miller@uiucdcs.UUCP (miller ) (02/19/84)
#N:uiucdcs:10600141:000:5596
uiucdcs!miller Feb 19 01:53:00 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 Illinoisbill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (02/23/84)
>> 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)
tynor@uiucuxc.UUCP (02/26/84)
#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
/* ---------- */