keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (03/12/85)
> > This is a clear example of a creationist technique: Picking at examples > > that evolution may not fully explain. > Try "can never explain." Evolution says that dinosaurs were long gone > before man. The tracks, which no one can doubt were made at the same > time, show that those who made them existed at the same time. There is a palentologist who works for one of the larger museums (I don't have his name or museum here at the moment, I can get it if you like) who was called in by members of one of the creationist groups to inspect the site you're talking about. What he discovered, is that these 'man tracks' were in actuality the heel print of a dinosaur who was walking in a direction 90 degrees from that which the creationists assumed. He followed these tracks and discovered other tracks which were fuller, and showed the rest of the dinosaurs footprint (something to do with the incline, or characteristic of the mud etc. caused only the heelprint to show in some areas). However, the palentologist realized that the creationists were not looking for identification, but verification, as they refused to accept his explanation. Some time later, when the palentologist was in the area, he decided to re-visit the site to show a friend the 'man tracks'. When examining some of the SAME prints he had earlier observed, he noticed they had suddenly grown TOES! He refused to point any fingers, and suggested they perhaps were added by mischevous teenagers. At any rate, this seems to be typical of the so-called 'evidence' that creationists offer. They must really be grasping at straws as they have no real evidence for creation, and their technique of 'proving creation' by 'disproving evolution' is supported by such pitiful arguments as the dinosaur-man concurrent tracks (a single instance, not authenticated, not supported by other evidence such as bone remains etc.). On the same PBS program that aired the aforementioned palentologists statement, Gish appeared and responded to the argument that if the universe is 4-10k years old, then how could we see stars that are billions of light years away by claiming that God created the light beams (already in progress) so we would have stars in the sky right away. GIVE ME A BREAK! This is such blatant comedy, an example of the creationist 3-ring circus. How do creationists suppose to explain animals with vestigal organs, such as blind lizards, etc? What about insect strains that have become resistant to DDT? Oh, ok, NOW you say that variations WITHIN A SPECIES is ok, but no CHANGE of species? BAH! you guys are so full of SH**! The scientific community would no more publish creationist ravings than treatises on witchcraft! The main problem with the creationist stance is that it continues to use tired-old arguments and evidences that have been refuted so many times by the mainstream scientific community as to become little more than a minor irritation. Creationist proposed theorys explain and predict LESS than present accepted theorys (kinda like telling Einstein physics that we have to go back to Newton because of a few minor details that Relativity dosen't effectively explain!). The real issue, is what can the scientific community do to keep this Neo-Fundamentalist propaganda out of the public schools! Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd "You'll PAY to know what you REALLY think!"
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (03/14/85)
> > There is a palentologist who works for one of the larger museums (I don't > have his name or museum here at the moment, I can get it if you like) who > was called in by members of one of the creationist groups to inspect the > site you're talking about. What he discovered, is that these 'man tracks' > were in actuality the heel print of a dinosaur who was walking in a direction > 90 degrees from that which the creationists assumed. He followed these > tracks and discovered other tracks which were fuller, and showed the > rest of the dinosaurs footprint (something to do with the incline, or > characteristic of the mud etc. caused only the heelprint to show in > some areas). However, the palentologist realized that the creationists > were not looking for identification, but verification, as they refused > to accept his explanation. Some time later, when the palentologist > was in the area, he decided to re-visit the site to show a friend the > 'man tracks'. When examining some of the SAME prints he had earlier > observed, he noticed they had suddenly grown TOES! He refused to > point any fingers, and suggested they perhaps were added by mischevous > teenagers. > > Keith Doyle *** REPLACE THIS LINEAGE WITH YOUR MESSIAH *** Keith, I would be *very* interested in having a name to attach to this anecdote, and I imagine others would too. "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan *Anyone who wants to claim these opinions is welcome to them.*
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (03/15/85)
> Keith, I would be *very* interested in having a name to attach to this > anecdote, and I imagine others would too. Ditto. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | --+-- | "...still waiting for my name..." |