Guest Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Never heard of John Titor, so I have to look him up! Build myself a time machine. Those **** time traveling tourists! Couldn't find a time traveling emoticon, so you went with the disappearing wizard, huh? Shoulda used a Stargate one! Which prints from the article are you referring to with the sand dollar thing? Yeah, I wore out Star Gate emoticons. He said they were shaped like a sandal instead of a bare foot print. I don't see why that can't be some kind of flat quasi circular animal like a sandollar......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wild eyed willy Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 The whole time traveling people thing is something I had not thought of, however since I really don't think time travel will ever be possible, I shrug off this theory in favor of what the evidence sugests... Some form of human type creatures existed with the dinosaurs. Where they came from and where they went to I have no clue, who says there couldn't have been many Bipeidel hominids whos lines for one reason or another died off or interbreed.. Perhaps it was allien visitors to the planet.... I sincerly think there is a lot more to our history and the history of our planet than science know about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Not that this indicates that it has been built, or even works, but here is a patent for time machine. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20060073976.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Yeah, I wore out Star Gate emoticons. He said they were shaped like a sandal instead of a bare foot print. I don't see why that can't be some kind of flat quasi circular animal like a sandollar......... "The Meister Print" looks like it could have been made by any number of longish flatish roundish things that was on top of the trilobite. The rock that contained it was knocked open and there it was, along with a perfect mold on the the other side of the rock. I just noticed that It seems to be displayed in such a way as to influence the viewer to "see" the footprint...the mold side of the fossil is set next to it so that it appears to be the opposite foot. This, I think, can suggest that what the viewer is really seeing is a sandal print. This is only MHO, and mere conjecture. It certainly makes me think sandal more than any other way of displaying it might. Not convinced, though. doesn't have anything to do with BF, though, unless he wore sandals and had small feet. So, sorry to derail the thread. How 'bout them Giants? Formori, with two rows of teeth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 I sincerly think there is a lot more to our history and the history of our planet than science know about. Now that is something I can agree with right there! No matter what side of the fence we are on about things - creation or evolution, apeish or humanish- keep asking questions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Oh absolutely, if we didn't write it down we didn't do it. That mind set still exists today in everything we do, doesn't mean it didn't happen though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wild eyed willy Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Not that this indicates that it has been built, or even works, but here is a patent for time machine. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20060073976.pdf Too cool Jodie.. I wonder if it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wild eyed willy Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 "The Meister Print" looks like it could have been made by any number of longish flatish roundish things that was on top of the trilobite. The rock that contained it was knocked open and there it was, along with a perfect mold on the the other side of the rock. I just noticed that It seems to be displayed in such a way as to influence the viewer to "see" the footprint...the mold side of the fossil is set next to it so that it appears to be the opposite foot. This, I think, can suggest that what the viewer is really seeing is a sandal print. This is only MHO, and mere conjecture. It certainly makes me think sandal more than any other way of displaying it might. Not convinced, though. doesn't have anything to do with BF, though, unless he wore sandals and had small feet. So, sorry to derail the thread. How 'bout them Giants? Formori, with two rows of teeth? where can we see the mister print? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 where can we see the mister print? I was looking at it here Be warned, it is a site devoted to debunking creationist stuff, and that particular page is devoted to the Meister print. I was going to post it earlier, but didn't want to seem inflammatory or break any rules about arguing for/against creation. This page pretty much sticks to the Meister print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wild eyed willy Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 (edited) I was looking at it here Be warned, it is a site devoted to debunking creationist stuff, and that particular page is devoted to the Meister print. I was going to post it earlier, but didn't want to seem inflammatory or break any rules about arguing for/against creation. This page pretty much sticks to the Meister print. Untill last night I didn't even know what creationism was. Edited August 9, 2011 by wild eyed willy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wild eyed willy Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 After reviewing the mister print, It looks like a foot print to me.. created by a basically constructed shoe. their argument for a naturally occuring unexplainable freak of nature, creating the print really doesn't hold water.. Without having the print to examine, I can only surmise it is real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Untill last night I didn't even know what creationism was. I found out when I started having to pay child support...... j/k, I got custody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wild eyed willy Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 I found out when I started having to pay child support...... j/k, I got custody Lucky you, said the guy who is 20 years behind in life, thanks to the court systems and their infinite wisdom. AKA Dont get me started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 It may be interesting but none of it holds up. Petroglyphs. for instance: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/29/creationists-claim-humans-lived-dinosaurs-scientists-disagree/ The way that link is worded reveals it's bias: on the one hand "creationists claim", but on the other "scientists disagree", implying that it's science vs non-science when in fact it's differing opinions WITHIN science. Modern humans evolved in Africa circa 200, 000 years ago. According to most of what we know, and assuming (among other things) that old-earth evolution is true. Not wanting to open up that debate, just pointing out that the statement rests on certain assumptions. Do the math. "The math" doesn't explain million year old shoe prints or copper axes we could not duplicate even today buried in coal seams. Thus the mystery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 I just can't deal with claims that humans lived with dinosaurs, with fossilized prints as proof. For instance, the one footprint with the trilobite. Was our sandal clad person walking under water, since trilobites were ocean creatures? Just doesn't make sense. The person was walking on a beach or in shallow water and stepped up on one that had been washed into the sands there...simple explanation. The copper axe that the story refers to is a whopping two feet long. So? It's still clearly copper. It's still clearly manufactured, and still clearly of a purity we can't smelt to in current time, and it was still found in a coal seam. Those facts remain, whether it was 2 inches or 2 feet long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts