[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Reply to Gilgamesh



In article <9507182023.AA04261@dayton.wright.edu>,
   Garrison Hilliard <ad704@dayton.wright.edu> wrote:

>Gilgamesh: Would you please post references and context for the statements?
>attributed to Carl Sagan. Likewise, I would be interested in references to
>the Acambero tribe and their "dinosaur" sculptures.

The Sagan stuff comes from his 'Dragons of Eden' book.  THe tribe is mentioned 
in a lot of books, especially any SOuth American studies.  The book I had from 
the library was 5/5/2000, The author was a Noone fellow.  That the best info I 
can give right now, in regards to where this tribe has been talked about.
I would have to re-check the library, but I know there are other refrences, 
just do not know exactly at this time.

>        As for the alleged human footprints among the dinosaur tracks in
>the Paluxy River bed in north Texas, even the Institute for Creation
>Research (ICR) considers them dubious at best. After investigators including
>Stephen Jay Gould, Laurie Godfrey (an anthropologist) and Ron Hastings
>conclusively showed that even the best "man tracks" were eroded and
>partially weathered dinosour toe marks, the ICR removed its exhibit from
>its museum. They did not reappear in the new, improved, and expanded
>creationism museum which recently opened at the ICR headquarters east of
>San Diego, CA. However, it may still sell a videotape about them.

It comes down to the fact that there are two sides of the story, I myself 
really have no idea to tell what may be true or not.  If evolution is true, 
which we really do not know, then I can say that these tracks are bogus.
But since evolution is still theory, then my personal look is still open.

>        The two-theory model pushed by creationists is intellectually
>vacuous. There are an infinite number of potential origins theories
>and evidence against Darwinian evolution by natural selection does not
>automatically count as evidence for biblical creationism.

I agree, I am niether a proponent of creationism nor Darwinism.  There are 
still holes in both.  I lean to evolution, but the evidence is not fully in.

In 1938, a coelacanth, an ancient fish thought to be extinct was pulled 
from the water.  It had been extinct for 70 million years, or that was what 
was thought.  The fish was disected and there was no indication that it had 
evolved for a land enviroment, and gave no indication to tell us how a fish 
became an amphibian.




[ok. -TE-]