You claimed that once this alleged mudflow (forming the Tapeats deposits), the area became dry long enough for survivors to leave footprints.
Using the model set by Austin and others, Tapeats was form during the intial phase of the bible flood. And according to the dating matrix developed by your side, God did not stop the flood waters from rising until 150 days into the flood.
So, how could you have exposed land so soon into the flood, for any animals to be left to take a walk?
Why don't you e-mail me the photos, along with any written material, you are claiming to be "footprints" so I can have a closer look at them. I noticed you did not place an object into the photos to provide for scale. If you truly want an answer from me, those are my conditions.
Ian Juby Is one of the most reputable and knowledgeable people that I know.He won't tell you because he doesn't like to brag but he is a member of the Mensa society. As far as name calling. In regards to aying he is a liar no sum of money would be large enough to make him tell even a small "white"lie. If "Joe" wants to see who is really lying to him (it's not Ian)he'll watch all of Ian's videos and take a trip this weekend to see the new release "Expelled" with Ben Stein.
Nice try, but I recognize just how active an immagination you have. But talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.
The real problem you face is fitting this alleged site into your little fantasy world. You claim Tapeats was laid down under mudflows traveling at 90 mph. When challenged, you claimed the flood had high and low tides (even though this is not supported by the Genesis account). 90 mph is enough to destroy any creature. They certainly would not leave footprints. Try again
...and when the mud flow stops, how fast is it moving? I believe these tracks were made by amphibians, who can survive even in fast-moving water.
No, the real problem (which you keep dodging) is trying to explain fossil footprints in rocks "so old" within an evolutionary framework - a question you keep dodging. Now you want to suggest they're carved? Like I didn't see that one coming...
You first need to establish that these are footprints and you have not done this yet. There is no "dodging" when you have not yet shown facts in evidence.
As for your mudflow analysis, this is simply ludricrous. Tapeats has many fossilized species of trillobites, mullosks, brachiopods and other shellies. There are also burrowing tracks. None of these would survive in tack, in a 90 mph mudflow. Care to provide a modern example? How about Nevada Del Ruiz? Mount St Helens?
When we are talking about mudflows, or sandflows in this case, we are talking about Turbidity Currents (or Traction Currents). The Tapeats was NOT a single flow, but a series of flows. They hug the bottom of the ocean floor when they occur today. All a creature has to do is NOT be directly in the bottom portion of the water where the flow is actually occuring. NO PROBLEM!
Chadwick has argued that Tapeats was formed by turbidity currents.
However, TC deposits leave distinctive charateristics (Bourma sequences). The fact is, there is no comparison between Tapeats and evidence of turbidity currents (or other examples of sediment gravity flow), which is why Chadwick's claim never made peer review, nor was it ever accepted.
You cannot look at Tapeates in a vaccum. This is why Bright Angel and Muav are apart of the same sequence.
@lawilson200 Lance sorry to join this party so late in the day but THIS VIDEO is primarily about LOCATION and certain accusations made by you. I have read all your comments in this comments section and you are no longer arguing this point. So on this one point of LOCATION would I be right in concluding you were wrong?
@allan3141 These postings are nearly 4 years old. I do love trips down memory lane. If I recall, Booby claims there is a erosional feature near Plateau Point in the GC which might resemble footprints made by a four legged creature, The only persons making this claim already have dubious reputations and it is inconsistent with established creo claims on how Tapeats were formed, Meanwhile there is nothing in the mainline geology on this. Nothing has changed in four years.
@lawilson200 Lance I really made every effort to make my question as clear as it was possible to make it, but your response entirely evades my question. My question was just about location and whether you were wrong on that point alone.
@lawilson200 "Are you saying Booby was wrong on with the location?"
Lance why when I am asking you such a straightforward and simple question are you turning this into such a song and dance? How in the name of reason could either of my two comments to you be construed as me "saying Booby was wrong" about the point I am asking about?
"Since this claim is fictional, they can be anywhere you want it to be"
Well, not really as my question was purely about where they were!
@allan3141 Who is evading? My answers are genuine. But, I wll also concede this is a debate and video that I have not looked into for nearly 4 years and here you are, asking me questions about the alleged fossils location is factual.
I do not not know what you are expecting. Since nobody else - creationists included - have seen or reported these alleged tetrapod footprints, then it is really up to Booby to prove they exist. I have hiked there and I have not seen them.
@lawilson200 Lance your responses genuinely evaded what was actually asked.
