Burdick print, the truth about it

Share this page!

Ever since they were introduced as evidence that debunks evolution. several claims have been made about them being frauds. Even accusations that creationists conspired to carve them and present as evidence. Even one creationist was accused (Carl Baugh) of doing this even though through all the accusations, no witness was ever provided. Then the attempt to further discredit the evidence, altered pictures of the prints were passed around making it seem that even the pictures were not that good. Here are a few examples:

Etc… But several other human prints were found with dinosaur prints, and evolutionists allowed them to be categorized with the Burdick prints so that they would be considered fake as well. These were prints found in what known as the Taylor trail. And are not separated from the river bed, where they were found, like the Burdick prints were. Here are a few pictures of them.

One evolutionist went as far as to say: They must have been made by a dinosaur that had human feet.

But why were the Burdick prints so different, and separated from the river bed they were found in? Back during the depression, the government wanted to get the people back to work again. So a government work program was set up that would hire and work anyone willing to do the job. One of the jobs to be done was to cut out slabs of rock from a river bed in Glen Rose Texas, to be shipped off to the American museum. Here are the drawn up planes for removing the slabs from the river bed.

The museums wanted evidence that solely supported evolution. They did not want the slabs that had human foot prints on them. So the workers had to cut off all the human foot prints from the slabs and took them home as souvenirs . And because they were currently not worth anything, the government foreman allowed the workers to keep them. Evolutionists finding out that there were more than one print to combat, came up with the idea to start the rumor that many were “made” by shop keepers as souvenirs to sell to unsuspecting tourist (the very same rumor started to discredit the ica stones).

Side note: Altering the evidence to solely support one theory is conformism. Conformism is not science. And since they have done it here, it brings to question as to where else this was done. I would estimate, in opinion, that it probably fall into the neighborhood of about 30-50% of the evidence has been altered to conform.

But, are they real? Carl Baugh, who purchased one of the prints from someone who knows it’s history, decided to have the print tested, after all the accusations that it was fake. You see a carved foot print out of stone would not have compression evidence of a person with actual weight making the print. It would simply be just a carving. You cannot compress a rock already hardened without breaking it. So to prove the prints were real, they had them sawed in half where the foot made impressions. This way if they were fake, there would be no evidence of compression. If they were real there would be evidence of compression. So here are the pictures of the results.

To claiming that no human could make a foot print that looks like that. Which by the way the creationists took and tested using wet cement which is the same consistency as mud in a river bed. And yes it did look like that when done.

If you don’t believe that it will look this way. go find some gooey mud and step in it.

So even though history shows these are not fake, and creationist met every challenge to prove they were not fake. The evidence was still rejected. This is because through evolution science is about naturalism and conformism. All evidence that supports the supernatural will “always” be rejected. It’s either their way or no way. Which brings up the question: What are they afraid of, finding God?. Also, a true proven fact with supposed mountains of empirical evidence (evolution) does not need to use deception. Unless it is not what evolutionist claim it to be.

Share this page!

 

 

 

 

 

 

FaceBook Feed
Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons

... See MoreSee Less

Thousands not Billions: How Old is the Earth?

For our friends and supporters near St. Louis, the CUS Society of Creation is hosting its 7th annual conference 14 and 15 June. 

http://www.societyofcreation.org/conferences.php

Several CRS members are speaking, and we’d love to have you there.

Thousands not Billions: How Old is the Earth?

For our friends and supporters near St. Louis, the CUS Society of Creation is hosting its 7th annual conference 14 and 15 June.

http://www.societyofcreation.org/conferences.php

Several CRS members are speaking, and we’d love to have you there.
... See MoreSee Less

This is something you don't see everyday. 2 dolphins and 2 whales playing together. ~ Issac

https://facebook.com/SciencePhileOfficial/videos/…
... See MoreSee Less

The Living Quarters on the ark are practical but comfortable.

The Living Quarters on the ark are practical but comfortable. ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

i have driven by a cattle farm...i bet that place stunk bad lol

Just remember, this is all artistic license...

Does everyone see the irony in the ark flooding? Wasn’t it suppose to survive the great flood? Do you not know unless you have flood insurance, you are not covered. Flooding is an “act of God”. Ask Louisiana residents how they faired after the flood. How about Puerto Rico? Maybe Missouri or even your neighbor, WV. Did you donate money to help those flood victims? Were the dinosaurs ok???

I'm sorry but I just don't think the ark was that comfortable....In fact I doubt that Noah's home was that comfortable.

They were probably better and more comfortable than my quarters on board the USS Abraham Lincoln! 😂

I doubt it.

It doesn’t seem they would’ve been that comfortable.

View more comments

Video image

May we be as bold as this young lady to speak up at our city council meetings: https://youtu.be/oQ8eob45f1I ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Indeed such a strong faith!

I also would not be here Miriam!

love her.

Ray Comfort has mental retardation ... See MoreSee Less

n case you did not know this. ~ Issac

n case you did not know this. ~ IssacIn case you did not know this. ~ Issac ... See MoreSee Less

Name: Monito del Monte
Status: Thought to be extinct until its rediscovery.
Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/living-fossils.html
The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australias earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or little mountain monkey - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina.
Reference: http://www.create.unsw.edu.au/news/2008-03-25_monito.html
The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”
reference: http://www.eartharchives.org/articles/scientists-uncover-two-new-species-of-elusive-south-american-marsupial/

Name: Monito del Monte
Status: Thought to be extinct until it's rediscovery.
Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/…
"The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australia's earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or "little mountain monkey" - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina."
Reference: http://create.unsw.edu.au/news/…
"The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”"
reference: http://eartharchives.org/articles/…
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Your picture makes it seem like the two species shown are found 55 Ma apart even though they are both modern species. Rather, it was the genus Djarthia (whose exact taxonomic position is uncertain) that occurs in the Paleocene, as noted in the PLOS paper you provided. This graphic is either a misunderstanding or diliberate misrepresentation of the references cited. May I ask what formal training in paleontology the admin of this page has had?

We didn't claim the skulls were from a 55 million year old fossil, it is the references that claim Monito del Monte is regarded as a living fossil and thought to exist: 55 million years ago.

Colby, please stop spamming the contrasts. There is no need to post the same link multiple times, Thank you.

I was just doing a one shot on each post. I didnt even think anyone even looked at this page anymore. I apologize.

Looks like the Colbinator deleted his post 😭

View more comments