[Fwd: Re: The wonders of science.]

Ed Brayton (cynic@net-link.net)
Thu, 16 Apr 1998 20:26:12 -0400

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sorry. I once again forgot to copy this response to the evolution list
and sent it only to Ron. Here is the message.

Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Message-ID: <3536A16F.8FE@net-link.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 20:25:19 -0400
From: Ed Brayton <cynic@net-link.net>
Reply-To: cynic@net-link.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ron Chitwood <chitw@flash.net>
Subject: Re: The wonders of science.
References: <199804162345.SAA13602@endeavor.flash.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ron Chitwood wrote:
> >>>Sorry, I think I missed something here. Are there really people out
> there other than Carl Baugh who still think the Paluxy tracks are
> authentic human tracks? And are you saying that Glenn denies that they
> are manmade or affirms that they are manmade?<<<
> Yes, there are manmade tracks along side of dinosaur tracks. In fact, one
> youngster left his imprint inside a dinosaur track. I have seen them.
> Have you been there?

No, I have not visited the Paluxy site. I have, however, studied the
evidence for it. The claims of Baugh, Burdick and Taylor have been
convincingly refuted even by creationist scholars like Berney Neufeld
and Walter Lammerts, who wrote in a letter to Henry Morris, "The whole
footprint business raises more problems for our side than for
evolutionists. On the basis of a world wide flood, what were people
doing walking around yet after so much sediment deposited? Burdick has
never answered this question, nor has any of the footprint enthusiasts."
Glen Kuban's analysis of the Paluxy prints is quite devestating to the
claim, so much so that most creationists have long since abandoned it.
The few prominently public creationists who still defend them, Kent
Hovind for example, have the same credibility problems that persist with
Baugh and Burdick (claiming worthless degrees as authentic credentials,
shoddy scholarship and frequently nonsensical claims). If there was any
evidence for the validity of those claims, why would the ICR have urged
creationists not to use them anymore because the evidence is
unconvincing? Surely John and Henry Morris would love nothing better
than if those prints were authentic human prints. We can go into more
detail on the evidence if you'd like, but I would think that that
discussion is better taken up with Glen Kuban, who I believe is on this