I'm ready for the conversion of Bill Nye

[ctc]

This is what he said - Nye: “We just need one piece of evidence like a fossil that swam from one level to another.” We would need evidence that rock layers could form in 4,000 years. Bring me any of those things and I would change my mind immediately.

How about a human finger found in the Cretaceous rock sediment near Dinosaur Valley Texas

http://www.creationevidence.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28
 
The Fossilized Human Finger    

The Creation Evidence Museum acquired a fossilized human finger in the mid 1980s. It was found by a landowner where road gravel was being quarried from the Cretaceous Walnut Formation of the Commanche Peak limestone. Recent advances in C.T. scanning techniques have yielded some astounding pictures of the interior of this fossil. These pictures and other studies show that this is indeed the finger of someone who was rapidly buried in a catastrophic event long ago.


 

[SVV]

I can't be sure, but I think Nye was referring to evidence that wasn't made up by a consistent liar.

[ctc]

I can't be sure, but I think Nye was referring to evidence that wasn't made up by a consistent liar.

Be specific.

[SVV]

I can't be sure, but I think Nye was referring to evidence that wasn't made up by a consistent liar.

Be specific.

No.  You're too stupid.

[ctc]

Yeah, I was sure you wouldn't name any.  I have always found Carl Baugh to be honest and a good source of information.  I deeply appreciate the sacrifices he makes personally to defend the faith and keep the museum progressing.  Is he always correct -.  He can be wrong about something and has been; however, that is not lying.

[SVV]

Not even your favorite source (outside of the bible) approves of his claims.

  Sorry to say, AiG [Answers in Genesis] thinks that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour. 

[SVV]

The man believes dinosaurs and man and apparently giants all coexisted together a short time ago.  That would make him a stupid person and you as well for sharing his belief. Genuinely stupid.
The other possible explanation (and I believe this to be the case) is that he's a deliberate liar.  I think you're exactly that as well, except that you do it as a funny internet Poe persona. 

ctc is either incredibly stupid, like trauma to the brain stupid or, he's just a well executed internet Poe.

[none]

I ink ctc is more of a zealot in a cult like branch of Christianity. And as hard as it to conceptualize it, one can be reasonably smart and still believe incredibly stupid things in such cases.

[ctc]

Not even your favorite source (outside of the bible) approves of his claims.

  Sorry to say, AiG [Answers in Genesis] thinks that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour. 

You did not read the entire answersingenisis comment on Carl Baugh and the footprints, finger, and other artifact?  It isn't that they are not good, it is more so that there is the slightest "smidgen" (my new word for the week) of doubt that it is not true.  That appears to mean 99.99% true with a .01% chance of being wrong.  I'll take those odds.

http://www.icr.org/article/paluxy-river-mystery/

[coachsparky]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

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 metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).

A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic 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 young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.

This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links boarder aspects of trace fossils, paleontology, and the "creation/evolution" issue. Unless otherwise noted, the articles and illustrations are by myself (Glen Kuban). The site now includes a photo gallery  of dinosaur track sites. Among the recent additions is a review of an alleged stegosaurus carving on a temple in Cambodia, and an article explaining why trace fossils refute "Flood Geology." I welcome comments, questions, and corrections from visitors. Feel free to contact me at gkpaleo at yahoo.com (just replace the "at" with @ and close the spaces; I'm doing this to reduce spam). Since some visitors have asked about my background, I have included a brief bio.  Thanks, and enjoy your visit!

[coachsparky]

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/finger.htm

As with all extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on those making the claims, not on those questioning them. Baugh and other promoters of the "fossilized finger" have not conclusively established that it is a real fossil. Nor have they demonstrated a clear association with an ancient formation, undermining its possible value as an out-of-place object. Without this evidence, the object is merely a curiosity, not a reliable out-of-place fossil.

Oct. 2012 Update. Earlier this year I was received an email from a woman who said she gave Baugh this finger-like stone object years ago, on the condition that he return it soon. She said he has since refused to give it back, and wanted to know what recourse she had. I advised her to seek legal advice, but that to my way of thinking, if someone refused to return a borrowed item, it is tantamount to theft.

* Baugh has since removed the reference to fossilized worms from his web site, but David Lines' article there, at  http://www.creationevidence.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28, still shows a photo of fossilized worm tubes, with the ambiguous and misleading caption: "Under rapid-burial conditions, the individual cells in an organism can mineralize and harden individually, preserving microscopic details of the original plant or animal." However, the photo does not show what the caption implies. The tube-like structures are not cells or any other parts of a fossil organism, but the harden remains of it's secretions as it burrowed through the mud.

[coachsparky]

http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/carl_baugh.htm

The alleged fossilized finger promoted by Baugh and associates is more likely just an interesting shaped rock or concretion. I was allowed to personally examine the "finger" several years ago, and saw nothing in it to suggest it is a fossil of any sort. Nor do I know any mainstream scientist or [sic] regards it as a fossilized finger. Contrary to the suggestions in the NBC show, it does not show bones in the CT scans. The dark area in the center of the scans are not well defined and are likely due to differences in the density of rock at the middle of the concretion, or the greater mass of rock the rays passed through at the center than the edge of the rock. Last, a key point that Baugh did not reveal in the show is that the "finger" was not found in situ*, but rather in a loose gravel pit some distance from Glen Rose. Therefore, like the Burdick print it cannot be reliably linked to an ancient formation, and is of no antievolutionary value, even if it were a real fossilized finger. [A Review of NBC's "The Mysterious Origins of Man"]
* Note: in situ means in the place where it occurred.

