http://www.s8int.com/dino1.html
Fossil Dinosaur Prints Together with Human Prints
This photo from the Interactive Bible Site, shows a series of 14 left, right footprints with three- toed dinosaur tracks intersecting at 30 degrees.
"Believe it or not, dinosaur footprints, and the footprints of man, are found in the same strata, in the very same formation, in some cases only 18 inches apart, at a geological dig in Glen Rose, Texas, called the Paluxy River Bed. The ancient footprints of "man" at the site are found to be evenly spaced, and go under overhanging shale formations, continuing under the formations, and have been excavated.
Though the dino tracks (in the Paluxy River Bed in Glen Rose, Texas, for instance) are real, perhaps the human prints were later 'clever carvings' by Indians (who must have gotten around other states a lot).
Recent research, however, has shown that they CONTINUE under shale bulldozed away, and paleontologists like Dr. Camp of the University of California and Dr. G. Wescott of Ypsilanti, Michigan, have pronounced them genuine.
Scores of other similar finds have come in: human skulls in the Pliocene strata; pollen and anthropods in Pre-Cambrian layers; even pictographs of a dinosaur among other animals on ancient canyon walls, which would knock some 70 million years out of the geologic column" (Acts, p.15, June 1996).
The footprints reputed to be of human origin are not. For example:
Some of the footprints are dinosaur footprints. Processes such as erosion, infilling, and mud collapse obscure the dinosaurian features of some footprints, making them look like giant human footprints, but careful cleaning reveals the three-toed tracks of dinosaurs (Hastings 1987; Kuban 1989).
Some of the reputed prints are erosional features or other irregularities. They show no clear human features without selective highlighting.
Some of the prints show evidence of deliberate alteration (Godfrey 1985).
The Paluxy tracks are illustrative of creationists' wishful thinking and of their unwillingness to face evidence. Although some creationists have repudiated the Paluxy claim, many others still cling to it (Schadewald 1986).
Research is our friend.
Most of the palynology work was done by Clifford Burdick, who had very little knowledge of geological techniques. Creationists themselves admit that his results come from contamination of old rocks by recent pollen [Flank 1995; Chadwick 1973; 1981].
Intrusion of pollen in older rocks is very common. Pollen is ubiquitous, and its small size allows it to be carried into even small cracks by water seepage. To verify that pollen is fossil pollen rather than a contamination, one must look at several factors:
What color is the pollen? Pollen darkens as it ages. If it is yellow or clear, it is recent.
Have the rocks been cooked? Vulcanism around the rocks would burn up the pollen.
Are the pollen grains flattened? Fossil pollens would be flattened as they are buried and compressed.
There is no indication that the out-of-place pollen passes any of these tests. In particular, the Hakatai Shales have lava intrusions, so we would expect any fossil pollen in them to have burned up.
Researh keeps us from looking stupid.
Yep, I knew that was coming....
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm
"The most thorough analyses indicate that the alleged human tracks here are elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks--made by dinosaurs that, at least at times, impressed their soles and heels as they walked (Kuban, 1986a, 1986b; Hastings, 1988)"
By the way, want to find an actual cite to that "human skulls in Pliocene" "evidence", other than a vague reference to it on a creationist website?
I was eyewitness to the carving (faking) of some of those "man tracks" in the Paluxy at Glen Rose. Some of them were even carved in soft mud -- and were then photographed and plaster-cast to claim they were actually "fossils".
--EvoDude
Searching for the ‘magic bullet’
Why do creation-defenders often seem to be too quick to jump onto the latest ‘evidences’?
by Ken Ham
In 1986 a number of leading creationist researchers decided that the evidence of supposedly human and dinosaur footprints, found together at the Paluxy River in Texas, had serious problems. They decided that, pending further research to establish the correct interpretation of the prints, they could no longer be safely used as evidence supporting the fact (based on the biblical account of creation) that man and dinosaur lived at the same time.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/bullet.asp
OK, I don't believe it.