miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP (02/19/85)
I do wish the evolutionists on this net would do some minimal amount of self
education before posting articles. Alas, that seems to be as impossible as
trying to find evidence of transitional forms. But, for Stan's benefit: ICR,
as I pointed out, is *not* a membership organization. CRS is, but not ICR.
Dr. Gish is an *employee* of ICR; he is a member (presumably) of CRS, BSA, etc.
ICR is extremely influential, but consists of a small group of scientists on
staff. CRS is less influential, but has a membership of several hundred scien-
tists. It's the same difference as your own job, Stan, and groups like AAAS,
ACM, etc. But, on to a different subject ...
Someone passed the following into my hands the other day. It, of course,
should remind everyone of the Paluxy River data, which is fatal to the presumed
evolutionary geological sequence. One extra note, however: no one can accuse
the Soviet Union of having a "creationist bias". In fact, this is the *last*
thing I would expect to see in Pravda.
Yu. Kruzhilin and V. Ovcharov, "A Horse from the Dinosaur Epoch?" Translated by
A. James Melnick, MOSKOVSKAYA PRAVDA, Feb. 5, 1984.
Soviet paleontologists have discovered the fossilized tracks of an unknown
species of perissodactyles (odd-toed animals) in the spurs of the Gissar Moun-
tains in southern Uzbekistan near the village of Baysun. Even by itself, such
a find would be a sensation. However, what it later turned out to be was a
"bolt out of the blue". An analysis of the rocks, which were taken to Tash-
kent, indicated that their age was about 90 million years old!
The paleontologists on the expedition immediately thought of comparing the
86 horse-shoe-shaped tracks with equine imprints of hoofs. In any case, one
could talk about animals very much resembling the horse. Here, though, the
scholars came to a deadlock - you see, the horse has existed on this planet in
its present form for only about one and a half million years!
The first thought of the scientists, headed by Candidate of Geological-
Mineralogical Sciences V. Kurbatov, was this: somewhere a mistake had been
made. Tracks of an animal which has existed for only one and a half million
years could not be imprinted in 90 million year-old rock. They spent the rest
of the summer, fall, and part of the winter trying to check everything again
and again very carefully. However, the paleontologists of the Ministry of
Geology of Uzbekistan, lithologists - specialists in sedimentary rocks, geomor-
phologists - specialists in land relief and in sea and ocean floors, all con-
firmed the fact that the sandstone from Baysun really was formed in the middle
of the Cretaceous period, when dinosaurs "ruled" the earth. The tracks which
had been uncovered, so ran the second conclusion, could not have been made
later.
How should the Baysun phenomenon be explained? A TASS correspondent
turned to the famous Soviet paleontologist, Academician B. Sokolov, Secretary
of the Department of Geology, Geophysics and Geochemistry of the USSR Academy
of Sciences, for an answer to this question.
"As a geologist and paleontologist," the scientist said, "I am used to
dealing with interpreting various phenomena of the distant geological past with
great caution. But, judging by the data I receive from my colleagues during
the 30th Session of the All-Union Paleontological Society (which recently took
place in L'vovX, there is not the slightest doubt concerning the accuracy of
the determination of the geologic age of the `Baysun tracks'. They are of the
Cretaceous period and the Cenomanian stage, that is, from a time that is sepa-
rated from us by about 90 to 100 million years.
There is also no doubt that the tracks belong to an animal of that time
and not to some later one - which sometimes takes place. Yet the main question
remains - what animal is it? It is completely obvious that these are not the
tracks of a dinosaur. The tracks of any reptiles similar to these tracks are
unknown to science at the present time. It is also difficult to place them
with confidence with any known group of mammals - the horse which they are now
compared with, indisputably, appeared much later. Most likely, we are talking
about the discovery of some whole new group of animals.
In the face of so important a scientific discovery, it is necessary that
detailed geological, paleontological and paleographical research in this area
be established.
I was amused to see part of the same logic which is used as a defense against
the Paluxy River human prints also used here. That is, with the Paluxy prints
evolutionists claim, depending upon how much they know of the finds:
1) The prints don't exist. - for those who don't know much about them
2) They are erosion or a hoax. - for those who have heard a little about them
3) The prints do exist & do date to that period, but *must* belong to some
unknown, hypothetical creature, rather than what they plainly appear to be.
- this is for those who have studied the area extensively. This is also
where the Russians now appear to be.
