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!floyd!harpo!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill
From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: creation/evolution: Paluxy defense - (nf)
Message-ID: <142@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Feb-84 17:15:22 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.142
Posted: Wed Feb 22 17:15:22 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Feb-84 00:34:03 EST
References: <5750@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Organization: UTexas Astronomy Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 116

>>      Bill writes "As Ray Miller, along with many other creationists admit,
>> there is undoubted evidence of widespread faking of the footprints".  This is
>> simply and blatantly false.  I claimed no such thing.  I suggest you go back
>> and re-read the account of Bull Adams.

Well, Ray, I read it again, and this is what you said.

>> 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).

This says to me that you agree that *some* fake human prints were 
carved.  If you are objecting to the word "widespread", then I accept your 
correction.  My point was, that even creationists admit that some hoaxing 
has taken place, which places a special burden on creationists to prove
the authenticity of any features they do claim as genuine.  It's not
enough to go out and dig up a few tracks, then cry foul if evolutionists
aren't impressed.

>>      ........ Bill claims that if the tracks were genuine, we would expect to
>> find human skeletal remains there too.  Once again, two flaws.  First, the
>> manner of deposition favorable for preservation of footprints is much different
>> than that for skeletal remains.

Actually, the point I was trying to make was quite different.  It is 
that skeletal remains are much more common than tracks, and that if humans
and dinosaurs had lived at the same time, one would expect that by this
time, many undoubted examples of human and dinosaur fossils would have
been found in association with each other.  I did not say (nor do
I believe) that the sites would necessarily be ones where tracks were also
found.

In any case, I think Ray has completely missed the main point of my article.
The problem with the "footprints" is that they are too ambiguous.  Even
ignoring the issue of hoaxes, evolutionist experts who have looked at them point
out that the same features that creationists claim to be human footprints
have other, natural causes.  Creationists may dispute these explanations,
but that confirms my thesis.  That is why I said that the Paluxy features
are weak evidence at best.  If two different people, looking honestly at the
same evidence, can come to such different conclusions, then there is a problem
with the evidence.

If creationists are serious about wanting to disprove evolution, they are
going to have to provide strong, serious evidence.  The case for evolution
is extraordinarily strong, and it is simply not going to be overturned by
the kind of evidence (such as it is) and argumentation that creationists
have provided so far.  As I stated before, the best way to be convinced of 
the weakness of the creationist case is to read some creationist literature,
and I encourage evolutionists to do so.

For an example, consider the finding by Dr. Baugh, as reported by Ray.
(By the way, Ray, is this the same as the Rev. Carl Baugh, who has allegedly
excavated tracks of giant men along the Paluxy?  What is his training, 
and in what field is his Doctorate?)

>>      And last, Bill's confidence that "such a find will never be made" may be
>> premature.  I clipped an article out of the paper just two months ago about
>> that very thing.  It seems Dr. Baugh has found not one but two human fossil
>> skeletons "in rock alongside dinosaur fossils".  Dr. Baugh described it as
>> "earthshaking news".  I should say so.  The article also quoted a professor at
>> the Washington University School of Medicine who said "the bones are human, but
>> the find doesn't prove Baugh's contention".  And why not is the obvious ques-
>> tion?  No reason was given.  Could it be evolutionary presuppositions, or is it
>> "Definition"?

Ray, next week you have promised to tell us what evidence would cause you to
question creationism.  I am anxiously looking forward to this, but suppose
a few weeks later I were to come into your office and dump whatever it is
on your desk.  Aren't you going to want confirmation that I came by it
honestly?  Won't you want to know (say, if it is a fossil) that it was 
excavated using the best available techniques so that all alternative 
explanations can be ruled out?  That is why I insist that any such 
excavations be carried out in the presence of experts, and that modern 
dating tools be used to confirm the authenticity of any find.  Modern 
archaeology has found that excavations have to be carried out with the 
greatest of care in order to avoid destroying important evidence at the 
site.  For all I know, the bones found by Dr. Baugh may be an Indian or 
Pioneer burial, but in his haste to excavate them, he may have destroyed 
evidence that could confirm or deny this hypothesis.  Failure to observe
proper protocol can easily destroy the scientific value of finds of 
this kind.  Failure to have modern dating techniques applied to the 
bones, to get independent evidence of their age, would cast grave 
doubt on the seriousness of Dr. Baugh's intention.  Have the bones 
been dated?  Has independent analysis confirmed that they are genuine 
fossils?

Look: Creationists can approach such evidence as they may be able to
find for creationism in two ways.  They can seriously attempt
to convince scientists and courts that creationism is a valid science.  
If that is their purpose, they are going to have strong evidence, and
that means they are going to have to use proper methodology, subject
their evidence to independent evaluation, and let the chips fall where
they may.  They are going to have to use valid arguments in support of
their position.  That is the way science works, and that is how evolution 
got to its present position of strength.  On the other hand, they can use
things for their propaganda value.  In this case, they do not have to
be careful about the evidence, nor do their arguments have to hold water.
They can imply, when scientists dismiss their evidence and arguments,
that it is because the scientists are biased.  If that is their purpose, 
then they should continue doing exactly as they are now.  They may be 
able to convince a few people, they may even be able to get laws passed 
(for the courts to overturn).  But in my view, if that is their purpose 
they are wasting not only their own time, but that of everyone.
-- 

	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)