Longford

It appears they don't want to talk about it because it has been thoroughly debunked. Here is a typical quote: "For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists. The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved specimens (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock). A few individuals continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in pre-Tertiary rocks from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for strict creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate a long and complex earth history." Glen J. Kuban, http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm If you follow the link, you will find this discussed in great detail.

.... unfortunately the evolutionist and atheist will do 1 of 2 things, either ignore this finding and keep silent about it or twist the findings to support their own cause I do not understand why you say that evolutionists and atheists would "ignore this finding and keep silent about it or twist the findings to support their own cause." Are you implying that the finding somehow disproves the concept of evolution? I can see that it might change the timeline, but I cannot see that it in any way challenges the concept. Please explain. i say it because its true.....how often do they have some new explanation and then find out it's wrong? also compare the media exposure a new finding gets and compare it to how much media exposure that same "explanation" gets when the scientific community finds out they were wrong. does anyone remember the pigs tooth fossil that was supposed to be the missing link? also i wonder why they dont want to talk about the fossil footprints of human and dinosaur right next to each other? and those footprints were made pretty much at the same time, not millions of years apart like evolutionist preach. I'm sorry, but you seem to have forgotten to actually answer the question. Let me repeat it, more clearly this time: Are you implying that the finding (the finding of evidence for an earlier date for modern man) somehow disproves the concept of evolution? If so, please explain exactly what the contradiction is.

.... unfortunately the evolutionist and atheist will do 1 of 2 things, either ignore this finding and keep silent about it or twist the findings to support their own cause I do not understand why you say that evolutionists and atheists would "ignore this finding and keep silent about it or twist the findings to support their own cause." Are you implying that the finding somehow disproves the concept of evolution? I can see that it might change the timeline, but I cannot see that it in any way challenges the concept. Please explain.

It seems there is some false reasoning here. To the ancients, the stars in the sky were just as uncountable as they are now. With or without a telescope, the problem is still that there are stars that are fainter and fainter, until they can no longer be seen; in either case the number is uncountable. It is a much larger number with a telescope than without, but it certainly seems wrong to suggest that the ancients could not have known that they could not count the stars in the sky. So I see nothing remarkable about the Bible saying the stars are uncountable. And not to be pedantic (he said pedantically), but researchers at the University of Hawaii estimate the number of grains of sand as only 7.5 x 10^18, so when you say there are about the same number of stars as grains of sand, you are off by a factor of more than a million. This verse seems a little unclear; but by your description it is the cylinder that rotates, not the clay. So it seems clear that whatever this verse us saying, it is NOT saying that the earth turns. Let us look at a few other translations of this verse, which may shed some additional light: The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment. (New International Version, 1984) As the light approaches, the earth takes shape like clay pressed beneath a seal; it is robed in brilliant colors. (New Living Translation, 2007) It is changed like clay under the seal, and its features stand out like a garment. (English Standard Version 2001) It is changed like clay under the seal; And they stand forth like a garment. (New American Standard Bible 1995) It is changed as clay under the seal; And all things'stand forth as a garment (American Standard Version) The earth changes like clay stamped by a seal, and [parts of it] stand out like [folds in] clothing. (God's Word 1995) It seems to me that these alternate translations make the meaning more clear, and nowhere is the meaning that the earth turns.