a valid, with both stiching visible and a pronounced heel. Other imprints appearing to be human tracks have also been found in the same area, but without trilobites. Dr. Clifford Burdick investigated the area and found other prints as well as the barefoot imprint of a child's foot- complete with toes.
The original story HERE .
Photo provided by Clifford Burdick, 1982.
Arrow points to one of the trilobites in the specimen. Click for larger view.
The rock fell open "like a book." revealing on one side the footprint of a human with trilobites right in the footprint itself. The other half of the rock slab showed an almost perfect mold of the footprint and fossils. Amazingly the human was wearing a sandal! The sandal that seems to have crushed a living trilobite was 10 1/4 inches long and 3 1/2 inches wide; the heel is indented slightly more than the sole, as a human shoe print would be.
This story can be found here.
Jeannie's Thoughts:
Amazing! Time travelers or ancient civilizations?What Do You Think?
6 comments:
The answer is eather aliens or time travel.
How did it get there?
Fascinating. Those time travelers stepping on trilobites may be the reason the world is so screwed up today!
The Trilobite Effect.
Burdick was a creationist, whose credentials come from a 'university' that is nothing more than a trademark.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
I have been unable to find another credible reference to him that does not involve creationism.
It should be borne in mind that creationism isn't science. They have the answers they want, and then spend the rest of their lives shoe-horning reality into the mythology they present as truth. None of this, of course, stands up to scrutiny outside of creationisms own confirmation bias.
Evolutionists, as you call them, do not do geology. Evolution theory makes predictions, based on the facts we have to hand, that geologists and palaeontologists can use to verify their findings, but evolutionists do not make the claims that you have stated.
I don't know how these 'fossils came to be, if they are indeed genuine, but because creationists only count the hits and ignore the misses, their methodology cannot be trusted.
Would you accept the word of someone that has a vested interest in confirming his own personal beliefs, over another person that has the intellectual honesty to look at the evidence before coming to his conclusion? If you are, you will never understand a thing. You already have all the answers you need. Evidence be damned.
The only way creationism can be proved, is by the effective use of the scientific method. Creationists know this, which is why shoddy research like Burdick's is rightly shunned by anyone that appreciates as close an approximation of the truth as can be gleaned from the facts that are presented. Not the other way around.
Well I would agree that some creationists do tend to jump on minuscule data.
However You forget that Evolutionists do the same thing. After all (no one was there when creation was created) so holding hard and fast to something that you can't really prove (like carbon dating, you can 'scientifically' put a chicken bone in an oven and later get a carbon date of 100million years ago, this has been proven, yet we decide that carbon dating is still a valid form of dating earths history? how is that scientific fact?)
Mr/miss mygodlesslife, it appears that you are as set in a dogmatic belief that proves it's self without weighing all the evidence either...even a few evolutionists look at the theory of how the earth evolved as ludicrous... there isn't enough hard fact to prove that to be true.. Darwin proved evolution in the process that we see generation to generation (a child of a black guy and a white gal ends up looking different than both of them) But in darwin's personal journals (that people don't talk about to much) he never said anything relating to how we view evolution today.
So my suggestion is that you look at your facts again... because evolution 'facts' tend to be just hits as well...
So unless you time traveled and those are your shoe prints... :) then why don't you take a second and think, instead of just knee jerk react to the "opposite" side (which it really isn't) of the argument...
Greаt goods from уоu, man.
Ι hаvе bе aωare уour ѕtuff prior tο and уou're simply too wonderful. I actually like what you've received here, cегtainly like what you're stating and the best way in which you are saying it. You are making it entertaining and you continue to care for to stay it wise. I can not wait to read far more from you. This is really a tremendous website.
Here is my blog; may tinh
Post a Comment