bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (03/17/84)
I find that I am something less than satisfied with the answers Ray Miller gave to the series of interrelated criticisms I brought up about the Paluxy data. It seems that he wants to return to his favorite points, rather than dealing with those points I brought up. This is a not-so- unfamiliar technique of creationist debate. What I want to do here is to restate my original points (offset by >> >>) give Ray's answers (offset by >> ) and make my own comments (not offset.) I will close with a rather unique challenge to Ray, which I hope he will accept. >> >> (1) One gets the impression from the creationist literature that the >> >> Paluxy site is a flat and level limestone sheet with obvious footprints >> >> in it. This isn't quite the case. The Paluxy river is, and has been, >> >> an active river for a considerable fraction of the year. The Paluxy >> >> bed is considerably irregular and eroded. It is possible, according to >> >> some who have seen it, to identify "tracks" of virtually every mammalian >> >> species in the bed, if some imagination is used. >> (1) He claims creationists say "the Paluxy site is a flat and level lime- >> stone sheet." No one claimed it was a table top. ... Look, evolutionists >> have little trouble finding prints. In fact, many dinosaur prints have >> removed for museums all over the country and Texas opened Dinosaur Valley >> State Park. Why should creationist paleontologists have a harder time? Did I imply that footprints weren't found? I don't think so. My point is that the limestone surface contains many random depressions and that anyone, creationist or evolutionist, could find almost anything they wanted to given a sufficient imagination. No one disputes that there are organically produced footprints in the limestone. The question is whether or not they are human. >> Also, he says "The Paluxy bed is considerably irregular and eroded." This >> is true, however: a) *most* prints have not been found in the river bed >> but on the banks *underneath* overlying Cretaceous layers and b) lamina- >> tion lines expose all carvings, whether they came about through erosion >> or through a hoax attempt. Only true for recent erosion. Erosion in the distant past would not have affected lamination lines. I sense that you are *assuming* a catastrophic covering of the prints *in situ* as described by flood geology. This is certainly an unproven assumption. >> >> (2) To differentiate the "human" footprints from other depressions in the >> >> rock, they have been highlighted in oil or some foreign substance. This >> >> adds to the illusion of humanness. >> (2) He claims the prints have been highlighted in oil to make them appear >> more human. Photographs taken at lower sun angles have no need of high- >> lighting as the shadows create sufficient contrast for a good print. The >> minority of pictures taken at high noon get washed out without highlighting. >> In such cases captions explain that this was done. Huh? It seems more reasonable to wait until the light is better rather than contaminate the site. I can't accept this explanation, and I don't think you should expect anyone else to either. >> This is no different than what the evolutionists do when they wish to >> take pictures. This is another example of double standards, an item which >> is in ample supply on the net. This is a fairly serious charge. I could not accept a contaminated site as serious scientific evidence for any theory. I'd like for you to give specific references for your accusations. That's only fair. >> >> (3) When viewed as a track, the footprints show a stride far in excess >> >> of the normal human stride especially when one considers that the >> >> people who supposedly made these tracks would have to have been slogging >> >> through mud to have made them in the first place. Further, the left-right- >> >> left sequence is often obscured, with the "instep" of the "feet" falling >> >> on the wrong side. >> >> (4) With respect to many of the "footprints" there seems to be a claw >> >> extending from the "heel." This has lead informed observers to believe >> >> that the Paluxy prints, such as they are, are erosion-modified prints >> >> of three-toed-dinosaurs with the "heel" actually being the front of >> >> the middle toe. >> (3,4) Bryon [sic] says: the stride is too long, the left-right sequence >> and instep is often wrong, and there is a claw extending from the heels. >> My reply to all of this is the same. I've seen hundreds of pictures, >> dozens of prints first hand, and helped excavate 3 new tracks. Never >> have I seen such nonsense. I don't know what depressions Bryon is >> referring to, but I suspect they are some that evolutionists "attribute" >> to creationists - not any that creationists themselves have proposed. >> I challenge Bryon to give me specific references to any ICR pictures >> like that. I will look them up and if any "claws" are present I will >> publically retract this statement on the net. I'll stand by all of these statements. The size, stride and relation of prints are wrong for human beings. The size, "stride" and relation are correct for the eroded prints of three-toed dinosaurs in a swampy area. The specific reference is a film -- "Footprints in Stone" by Eden Films (Films for Christ Association, North Eden Road, Elmwood, Illinois) -- with frames extracted and blown up for inspection. I don't know about the ICR, but I would be more likely to respect reports from a neutral party. At any rate, the prints I am talking about are not evolutionist "straw men." >> >> (5) Skeletal fossiles in the area (Sorry, Ray, there *are* such in this >> >> area. Why did you tell us there were not?) indicate the normal range >> >> of Cretaceous reptilian life such as it has been found elsewhere, no >> >> human or significant mammalian presence. There is no evidence of >> >> human encampments or artifacts such as would be expected, and is generally >> >> found, where there was sufficient technology for a species to leave >> >> "moccasin prints." >> ...I did not say there were none. I said "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 catastro- >> phic, and not standard uniformitarianistic assumptions are in order." >> I support at catastrophic model. Furthermore, there are many other >> so-called out of order fossiles both in that area and across the world. >> I've been concentrating on the Paluxy footprints because I have first >> hand knowledge of those fossiles. That is not to imply they are the only >> problems the geological column presents for the evolutionary hypothesis. First, I don't understand why existance of both fossils and footprints favors catastrophic assumptions over any other. ("Uniformitarianism is a creationist straw man -- we don't need to get sucked into that argument.) Even so, it still does not explain why we find normal Cretaceous fauna fossiles in the area, and no remanants of human civilization or technology. Again, I'm going to ask for references to out-of-order fossiles that are not explainable by normal overthrusts and geologic shift. You keep saying they are there, but I've not read of or heard of any other. --------- I don't see that there is anyway we can resolve this debate without being able to present to the evidence to the net, which is impossible. However, I intend to go to the Paluxy site and report on my interpretations in the interests of another voice. To be fair, if we can agree on a date, I would challenge Ray to meet me there and show me *precisely* what he is talking about. If not, I will still go and report on the trip. -- "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill ({decvax,akgua}!mcnc!unc!bch)