"I do not know what you are expecting"
Well I was clear Lance; I explained that I was concluding, having watched this video and having read your comments (including those from the original video), that you were in error when you said things like, "That's not Tapeats, but instead the Hermits Formation! Your creditability is now completely blown!"
@allan3141 My comments are based on the known discoveries of fossils, including trace fossils like footprints in the Grand Canyon made by legitimate field workers. Fossil footprints have been found in the GC. In the Tapeats, a trilobite track has been observed. Hermits is Permian and nearly 280 Ma younger than Tapeats, contain excellent reptile prints. Coconino has great arthropod prints. So your answer is no.
Thanks for playing, I have my answer as not one sentence nay not one word in actual response to what I clearly asked: qui tacet consentire videtur. The answer is clearly yes, not no.
@allan3141 I provided me a quotation. In context, it was reference to the known discovery of fossil footprints in the Grand Canyon. You asked me if I was wrong on these locations, to which the only possible response is no. So what is your problem?
Uh. Gee - I didn't say it was a human track. I said it was remarkably like the Coconino fossil footprints, which are either a lizard or amphibian footprint.
To the guy who made this video: lobopods man, lobopods.
richi1173 3 years ago
Wheres the citation that they where actually footprints?
richi1173 3 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Good Job, I turned down Mensa because I thought they were too snooty. I like facts. Good Job. Keep up the good work.
mejc2 3 years ago
wow sir wazooloo this video is awesome!
and all your other videos are so fun to
watch that i eat my meal in front of the
computers just to complete your series of
complete creation!!! Your videos totally
knocks down the religion of evolutionism.
oneday13 3 years ago
Great job, buddy.
I love that you are ACTUALLY in the field doing real research for us 'wacky' Creationists.
Keep up the good work.
I hope to one day get out in the field with you.
I'd like to BE THERE personally, instead of just talking about these things.
Well done.
theTRUTHgroup 3 years ago
What, no talking, but this Youtube with sound! I get it, let the evidence speak for itself and I tell you the sound IS DEAFENING. great work!
ozredneck22 3 years ago
Good job!
paulhumber 3 years ago
You claimed that once this alleged mudflow (forming the Tapeats deposits), the area became dry long enough for survivors to leave footprints.
Using the model set by Austin and others, Tapeats was form during the intial phase of the bible flood. And according to the dating matrix developed by your side, God did not stop the flood waters from rising until 150 days into the flood.
So, how could you have exposed land so soon into the flood, for any animals to be left to take a walk?
lawilson200 3 years ago 3
Why don't you e-mail me the photos, along with any written material, you are claiming to be "footprints" so I can have a closer look at them. I noticed you did not place an object into the photos to provide for scale. If you truly want an answer from me, those are my conditions.
lawilson200 3 years ago
The video shows the "footprint" and the point's railing in the same frame from ~2:06 to 2:12. Does the railing not count as a scale reference?
wdanwatts 3 years ago
A lense cover would work. A ruler is preferred. But railing in the distance does not work. Any photographer would tell you that.
lawilson200 3 years ago
Ian Juby Is one of the most reputable and knowledgeable people that I know.He won't tell you because he doesn't like to brag but he is a member of the Mensa society. As far as name calling. In regards to aying he is a liar no sum of money would be large enough to make him tell even a small "white"lie. If "Joe" wants to see who is really lying to him (it's not Ian)he'll watch all of Ian's videos and take a trip this weekend to see the new release "Expelled" with Ben Stein.
Bill Hoidas
bhoidas 3 years ago
test
bhoidas 3 years ago
Nice try, but I recognize just how active an immagination you have. But talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.
The real problem you face is fitting this alleged site into your little fantasy world. You claim Tapeats was laid down under mudflows traveling at 90 mph. When challenged, you claimed the flood had high and low tides (even though this is not supported by the Genesis account). 90 mph is enough to destroy any creature. They certainly would not leave footprints. Try again
lawilson200 3 years ago
...and when the mud flow stops, how fast is it moving? I believe these tracks were made by amphibians, who can survive even in fast-moving water.
No, the real problem (which you keep dodging) is trying to explain fossil footprints in rocks "so old" within an evolutionary framework - a question you keep dodging. Now you want to suggest they're carved? Like I didn't see that one coming...
wazooloo 3 years ago
You first need to establish that these are footprints and you have not done this yet. There is no "dodging" when you have not yet shown facts in evidence.
As for your mudflow analysis, this is simply ludricrous. Tapeats has many fossilized species of trillobites, mullosks, brachiopods and other shellies. There are also burrowing tracks. None of these would survive in tack, in a 90 mph mudflow. Care to provide a modern example? How about Nevada Del Ruiz? Mount St Helens?
lawilson200 3 years ago 4
Mudflows tend to be very destructive. And that is a good use of the present being the key to the past!
How deep do you want to keep digging that hole you have placed yourself in?
lawilson200 3 years ago
When we are talking about mudflows, or sandflows in this case, we are talking about Turbidity Currents (or Traction Currents). The Tapeats was NOT a single flow, but a series of flows. They hug the bottom of the ocean floor when they occur today. All a creature has to do is NOT be directly in the bottom portion of the water where the flow is actually occuring. NO PROBLEM!
Science4God 3 years ago
Chadwick has argued that Tapeats was formed by turbidity currents.
However, TC deposits leave distinctive charateristics (Bourma sequences). The fact is, there is no comparison between Tapeats and evidence of turbidity currents (or other examples of sediment gravity flow), which is why Chadwick's claim never made peer review, nor was it ever accepted.
You cannot look at Tapeates in a vaccum. This is why Bright Angel and Muav are apart of the same sequence.
lawilson200 3 years ago
@lawilson200 Lance sorry to join this party so late in the day but THIS VIDEO is primarily about LOCATION and certain accusations made by you. I have read all your comments in this comments section and you are no longer arguing this point. So on this one point of LOCATION would I be right in concluding you were wrong?
allan3141 1 week ago
@allan3141 These postings are nearly 4 years old. I do love trips down memory lane. If I recall, Booby claims there is a erosional feature near Plateau Point in the GC which might resemble footprints made by a four legged creature, The only persons making this claim already have dubious reputations and it is inconsistent with established creo claims on how Tapeats were formed, Meanwhile there is nothing in the mainline geology on this. Nothing has changed in four years.
lawilson200 1 week ago
@lawilson200 Lance I really made every effort to make my question as clear as it was possible to make it, but your response entirely evades my question. My question was just about location and whether you were wrong on that point alone.
allan3141 1 week ago
@allan3141 Are you saying Booby was wrong on with the location? Since this claim is fictional, they can be anywhere you want it to be.
lawilson200 1 week ago
@lawilson200 "Are you saying Booby was wrong on with the location?"
Lance why when I am asking you such a straightforward and simple question are you turning this into such a song and dance? How in the name of reason could either of my two comments to you be construed as me "saying Booby was wrong" about the point I am asking about?
"Since this claim is fictional, they can be anywhere you want it to be"
Well, not really as my question was purely about where they were!
allan3141 1 week ago
@allan3141 Who is evading? My answers are genuine. But, I wll also concede this is a debate and video that I have not looked into for nearly 4 years and here you are, asking me questions about the alleged fossils location is factual.
I do not not know what you are expecting. Since nobody else - creationists included - have seen or reported these alleged tetrapod footprints, then it is really up to Booby to prove they exist. I have hiked there and I have not seen them.
lawilson200 1 week ago
@lawilson200 Lance your responses genuinely evaded what was actually asked.
"I do not know what you are expecting"
Well I was clear Lance; I explained that I was concluding, having watched this video and having read your comments (including those from the original video), that you were in error when you said things like, "That's not Tapeats, but instead the Hermits Formation! Your creditability is now completely blown!"
Did you get carried away here or not?
allan3141 1 week ago
@allan3141 My comments are based on the known discoveries of fossils, including trace fossils like footprints in the Grand Canyon made by legitimate field workers. Fossil footprints have been found in the GC. In the Tapeats, a trilobite track has been observed. Hermits is Permian and nearly 280 Ma younger than Tapeats, contain excellent reptile prints. Coconino has great arthropod prints. So your answer is no.
lawilson200 1 week ago
@lawilson200 to think you said, "Who is evading"!
Thanks for playing, I have my answer as not one sentence nay not one word in actual response to what I clearly asked: qui tacet consentire videtur. The answer is clearly yes, not no.
allan3141 1 week ago
@allan3141 I provided me a quotation. In context, it was reference to the known discovery of fossil footprints in the Grand Canyon. You asked me if I was wrong on these locations, to which the only possible response is no. So what is your problem?
lawilson200 1 week ago
@lawilson200 give it up Lance the conversation is insane. You are far too wily for me.
allan3141 1 week ago
Wow. Gee. Sure looks like an unmistakably human footprint to me. Couldn't POSSIBLY have been any other kind of land-dwelling animal?
Pfft.
akg41470 3 years ago
Uh. Gee - I didn't say it was a human track. I said it was remarkably like the Coconino fossil footprints, which are either a lizard or amphibian footprint.
wazooloo 3 years ago