Lord Larehip

And they might be but where is the evidence? They say these simulacra have been found elsewhere but where's the photos? I'm sure markings in rock have been wrongly interpreted many times. But where is the proof that THESE alleged footprints are natural?

And let's suppose these are footprints--would they ever admit it? No. Never. They'll always find some "reasonable objections". They are as bad as the creationists.

I was checking out info on Yonaguni--an underwater rock formation off the coast of Japan that shows signs of having been artificially created. Some geologists insist it is a natural formation and it might be--I'm not convinced either way. I asked on one skeptical website if there were other formations similar to Yonaguni that are definitely natural. A skeptical fellow who claimed to have a degree in geology then posted a photo of the Giant's Causeway in Ireland saying here was an example of a natural formation can produce surprisingly geometrical patterns. I had to point out two things:

1. I specifically asked if there were natural formations similar to Yonaguni. The Giant's Causeway looks absolutely nothing like Yonaguni. If you ask for proof that Farmer Joe grows marijuana in his field and I come back with opium poppy from Farmer Bob's field, what did I prove about Farmer Joe? Nothing.

2. Yonaguni isn't geometrical at all! No one said ANYTHING about it being geometrical. Hell, snowflakes are geometrical, who cares?

Angered that I didn't fold to his superior intellect and education, he began invoking the name of Dr. Robert Schoch, a geophysicist, who had actually inspected Yonaguni himself and pronounced it natural. Schoch was like a god to this guy--"Dr. Schoch said this" and "Dr. Schoch said that". So I did some digging and came across this:

New Era Times - How Many Times has Dr. Robert Schoch been Wrong?

When I sent it to the guy, I never heard from him again. The old "I'll just pretend I went away because I had so many more important things I had to do than sit around debating with the likes of you" ploy.

Likewise, I was arguing with a creationist about the age of the earth and he sent me a link to some so-called geologic proof that the earth is actually very young. The author of the article was listed as Andrew A. Snelling--a geologist. So I looked him up and found this:

Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?

It appears Dr. Snelling writes standard geology articles for regular geology journals and creationist articles for creationist journals and websites that reject everything he put forth as fact in his standard geology articles!!!

So, I've learned that college degrees don't always mean anything. I keep an open mind and I use common sense--something both sides of the debate often lack. They may not be foot prints but the size, shape, spatial distance between them, the appearance of a right and left foot and heel marks tells me if these aren't footprints you'd better damn well present some convincing evidence to the contrary. If he's a scientist then he needs to prove his case. Shouldn't be hard the way he dismisses the evidence in this ho-hum fashion.