“Surely he wouldn’t be so dogmatic as to totally discount the side by side footprints at the Paluxy River, would he? What foolishness... I actually saw some of them when they were fresh.”
http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use
about half-way into the article:
“Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs.”
See also: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=255
Hey... anyone who watches politics has witnessed the attempt to discredit all kinds of things that should be obvious and the tactics can even extend to pretending to be 'on the other side of the argument'. This is no different. I've been there and to argue that what is in Paluxy is anything other than dinos and humans coexisting is to argue against the obvious.
>> “Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs.” <<
.
Ignorant claptrap.
Carl Baugh had a detailed compression analysis done over 30 years ago on the foot prints that conclusively proved them to be human prints. Only a deliberate deceiver would try to say otherwise.