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)