A. Ray Miller
Univ Illinoismrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/21/85)
In article <32500024@uiucdcsb.UUCP> miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP writes: > > ... One extra note, however: no one can accuse > the Soviet Union of having a "creationist bias". In fact, this is the *last* > thing I would expect to see in Pravda. That's almost as amusing as your using Pravada as an authority. Usually rightwing Christians think of it as an organ of the "evil empire" used solely for spouting heretical propaganda. But then, I don't think much of it (or most other newspapers) in terms of scientific accuracy. > I was amused to see part of the same logic which is used as a defense against > the Paluxy River human prints also used here. [in the Pravda article] Well then, I guess Pravda doesn't have a creationist bias, does it? > That is, with the Paluxy prints > evolutionists claim, depending upon how much they know of the finds: > 1) The prints don't exist. - for those who don't know much about them > 2) They are erosion or a hoax. - for those who have heard a little about them > 3) The prints do exist & do date to that period, but *must* belong to some > unknown, hypothetical creature, rather than what they plainly appear to be. > - this is for those who have studied the area extensively. This is also > where the Russians now appear to be. All three of these can be resolved simply by producing the specimens. The last, determination of the nature of the print, is not as straight forward as it may sound. What kind of grouping were the prints in? What mode of walking is indicated by the grouping? Nor are all Russian scientist to be taken at face value. The nation that brought the world Lysenkoism is reknowned for bad taxonomy and paleontology (my specific knowledge in the way of paleontology is primarily in fossil insects, where some very fanciful but ungrounded work was done.) Let's see the specimens: until then I wouldn't place any faith in nth hand claims by way of Russian paleontologists, Pravda, and creationists. Finally, why is it that creationists scoff at scientists reconstructions from partial skeletons, but insist on the accuracy of certain footprints? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (02/24/85)
>[R. Miller writes] > Someone passed the following into my hands the other day. ........ >.................................. One extra note, however: no one can accuse > the Soviet Union of having a "creationist bias". In fact, this is the *last* > thing I would expect to see in Pravda. > >Yu. Kruzhilin and V. Ovcharov, "A Horse from the Dinosaur Epoch?" Translated by > A. James Melnick, MOSKOVSKAYA PRAVDA, Feb. 5, 1984. > > Soviet paleontologists have discovered the fossilized tracks of an unknown > species of perissodactyles (odd-toed animals) in the spurs of the Gissar Moun- > tains in southern Uzbekistan near the village of Baysun. Even by itself, such > a find would be a sensation. However, what it later turned out to be was a > "bolt out of the blue". An analysis of the rocks, which were taken to Tash- > kent, indicated that their age was about 90 million years old! > The paleontologists on the expedition immediately thought of comparing the > 86 horse-shoe-shaped tracks with equine imprints of hoofs. In any case, one > could talk about animals very much resembling the horse. Here, though, the > scholars came to a deadlock - you see, the horse has existed on this planet in > its present form for only about one and a half million years! This Soviet discovery proves my claims - posted last year to the net - that Creationism is a Soviet conspiracy aimed to undermine science education in the US. I am sure that some of you will say that this is not a very convincing proof. Why not? Don't creationists pick up any fake, irrelevant, questionable, and out of context piece of information that "seem" to fit their "theory". Am I not entitled to the same privilege? I am only asking for fairness and equal time! -- Yosi Hoshen, Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/26/85)
In article <32500024@uiucdcsb.UUCP> miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP writes: > > >Someone passed the following into my hands the other day. It, of course, >should remind everyone of the Paluxy River data, which is fatal to the presumed >evolutionary geological sequence. One extra note, however: no one can accuse >the Soviet Union of having a "creationist bias". In fact, this is the *last* >thing I would expect to see in Pravda. > >Yu. Kruzhilin and V. Ovcharov, "A Horse from the Dinosaur Epoch?" Translated by >A. James Melnick, MOSKOVSKAYA PRAVDA, Feb. 5, 1984. I would not consider this a reliable source, when was the last time you saw a science article in a regular newspaper that was any good? Presentation of this sort of 'data' should come from a proper scientific journal. > > How should the Baysun phenomenon be explained? A TASS correspondent >turned to the famous Soviet paleontologist, Academician B. Sokolov, Secretary >of the Department of Geology, Geophysics and Geochemistry of the USSR Academy >of Sciences, for an answer to this question. > "As a geologist and paleontologist," the scientist said, "I am used to >dealing with interpreting various phenomena of the distant geological past with >great caution. But, judging by the data I receive from my colleagues during >the 30th Session of the All-Union Paleontological Society (which recently took >place in L'vovX, there is not the slightest doubt concerning the accuracy of >the determination of the geologic age of the `Baysun tracks'. They are of the >Cretaceous period and the Cenomanian stage, that is, from a time that is sepa- >rated from us by about 90 to 100 million years. > There is also no doubt that the tracks belong to an animal of that time >and not to some later one - which sometimes takes place. Yet the main question >remains - what animal is it? It is completely obvious that these are not the >tracks of a dinosaur. The tracks of any reptiles similar to these tracks are >unknown to science at the present time. It is also difficult to place them >with confidence with any known group of mammals - the horse which they are now >compared with, indisputably, appeared much later. Most likely, we are talking >about the discovery of some whole new group of animals. > In the face of so important a scientific discovery, it is necessary that >detailed geological, paleontological and paleographical research in this area >be established. > >I was amused to see part of the same logic which is used as a defense against >the Paluxy River human prints also used here. That is, with the Paluxy prints >evolutionists claim, depending upon how much they know of the finds: >1) The prints don't exist. - for those who don't know much about them >2) They are erosion or a hoax. - for those who have heard a little about them Actually I have seen *no* reports from a repuable source which would rule this out with regard to the Paluxy River prints. in fact I saw one(preliminary) report which came to *just* this conclusion. I will wait for a detailed analysis in a reputable journal before making *any* conclusions on this matter. >3) The prints do exist & do date to that period, but *must* belong to some > unknown, hypothetical creature, rather than what they plainly appear to be. > - this is for those who have studied the area extensively. This is also > where the Russians now appear to be. Actually this is perfectly reasonable in the Russians case, at least assuming that the Pravda article is accurate. Or haven't you heard what early paleontoligists did to the Dinosaur footprints in Trissic sediments on the eastern US coast befor Dinoasaurs were discovered. They were considered to be *bird* footprints, so why *can't* there be another group of undiscovered animals? We have discovered several new caregories of Dinosaur in the last 10 years, so the Mesozoic sediments are *far* from exhausted. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen