Talk:Human footprints have been found with dinosaur tracks at Paluxy (Talk.Origins)

Hasn't evidence arisen casting serious doubts on this idea? What of this?

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=255

--NeN 21:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes you make some good points. If you feel like carefully adding opinions of others or even recent discoveries. However, ICR is not discrediting the research, but making sure that people discussing paluxy know all the facts. Feel free to post any specfic concerns you have with content in the article and we can address them.--Tylerdemerchant 00:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. If we are going to say that the ones unwilling to face the evidence, if anyone, are those who claim the tracks are not of human origin, shouldn't we explain why they are still likely to be of human origin (rather than of just possible human origin) in light of evidence that they may perhaps be dinosaurian? I know as well that the Paluxy River footprints have been listed under the category of "Arguments Creationists Should Not Use", under the sub-category "Arguments That Definitely Should Not Be Used" by AiG, and the claim, from Scientific Creationism seems to clearly present it as evidence for the contemporaneity of dinosaur and man. --NeN 22:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I really think we should change our position on this. Kurt Wise points out three things that are really problematic for this theory:

1 - The "human" footprints are deeper than the dinosaur prints 2 - The footprints are found in the same place and same orientation over and over again 3 - It's impossible for any human to jump that far

In light of this, the most likely explanation, according to Dr. Wise, is that the "human" print is actually a pad inside of the dinosaur foot. This makes a lot more sense of the evidence. Shinydarkrai94 16:31, 24 February 2011 (PST)