[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,
Of course if the original question was not serious, well, you got