Evidence of human foot print with dinosaurs

[Barabus]

Hello,

Quick question from the forum members. This seemed like the most likely place that someone would have this answer, so please help me out if you will.

I have, on a couple of occasions now, heard that a human foot print has been found in the same strata with dinosaur bones. This would be quite a find as this woud push back the current understanding of the origin of homo-sapien back from ~100,000 years BC, to 65+ million years BC (quite a jump, if you ask me). However, I'm a bit surprised that such a finding has not made it intp the Zitgeist of modern America.

Can someone either please provide me with a link to such a find, or if these is no such find, explain to me how such a rumor has been spread.

Thanks in advance - Barabus.

[Canuckster1127]

Welcome Barabus,

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... footprints

[DB 1517 (96)] Although there are several claims of fossilized human footprints in "old" sediments, none is as credible (relatively speaking) or has received as serious consideration as the prints in the Paluxy Riverbed near Glen Rose, Texas. At this location, supposedly human footprints are interspersed with undisputed dinosaur footprints. Yet upon closer consideration, even the Paluxy footprints are highly disappointing for young-Earth advocates. The "human" footprints are too far apart to fit the stride of humans, and the footprint size is also too large. Many of the "human" prints show dinosaur features like claw marks, and most damaging of all, some trails of "human" prints continue as a path of near-perfect dinosaur prints. Recognizing the overwhelming evidence, ICR president John Morris admitted in 1986 that the Paluxy footprints are probably not human but are eroded dinosaur footprints (ICR Impact #151). However, many young-Earth advocates, including many at ICR, unfortunately are still reluctant to give up on this now-discredited claim.

[Barabus]

Thanks a lot. Is this the only one, or have there been more?

[dayage]

These have been promoted by Carl Baugh and Kent Hovind.

The Institute for Creation Research has said these footprints are not evidence for a young earth:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... iew&ID=255

Answers in Genesis has it on a list of arguments creationists should not use:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans ... e-dont-use

[zoegirl]

These have been promoted by Carl Baugh and Kent Hovind.

The Institute for Creation Research has said these footprints are not evidence for a young earth:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... iew&ID=255

Answers in Genesis has it on a list of arguments creationists should not use:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans ... e-dont-use

WEll. they say that there is insufficient evidence but further investigation is still in order. There are still questions that make them want to cling to the conclusion but admit that the evidence as it stand currently is inconclusive. Quite a reluctant concession.

[Canuckster1127]

You mean .... The Flintstones was fictional?!?!?

[Gman]

You mean .... The Flintstones was fictional?!?!?