Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!miller
From: miller@uiucdcs.UUCP (miller )
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: creation/evolution - (nf)
Message-ID: <5420@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Feb-84 22:28:47 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5420
Posted: Mon Feb  6 22:28:47 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Feb-84 13:43:45 EST
Lines: 98

#N:uiucdcs:10600138:000:6342
uiucdcs!miller    Feb  6 12:55:00 1984


     I'd like to continue the creation/evolution discussion with a review of
the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas.  You see, according to evolutionists,
dinosaurs became extinct 70 million years before the appearance of any primate,
and in particular, man.  Creationists contend that at one point, all of the
various kinds of plants and animals were alive at the same time (with only ex-
tinctions occurring since then).  Basically the same order of fossils in the
geological column is to be expected by either model (see "The Genesis Flood" by
Dr. Henry Morris for why).  However, so called "out-of order" fossils are
perfectly consistent with the creation model; they are fatal to evolution.
     In Glen Rose, Texas, the Paluxy River cuts through the local column of
Cretaceous limestone.  Long known for its abundance of dinosaur fossilized
footprints, Texas set up "Dinosaur Valley State Park".  In the same strata with
the dinosaur footprints, creationists claim to have discovered human foot-
prints.  If true, it is strong positive confirmation of the creation model.
     I have seen literature on both sides of the issue, e.g., "Tracking Those
Incredible Dinosaurs" by the creationist Dr. John Morris, and the evolutionary
"Creation/Evolution" and "Skeptical Inquirer".  In addition, I had the
opportunity to spend the last spring break on the McFall farm on the Paluxy.
My conclusions: the human tracks are genuine.  In talking with people and in
reading the literature, I have found three levels of knowledge on the subject:

LEVEL 1:  Some people simply define the tracks out of existence.  They claim
they don't exist.  However, as this site (and others like it; Paluxy is not
alone - it is simply the biggest known so far) gets more media attention,
people are starting to become more aware and so the number of people in Level 1
is getting smaller.

LEVEL 2:  The tracks exist, but they aren't old footprints.  This category can
be divided into several subsections.  For example, some claim that the tracks
are erosion patterns from the Paluxy, dinosaur tail drags, etc.  This explains
some, but not all, of the features.  Indeed, erosion patterns and tail drags
can be found.  But those things do not create subtle human foot features such
as toe impressions, ball of foot, arch, heel, and other distinct characteris-
tics.  Despite what many would like to believe, these features do exist in many
of the prints and are in correct sizes and proportions in a clear right-left
sequence.  You know, one of the reasons Austrolopithecus is claimed by some to
have walked upright is that Mary Leakey found a footprint in rock strata in 
which bones such as Lucy, etc. were found.  But that footprint is not nearly as
good as quality as some of those found in Glen Rose; yet no one questions that
*some* primate made Leakey's tracks.  The only reason the Glen Rose footprints
are rejected is that they are found in Cretaceous limestone (a case of theory
getting in the way of fact it appears to me).  Another explanation for the
tracks is that they were carved as hoaxes.  Again, this has some merit, but
does not explain all of the data.  In the Great Depression era, the local
residents found out that there was a market for these prints.  So, they begin
cutting them out of the limestone and selling them.  Eventually, however, the
supply of known footprints (mostly dinosaur since they brought a higher price)
ran out.  A man by the name of Bull Adams learned that he could carve the
things easier than he could remove the top heavy limestone layers and discover
new ones.  So, he began to carve them (again, mostly dino although a few human
ones were carved).  However, since the time of Bull Adams (motivated by $$$$
rather than any creation/evolution implications) new tracks have been discover-
ed, sometimes in full view of the media and evolutionary scientists sent to
"oversee" the work.  This is well documented in the literature if you care to
spend the time searching it all out.  And last, I need to mention one final
evidence that the tracks are genuine.  In some places, the original mud was not
homogeneous.  In those cases, a series of lamination lines can be observed by
cross-sectioning the prints.  In the case of carvings (either by erosion or by
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
                   ____        ____      ____        ____
                   ____\      /____      _____      _____
                   ____\\____//____      ________________
                       \\____//
                        \____/

LEVEL 3:  The prints are real footprints, but they are not human.  This is the
response usually given by evolutionists who have had the opportunity to observe
first-hand the excavation of some of the better prints (you realize, of course,
that there is a variety of quality in the prints - both dino and human.  This
is to be expected for any animal walking through mud which may vary in consis-
tency, wetness, etc.)  This is a fair point to raise.  After all, no living
human was alive when the prints were laid down in the Cretaceous limestone.
However, the question then raised for evolutionists is if men did not make the
tracks, what did?  Any primate does not solve the problems as none were sup-
posed to be around at that time.  In fact, no evidence has ever been found for
a hypothetical creature with a footprint IDENTICAL to man.  The anatomical fea-
tures are so good in some of the prints, it is only evolutionary presupposi-
tions that stand in the way of the obvious conclusion: at one time, man
coexisted with the dinosaurs.

     Objective people like to hear both sides of an issue.  I strongly suggest
you read material by both creationists and evolutionists on the matter (not
material *about* one side *by* the other).  Then make up your own minds.

A. Ray Miller
Univ Illinois