So as some of you guys are no doubt aware I've been the butt of many jokes on this forum since joining because I'm a creationist. I think that the Earth was made by God in six days and that he rested on the seventh. I think that this is explained with things like the rings of saturn growing farther away, the rotation of the earth and its slowing spin, the flood of Noah. Etc. Even the problem of Carbon Equilibrium for carbon dating. I think that if you go into it with an open mind and look at all sides of the issue you'll find that the indirect evidence for a God created world is there. But I don't want to get the topic locked by getting into an argument about that. I just wanted to give some background information for those who don't know me. So recently I was browsing the internet and a subject which I believe in (Dinosaurs walking with man) came to mind. Now I do this every now and then and try to look at my beliefs and clash them against everything in existence to see if they still hold. Well it lead me to this and I was hoping we could discuss the events and figure out as a group whether they were real or not. Since this would most likely cinch the existence of dinosaur with man for me. I view DLP as a crowd of highbrow intelligentsia types and could think of no better place to see if this event was real or not. The thing I'm talking about is the Alcambaro Statues or the Julsrud Collection. http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm In the 1940s, 30,000 some odd figurines were extracted by a peasent farmer and his family for a German Archeologist named Jelsrud. He decided to show the world his collection, which included some dinosaur figurines, and it was proclaimed a hoax. This article goes on to detail the situations which led to him being ridiculed and how his collection was slandered. I found this interesting but to be honest unprovable since I didn't live through the events, and googling articles would tell me the same thing. I did however look up the Alcambre statues and saw that the light dating technology that the article mentions as fake is called Thermoluminescence Dating. I tried to understand the dating method and got the gist of it. An electron is trapped in an impurity in the crystalline (impure ion, crack) and being trapped causes a disturbance in the electrical field that is measured. What I don't get is how this tells them age since they go on to say that an impurity can trap an electron for hundreds of thousands of years. I'm assuming now that they measure the depth of the impurity, know how long the atom would be trapped there and then measure it's current position to know how long it has been in there. Well when they first did this method they measured at 2500 years old. When they did it again the Wikipedia article says that it was 30 years old from 1959, but then I saw the source and it goes on to say that there were complications and those numbers were calculated using chemiluminescence. So I googled Chemiluminescence and found that it is light and heat measurements generated from an exothermic reaction. This one is a bit more complicated because from what I understood of it there are different reactants and I'm assuming they all play out differently with different materials. Plus I question how the light data is quantified into an age. Do they measure one photon and extrapolate? Do they know if there is a group effect? Well I found that a bit dodgy and it sent a warning flag at me. Why did the straight up test, which seems like there is no wiggle room (unless some flying rock with a strong EM field could effect the electrons) get shafted? I also read in the article that there were carbon dates that were old but discarded because the figurines were of dinosaurs. So a lot happens in that article and I'm still wondering about it. Help discerning whether this is real or not is greatly appreciated.