Note: This pic above with the measuring stick, and the written signs as to what things are. Would be impossible to fake because it would distort and mess up the stick and the two signs. You would basically have to cut out those objects, distort the picture, then put them back in. Which would really look funny. So because who ever took that pic, did what cannot be faked by adding those objects to it. Notice how big the human foot print is. Right at two foot long. Before you disregard anyone having a foot that big. Shaq, a famous basket ball player wears a size 22 EEE shoe.
Answers in Genesis supposed debunked evidence?
AIG says the dino and human foot print are not real. I want to show you how atheist and evolutionist debunk creationist evidence. Here we have the same pictures of the same tracks. Notice there are two pics that could be questionable as being real because of the way they look, and two that are pretty clear as to what they are. So which two do you think are found on every evolution-atheist site on the web? The same pics made to look fake, and for what reason? To make it look like that humans and dinos did not coexist. And they have worked pretty well over the years, because once you start to believe they are fake, it is hard to change your mind back. Because your mind starts to question if you were fooled the first time, or are you being fooled the second time. So AIG supports these tracks being fake, and considers the matter debunked.
But the pictures speak for themselves on what was really done. Anyone with a little knowledge can make a real pic look fake. The top right pic had what's called antique done to it. It's where a color overlay is applied to make it look really old. And in this case makes it questionable whether it was real. Which makes any site that displays this pic, and talk about it being fake, more believable. The bottom left picture was slightly pixelized (to blur it), then converted to black and white only to make it in question about being real. Three of those pictures are the same, only one is actually different. How you can tell is the wet spot in the upper right hand corner that looks like the shadow of someones head. Also notice the string that goes down the middle of the dino print in the same three pics.
So the original of the same three pics is the one on the upper left. The other two are modified to make the prints look fake. The one pic that is different (bottom right) shows there is more than one picture of these prints as being real. Debunked? I don't think so. But because AIG refuses to discuss such matters, and would rather peer view the subject. The truth they say they are looking for they will never find.
Carl Baugh is probably the person most connected with the foot prints because his museum is right next to the state park where they were found. And many pictures have him in them. And many atheist, plus AIG attack him personally just like they do hovind. Glen J Kuban has a special dislike for Baugh, and has several websites up showing how he and another evolutionist (Dr. Murray), went to go see Baugh to check out the claims about the human and dino prints . But because a evolutionist cannot debunk evidence wrongly, or in a bias manner, while the creationist is around. Dr Murray and Glen Kuban decided to take a plaster of the print while Baugh was not around (deception), and had it debunked by a person they know who works in that field of science. If they were on the up and up to be non-bias. They would of allowed Baugh to go with them to a testing place where neither person knew them. Had the plastered tested without saying what it was, or where it was found. This way the out come would not be swayed in either direction.
So here's an atheist site (Glen Kuban) using AIG info to debunk Carl Baugh, and the dino prints: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/whatbau.htm Glen Kuban has also written stuff for Talk Origins (a site that every evolutionist uses to debunk creation info). So how come AIG just keep making these connections with Atheist and Evolutionist sites, that use their information to their own advantage? OEC parading as YEC? The further I go into this, the more the dots connect. I found a book that has a pic of those prints above.
You can tell this is recent formed lava just by how it looks.
Here is a pic, the before and after, of where I made it look old and questionable.
Here's the very same picture modified to look old and not hot. This is called antiquing. just like the pics above where the pic of the foot print has a brownish tint to it. That's all I did here. And if you did not know what it was before, would you really know what your looking at now? Or I could say this was a coral formation found at the bottom of the ocean. Because most of it's detail and color is removed, it's hard to tell exactly what it is in this pic. When you see a website that displays pics that seem to have a color overlay, unless they are actual old photographs, someone is probably trying to pull something to make you believe a lie.
I can also make the lava look hotter, and more recently formed as I did in this pic.
Here is some sites I have found that distort pictures of creation evidence to make their claim of fake, debunked evidence look true.
Here's the original pics that were modified on the Talk Origins site: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/meister.htm Funny thing is, both sites are trying to debunk this evidence. One has the modified pics, the other does not. I guess these two sites need to get together and keep the same tactic so they don't show up one of their own tactics. Just in case those pics get moved, and I know they will. I'm posting them here.
Original pic:
The Talk Origins pic:
Now which pic would be a lot more convincing to being what it is not, or debunked? Notice how close the picture is cropped to the actual image to not display the box it was in. But in the upper right hand corner, the shadow of the box is there. This pic was changed into a black and white for only one reason, to help with the disproving of the evidence. I wonder how many more tampered with pics I can find on talk origins? I wonder how many of those same pics will I find on the AIG site?
Make sure to click next at the bottom of this page to continue.
