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
/* ---------- */