dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/18/85)
This is the seventh of seven articles posted for Ray Miller.
-----
/* Written 12:36 am Apr 12, 1985 by miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA in uiucdcsb:net.origins */
/* ---------- "yet another Paluxy film review YAPF" ---------- */
A few months ago, someone said he was going to post a review of a film put out
by the evolutionists which attack the Paluxy River data. I never saw the re-
view; it was either not posted or USENET snarfed it along the way. I did
respond to the PBS film review; but that was a different film. Anyway, the
following is a response by the Bible Science Association in their December 1984
Newsletter to that film. It was written by Dr. Hilton Hinderliter.
"This article is about a videotape (hereafter abbreviated `video') which
disputes the claim that human and dinosaur tracks have been found together
along the Paluxy River (near Glen Rose, Texas). As one familiar with the evi-
dence first-hand (having been personally involved in the excavation of some of
the tracks in question), I was curious to know the content of the program about
the subject. Now, after having seen the video, I feel obligated to comment on
its `scientificness' and its credibility.
When I returned home from my participation in the Baugh excavation of
August 1982, I wrote out a report of my conclusions about the Paluxy tracks,
and the reasoning behind those conclusions. That report (available on request)
finished with a *prediction* that evolutionists would attack the Paluxy find-
ings, because of the threat that those findings pose to certain people who have
been telling us what things *must have been like* in the distant past. Conse-
quently the appearance of an attack such as this video came as no surprise to
me, although some of its contents were surprising (I will describe specific
examples shortly).
First let me say this: If you are a person whose world view rests on evo-
lutionary presuppositions; if you are one whose job or status would be jepar-
dized by an admission that the evidence really does contradict evolution; or if
you are one whose delight is to sit back and believe that everything spawned by
the imagination of people such as Carl Sagan must be unquestionable fact - if
you are any of these, then this video might inspire you to cheer with relief,
as though a serious challenge to your belief system was erased. On the other
hand, if you are an open-minded person seeking to learn the truth of the
matter; if you can distinguish between objectivity and bias; and if you know
enough about simple logic to be able to scrutinize the arguments given in the
video - then this program would likely *bother* you, even if you were unaware
of the material it failed to mention.
One favorable remark is that the video did *not* resort to the impotent
arguments that have been made in previous attempts to explain away the Paluxy
tracks - such as the idea that the man tracks were all carvings, or that the
rock levels shifted. Anyone familiar with the site can understand the futility
of such excuses.
On the unfavorable side, let's begin at the beginning - with the introduc-
tory `music'(?)! I presume this was intended to mimic the original song
included in the movie `Footprints in Stone' (hereafter abbreviated Footprints).
But not only was the latter's music much superior in quality, it was far super-
ior in taste - in fact, the song in the video was largely ridicule. This made
it clear from the outset that, no metter what scientific labels were possessed
by the people doing the talking, their *approach* was *anything but*
scientific.
Another telling comparison can be made between Footprints and this video,
on the practice of presenting both sides of an argument. In discussing the
marks on Park Ledge (in Dinosaur Valley State Park), Footprints included inter-
views with scientists who had been there and studied the prints *before* ero-
sion had made them what they are today. A number of those scientists were
evolutionists, by the way, yet most of them decided that the marks were man
tracks, or at least found it a strong possibility. Still there was one indivi-
dual of the opposite opinion, and Footprints presented his statement that they
must be erosion marks. In contrast, how did the video handle the marks on Park
Ledge? For one thing, it judged the man-like tracks by criteria which, if
applied to the dinosaur tracks which are acknowledged to be genuine, would lead
to the verdict that most of them are not dinosaur tracks! (Did you notice that
the video didn't happen to scrutinize the details of the dinosaur tracks, using
the same rules by which they argued against the man tracks?) I had to chuckle
to myself, as I wondered how the `hominid' prints of Mary Leakey (in Africa)
would stand up to the analysis levied against the man tracks on Park Ledge!
Second, the video implied that those man tracks amounted to nothing more than
water smeared in the shape of a foot, which would show up in a picture as a
depression that wasn't really there. Those people I mentioned earlier (the
ones interviewed in Footprints) should really appreciate this, for it implies
that they were either liars or total idiots - because they were present to
study the prints. They could *feel* whether there was a depression or whether
foot-shaped designs were painted to trick people who would see the pictures.
Perhaps most convincing (?!) was the video's tactic of showing scoffers stick-
ing their feet into random holes in the rock, as if to say, `This must be a
footprint, too, haw-haw!' If this is objectivity and scientific method, then
Footprints in Stone (in spite of its public orientation and discussion of reli-
gious implications) was deserving of a Nobel Prize!
An important omission in the video was the mention of the location
(between the state park and the Baugh site) where the *most significant* prints
shown in Footprints were found. These were excavated from previously-
undisturbed strata, and they did *not* run parallel to the river - which
contradicts the video's claim that all the man tracks do. In challenging an
opposing argument, one should refute the opponent's *best* evidence, not
*ignore* it. If the rationalization is given that reaching those tracks would
have required some work, the question then arises, `Why have these anti-
creationists relied on nothing but negative material?' Creationists are often
faulted for merely arguing against the interpretations that evolutionists have
given to evolutionary data - rather than creationists producing original data
of their own. In fitting the shoe onto the other foot, I ask why the people
who made this video didn't undertake some original excavation work, to see what
prints look like *before* erosion destroys their details!
Another interesting subject has to do with the details in the prints. The
woman with the caliper (I think she was said to be an anthropologist) claimed
that the man tracks couldn't be genuine because of the ridges running across
them. But note this: In his book [Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs: And the
People Who Knew Them] John Morris said, `The concretionary veins which can be
seen in each print...represent the filling in of mud cracks caused by the
pressure from the foot. They are good evidence that the prints are not
erosional features, and that they have not been overly altered.' I hope that
this issue will be pursued further, to see just who knows what they're talking
about. It sounds as though the `pseudo-scientific creationists' might be more
knowledgeable and competent than the `evolutionary expert.'
A detail that the woman didn't mention was the `up-push' around the
prints. This was in fact a sign to the excavators that certain features were
impressions, rather than shapes which small creatures had burrowed out. There
were burrow features in the sections that I excavated, but one would not expect
such things to line up in consistent stride patterns with toe marks that alter-
nated right-left. Another thing the video didn't explain was the off-shaped
second toe, which was a consistent characteristic of the prints found at the
Baugh site. To attribute all these details to burrowing is to opt for truly
marvelous coincidences!
As an overview, put together the explanations which the video gave for the
man tracks at the Baugh site: First understand that, at the down-river end of
the site there was a trail of man tracks that came across a trail of dinosaur
tracks - with individual prints actually overlapping - then the tails diverged
apart again. I didn't notice an acknowledgement in the video that all of these
man tracks made up one continuous trail. Instead it took up each print sepa-
rately, telling why `this couldn't possibly be a human track.' But consider
the ad-hoc assortment of excuses made for the man tracks: (1) Rear claw marks,
of the dinosaur's foot (for the man tracks that overlapped); (2) Burrow
features (for the man tracks that had diverged away from the dinosaur trail);
(3) Distorted dinosaur tracks - i.e. the dinosaur sticking its foot in side-
ways, or the mud sucking up around the dinosaur's foot as it lifted. All in
all, what the video would have us believe is that the burrowing creatures
conspired with dinosaurs playing hop-scotch, to produce what *just happens* to
look like a continuous trail of man tracks! Doesn't this, when viewed in its
entirety, sound awfully *contrived*??
Wouldn't it have been more believable (even though obviously grasping at
straws) to have supposed that the man-like tracks were all made by some dino-
saur-type creature that had feet like human feet? That conjecture would have
no evidence to back it up, of course, but at least it wouldn't rely on miracles
of chance!
Perhaps the worst self-contradiction in the video can be spotted thanks to
number (3) above: The woman measuring the man tracks stated that, if their
proportions were not just such-and-such, they couldn't have been made by
humans. But at the same time, oblong prints were credited to a dinosaur - Why
were gross distortions allowed in tracks attributed to dinosaurs, while the man
tracks had to all be distortion-free in every detail? Double standards like
these betray an intent to slant the evidence toward a preferred interpretation,
not a willingness to follow where the evidence leads. And if all of this were
not sufficient proof of strong bias in the people who produced the video,
remember one of their summarizing remarks, which said in effect, `We figured
*before we came here* that these were not human tracks...'
There are yet more items in the video which are deserving of refutation.
But this should suffice for now. A further incidental which I wish to touch
on, though, is the hope some people have of preventing further creationist
digging - even on private land. This is advanced in the name of preserving the
local ecology; but to me it smacks of a fear that future excavations might
uncover still more embarrassments to evolutionists. Since it was admitted that
the Baugh site exhibits better dinosaur prints than can be found in the state
park, why are the creationists' efforts not lauded as a public service? (Maybe
it depends upon whose pet theory is being gored!)
My trip to the Paluxy was not motivated by a determination to find human
tracks there; neither did I do with the intent to prove that certain marks were
*not* human tracks. I simply went to see what was there. I did not conclude
they were human tracks because someone else told me they were. In fact, Carl
Baugh can verify that I disputed certain ideas that people advanced. But I did
conclude that the man tracks were genuine.
In the videotape I have been discussing here, I must say that I found no
sound reasons for altering the conclusions I reached last August. If further
*objective* study (especially further excavations) should show that the human-
looking tracks I say could be explained as something other than tracks made by
people's feet, I would be willing to admit to another possible explanation. If
somehow it could be shown that they definitely *are not* human tracks, I would
be willing to admit to that. But until such things are sensibly and credibly
demonstrated, I will not be deceived by people who attempt to pass off their
biased personal opinions as compelling scientific proof!"
A. Ray Miller
Univ Illinois
/* End of text from uiucdcsb:net.origins */keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (04/22/85)
[..................] > In the videotape I have been discussing here, I must say that I found no >sound reasons for altering the conclusions I reached last August. If further >*objective* study (especially further excavations) should show that the human- >looking tracks I say could be explained as something other than tracks made by >people's feet, I would be willing to admit to another possible explanation. If >somehow it could be shown that they definitely *are not* human tracks, I would >be willing to admit to that. But until such things are sensibly and credibly >demonstrated, I will not be deceived by people who attempt to pass off their >biased personal opinions as compelling scientific proof!" > >A. Ray Miller >Univ Illinois Ditto. I think the intense concentration on Paluxy by the creationists, and in particular their continued assertion that the 'man tracks' may be significant, further illustrates the 'poverty' of the creationist position. It is reasonably obvious that the Paluxy data has been 'monkeyed' with by so many 'yahoos' (evolutionist and creationist) that it hardly constitutes serious evidence one way or another. More importantly, such evidence needs to be corroborated from various sources to be considered particulary useful (that is, various types of evidence that point to the conclusion that man and dinosaur were contemporary at Paluxy, and considering any evidence to the contrary.) A single site of non-corroborated data, where most of the surface of the earth represents evidence to the contrary, is hardly worth that much attention. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd