miller@uiucdcs.UUCP (miller ) (03/09/84)
#N:uiucdcs:10600145:000:6146
uiucdcs!miller Mar 8 23:03:00 1984
More replies on the creation/evolution issue:
Byron Howes raised several points. He wrote "Obviously, given a slab of
limestone, no one can fake a footprint impression believably". I agree.
Nevertheless, that's one excuse evolutionists give in an attempt to explain
away the evidence. Next, he raised five points which I'll answer one at a time.
(1) He claims creationist say "the Paluxy site is a flat and level limestone
sheet". No one claimed it was a table top. On the other hand, I'll bet it's
smoother than the average street in downtown Beruit... Look, evolutionists
have little trouble finding prints. In fact, many dinosaur prints have been
removed for museums all over the country and Texas opened Dinosaur Valley State
Park. Why should creationist paleontologists have a harder time? Also, he
says "the Paluxy bed is considerably irregular and eroded". This is true, how-
ever: a) *most* prints have not been found in the river bed but on the banks
*underneath* overlying Cretaceous layers and b) lamination lines expose all
carvings, whether they came about through erosion or through a hoax attempt.
(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 highlighting as
the shadows create sufficient contrast for a good print. The minority of pic-
tures taken at high noon get washed out without highlighting. In such cases,
captions explain that this was done. This is no different than what the evolu-
tionists do when they wish to take pictures. This is another example of double
standards, an item which is in ample supply on the net.
(3, 4) Bryon 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.
(5) "Skeletal fossils 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." 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 a catastrophic model. Furthermore, there are many many other so-called
out of order fossils both in that area and across the world. I've been concen-
trating on the Paluxy footprints because I have first hand knowledge of those
fossils. That is not to imply they are the only problems the geological
column presents for the evolutionary hypothesis.
Steve Tynor and Ray Mooney, two vocal critics, amaze me. Last week I made
the comment that by and large, creationists and evolutions both predict the
same general ordering of the fossils in the local columns (although for totally
different reasons). But in their *very next note*, Steve harps on the "order
of the fossil record". Now these two like to set themselves up as being so
knowledgeable about creationism. Yet everything they say demonstrates they've:
a) built a straw man, b) misunderstood the creationist position, or c) picked
some item which can't differentiate between the two models.
On a number of occasions they've badly distorted my position in our verbal
conversation, e.g., animal distribution. Why? I can only guess but I think
they must filter out any evidence contrary to a position they already hold.
Either that or they were formulating their next arguments in their minds while
I was talking and hence didn't really hear what I said that day. Who knows?
Next they quote Dr. John Morris (without giving the reference) about
sediment deposition beneath the Paluxy tracks, implying that creationists have
some sort of unsolved paradox. This is so badly out of context it made me
choke. Dr. Morris spent *an entire chapter* on that subject in his book
"Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs". Net readers should not confuse Steve &
Ray's lack of knowledge for a creationist lack of position. I suggest to these
guys that they either a) stop passing themselves off as expert self proclaimed
creationist critics, or b) do more than "token" reading.
But Steve and Ray themselves state our biggest difference. They write
"(we) have defined creationism out of science". Exactly and that's the pro-
blem. No evidence. No data. Just simple definition and POOF, their problem
goes away. If (for sake or argument) creation is true and if (for sake of ar-
gument) that Creator left scientific evidence of such an origin, they have many
times already stated that there is nothing, no evidence, that would cause them
to accept a creation model. They wrote that they would accept "any" explanation
over creationism. What can I say? I disagree with their definition. They
said I have "avoided" that issue and ask "are we to assume that he has no
reply?" Now this is somewhat frustrating in that *every single time* I have
responded to their notes on the net I have mentioned this very topic. Now too
many people on the net are asking reasonable questions for me to waste my time
repeating myself for them. For example, I had wanted to respond to Jan Wolter
(who I think might have missed one of my articles from the comments made)
but this is too long already. Next week and in the future, I expect I will
ignore them and spend my limited time on other people's questions. Sorry guys,
but life's too short to squander on reruns.
A. Ray Miller
Univ Illinoiswmartin@brl-vgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (03/12/84)
It seems to me that the following argument could be used to support either creationism or evolution; has it ever been so used in the literature on the subject? If so, in which way? If not, which of the positions that follow the contention is right? (If either...) ***Given that: At least half, and probably more, of the things human beings do would be easier, faster, more accurate, and generally better if we had more than two hands. At least three hands are needed to manipulate most inanimate objects into the positions we want them to be in. Survival would be enhanced if we had 3 or more hands. ***End postulate*** Pro-creationism: This proves that human beings were created, not evolved -- if we had evolved, this obvious need would have been filled by evolutionary mutations and two-handed humans would have been supplanted by multi-handed mutants, who would by now be in ascendance. Since we have been placed here by God to suffer, due to Original Sin, we only have two hands because more would make life too easy. Pro-evolution: If humans had been created by God, He would have had the sense (being omniscient by definition) to create them with more hands, as He also created the environment where more than two hands are useful and sometimes necessary. Since we only have two hands, we only have what evolution provided via the path from proto-hominids, who only had the internal structure to support four limbs, so any mutant with more limbs was mal-adapted and died un-reproduced. ********** I think there's something wrong with the arguments above, but I'm not sure that there isn't something worthwhile in this sort of approach... Will Martin