[ctc]

Here is quite the collection of photographs.

https://www.google.com/search?q=alvis+delk+print&client=firefox-a&hs=sib&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=gmr1UuWrAoPlyQGf5IHQDA&ved=0CCoQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=619

[SVV]

Here are a bunch of Bigfoot photographs too.


https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=sb&biw=360&bih=351&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=j2z1Uv-mJsaIygHRj4DgBw&q=photographs+of+bigfoot&oq=photographs+of+bigfoot&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3..0.13681.24782.0.25957.38.19.0.13.13.4.455.2491.1j5j2j2j1.11.0....0...1c.1.34.mobile-gws-serp..18.20.3620.kkh_a4ZLmnI

[coachsparky]

Proving Baugh is a dishonest lying hack.

http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2008/08/carl-baughs-latest-fake.html

From the famous scientific journal, the Mineral Wells Index, of Mineral Wells Texas we learned that the source of the fossil was, “Amateur archeologist and Stephenville, Texas, resident Alvis Delk, 72, shows a lime cast replica of the limestone rock he found in July 2000 near Glen Rose, Texas. Initially he kept the 140-pound because it contained a dinosaur footprint. Two months ago, he was brushing the stone and discovered a human footprint in the rock – partially beneath the dinosaur print. The actual stone is now in the possession of the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas.”

Baugh wrote on his website that, “The fossil was transported to a professional laboratory where 800 X-rays were performed in a CT Scan procedure. Laboratory technicians verified compression and distribution features clearly seen in both prints, human and dinosaur. This removes any possibility that the prints were carved or altered. “

Baugh told the Mineral Wells Index that, “The compression lines, the density features, do show, and there is no way to fake that,” he said. “It is possible to carve a track in limestone. But there is no way to compress the material in the rock under the track. That is absolutely impossible. That’s why the CAT scans are so important.”

First of all, a medical CAT scan uses a lower energy beam than could be useful on a sandy limestone. That is why real paleontologists use industrial facilities. The University of Houston (added 8/15/08, this was inccorect- I was thinking of The University of Texas, Austin) has a laboratory that has many years of experience with just this type of analysis. This points to the next problem; a medical facility is not staffed by paleontologists or geophysicists. Baugh has no accredited degrees either. He wouldn't know "compression lines" from his own butt crack. However, you don't even need more than the photograph from the Mineral Wells Index, which was much higher resolution than from Baugh's website, to see that this is object is a fake.

 I downloaded the photo at full resolution. If you closely examine the photo, you will easily see that there are sandy lenses in the rock; four are visible in the exposed rock between the "toes" of the dinosaur print. Now look at the "human print," particularly the area of the little toe. You will see (with a little magnification) that the top most layer is penetrated by the "toe" and not compressed, and the second layer is partially exposed. The same lens is exposed across the base of the four distal toes. This could not have happend unless the "toes" had been carved out of the rock.

 Returning to the "dinosuar" print, there is no compression folding of the sandy layers between the toes which is interesting. First, there must have been if this were a legitimate track. However, there appears to me to be evidence of removal of material from between the central and the medial "toe" as well as along the top edge of the "track."

 There also appears to be a patina coating the bottom of the basin. This has two interesting features. First, it is pealing and cracking. This is not appropriate to a real patina. Second, the patina appears in parts of the basin and not others, nor does it appear consistantly in the "human toe prints."

 (If this were a video game walkthrough, I would place a big Warning: Cheat Follows ).

 Here is how to fake a patina that will look like this fake fossil: Brush the surface with vinegar, and then sprinkle with baking powder followed by baking soda, and let dry. Repeat until you are happy with the results. This is not the only way, or even the best way. But it is simple, and will fool the average fool. Especially easy if they want to be fooled.

 So, having spent a little bit more time on the photo of this fake, I feel that I understand a bit more about how it was produced. A legitimate dinosaur track was found and removed. Incompetent, unprofessional "Cleaning" damaged it. An parital overprint, or simple erosion depression was "improved" by adding "toes." The faked surfaces were smothed over with a simple kitchen concoction to make a "patina." Artifact fabricators next bury the fake for a year or two, or they smear it with fertilizer and leave it exposed. This helps weather the object and obscure tool marks.

Added later:

The bubble pops.

 If you used the cheap kitchen patina method I mentioned above, there is the chance that the acid will create a gas bubble in a depression. This lifts the fake patina and is visable as little bumps, or they form pits.

 I just enlarged the photo again, focused on the center toe of the "dinosaur." There are two obvious pits of broken bubbles created by a recently applied acid wash seen on the distal portion of the "track." Looking further, there is one more near the distal end of the medial toe.