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

Re: I 'mentioned' the tracks?



-
-
    Miriam Ligon indicated that I had "mentioned" the Paluxy tracks and
asked what the concensus was on the "man track" claims.  I think 
Michael Sternberg for the replies to her (both the joking and serious 
ones).  Just in case Mirian was serious though, and perpahs joined the
list only recently, I should mention that several days ago I posted a 
summary of the history of the controversy, and explaiend what the 
alleged human footprints were. I can send the original posts (or other 
info) directly to you Miriam, or any others who may have missed them.   
   Michael was right, but I should note that the lack of human prints 
in Cretaceous rocks is not just a "concensus" opinion among scientists. 
To my knowledge there are NO mainstream scientists who lend ANY 
credence to the Paluxy "man track" claims.  Moreover, even most 
creationists abandoned them after publication of articles (by me and 
others) demonstrating what they were (elongate dinosaur tracks, 
erosional features, and a few carvings). 
   The few creationists who still make "man track" claims are generally 
considered disreputable even by other creationists.  By the way, I will 
be sending a new summary on the Paluxy tracks to the talk.origins 
archives within a few days.  The address there (in case anyone does not 
know it) is http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/    
    And as mentioned last time, for those who want to read further, 
there is a good coverage of the Paluxy prints and other alleged out of 
order fossils in _Science and Earth History_ by Art Strahler, 1989, 
Prometheus Books.  
    Of course if the original question was not serious, well, you got 
me again.

Glen Kuban
paleo@ix.netcom.com
Phone 216-237-4508
Fax 216-749-7386