Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mh3bs!mhtsa!exodus!gamma!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!tynor From: tynor@uiucuxc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: Re: creation/evolution: Paluxy defense - (nf) Message-ID: <5876@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Sat, 25-Feb-84 22:34:24 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5876 Posted: Sat Feb 25 22:34:24 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 26-Feb-84 23:25:51 EST Lines: 86 #R:uiucdcs:10600141:uiucuxc:3900048:000:5682 uiucuxc!tynor Feb 25 08:48:00 1984 /***** uiucuxc:net.misc / uiucdcs!miller / 1:53 am Feb 19, 1984 */ First, the amount and rate of the pro-evolution notes preclude me from responding to all of them personally, much as I would like to. You may have noticed that I've only been submitting about one note every week. Second, the attitudes of some make responses pointless. For example, notes and personal communication by Steve Tynor are always along the lines: by Definition science must pick the simplest explanation, by Definition a creator is the most complex thing imaginable, by Definition any naturalistic explanation for origins must be simpler, so by Definition creationism is always excluded as a valid conclu- sion (evidence notwithstanding). Well, if people wish to insulate their models to such an extent that they become non-falsifiable, any opposing comments become moot. However I, for one, rejected my original viewpoint when I found it to be scientifical untenable. Bill Jefferys on the other hand, has a very interesting proposal in his note "Challenge to creationists and evolutionists" when he writes "Let me suggest an alternative approach: Let *evolutionists* propose conceivable ob- servations whose implications would be so serious *to evolutionists* that it would cause them to question the validity of evolutionary theory. Similarly, let *creationists* demonstrate that their discipline is indeed a science by suggesting conceivable observations that would cause *them* to question the validity of creationism". He then goes on to give one test of evolution that would give him doubts if it fails. Now I think this is a fine idea and I hope everyone joins in on it. It certainly would be a vast improvement over the simplistic rhetoric of most notes to date. Next week, I will do just that for the model I now hold. This week, how- ever, I plan to submit a note I already had started before I read Bill's note. This is a defense of the validity of the Paluxy River human tracks. Bill (in an *earlier* note) had raised a few challenges which I think are easily answered. 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. All evolutionists who know some, but not a lot, about the site claim the same thing (and say creationists claim that too!) These are what I called "level 2" evolutionists in my last note (and devoted the most time to that section). None of the so-called "level 3" evolu- tionists, despite full knowledge of Mr. Adams, make similar claims. Please read what I say more carefully next time. Next, referring to the few prints of very high quality, Bill writes "this is just what you would expect of fakes". Now that is a very unusual tactic. Usually, creationists are criticized because of the low quality of the majority of the prints. They are called "speculative" and "highly imaginative". And yet, when good quality prints are turned up in situ, creationists are told those prints too must be rejected. So bad prints are rejected as not being good and good prints are rejected as not being bad. Let's face it: the problem is not the quality of the prints. The problem is the evolutionary presupposi- tions. Bill then tries to get around the lamination line problem by saying that real depressions were "touched up". Indeed, he claims that "It is known that this has been done to some of the Paluxy specimens". Wrong again, on two counts. It is NOT known that this has been done (in fact it hasn't). PBS also claimed that - they did not, however, offer any documentation. Second, you cannot sidestep the lamination line problem so easily. If "toes" were carved onto a dinosaur tail drag (as PBS thinks) then the lamination lines, while following the contour of the tail drag, will INTERSECT the fake "toes". In fact, lamination lines are so fatal to carvings (either man made or erosion) that you would be crazy if you couldn't tell the difference. This should be the evolutionists' best data against the human tracks in the Cretaceous rock! And yet, *only creationists* bring up the subject of lamination lines. Why? Honestly ask yourself, why? Finally, 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. In fact, if you have both it is likely that catastrophic, and not standard uniformitarianistic assumptions are in order. Indeed, creationists are very much excited about the possible discovery of dinosaur bones and dinosaur footprints side-by-side at another site in Texas. (The bones are still being tested, however, so don't go around claiming that I said this was confirmed yet because I didn't.) 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"? A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois /* ---------- */