Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!eagle!harpo!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill
From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: creation/evolution - (nf)
Message-ID: <97@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-Feb-84 12:03:15 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.97
Posted: Wed Feb  8 12:03:15 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Feb-84 02:43:20 EST
References: <5420@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Organization: UTexas Astronomy Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 75

There are a number of reasons to reject the alleged human footprints at
Paluxy as evidence for humans and dinosaurs having lived at the same
time.  As Ray Miller, along with many other creationists admit,
there is undoubted evidence of widespread faking of the footprints.
This in itself throws grave suspicion on them, and makes the burden
of proof on those who claim that some of them are genuine very heavy indeed.

Ray compares the footprints at Glen Rose to those found by Mary
Leakey at Olduvai Gorge, and states that Leakey's footprints are
"not nearly as good as quality as some of those found in Glen Rose".
He cites "subtle human foot features such as toe impressions, ball of
foot, arch of heel,...".  In my opinion this is just what you would
expect of fakes.  Real human footprints in sloggy mud suffer from the
mud squishing around the toes and being distorted when the foot is
withdrawn.  We ought to be suspicious of prints that are *too* perfect,
especially given the fact that faking has been widespread.

Ray discusses the cross-sections of prints:

>> human tools) the depressions cut through the lamination lines.  In genuine
>> footprints made when the mud was soft, the lamination lines follow the contour
>> of the depressions.  Many of the prints have been subjected to cross-sectioning
>> and have been shown to be authentic.  This is illustrated below:
>> 
>>                     REAL FOOTPRINT           CARVING
>>                   lamination lines      lamination lines
>>                   follow the contour        cut across
>>                   of the depression      the depression
>>                   ____        ____      ____        ____
>>                   ____\      /____      _____      _____
>>                   ____\\____//____      ________________
>>                       \\____//
>>                        \____/

Well, again, if you want to produce a convincing fake, the best way to
do it is to take an existing depression and "touch it up".  It is
known that this has been done to some of the Paluxy specimens.

Fake or not, however, the real problem with the markings is that
there are too many possible ways that they could have been produced,
both artificially and naturally, for them to be taken seriously as
evidence for creationism.  Both sides have axes to grind, and considered
as evidence, the markings are weak evidence at best.

Now to a point which I consider to be a very strong reason to reject
the markings as spurious.  Fossil footprints, whether human or dinosaur,
are very rare finds, because the conditions under which they will be
preserved are very unusual.  Skeletal remains are far more common.
If, as Ray Miller claims, several sites had *genuine* human tracks
alongside dinosaur tracks, it is virtually certain that fossil human skeletal
remains would long since have been found in association with, or at the 
very least in the same strata as dinosaur remains.   Indeed, one would 
hardly be able to hear for the whoops of joy from the creationists if such
a finding were to be made.  Yet never, at any time, has such a
discovery been made.  Why not?  I think it's obvious:
They haven't been found because they aren't there.  And I venture a
prediction, based on evolutionary theory (creationists are fond
of accusing evolutionism of being "unscientific" because it "doesn't
make predictions"): Such a find will never be made.

Why do the creationists persist in presenting these "tracks" as genuine
evidence in favor of creationism, despite their weakness as evidence
and the embarrassment that much faking of the markings has gone on in
the past?  I think that it is because, weak as this evidence is, it is one 
of the best things creationists have come up with, and they are reluctant 
to cast it aside.

I haven't discussed all of the flaws that I found in Ray's article, but
I think I'll stop here because this article is already long enough.
-- 

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
	{ihnp4,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!utastro!bill   (uucp)
	utastro!bill@ut-ngp			   (ARPANET)