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

Other mantracks?



    I was confused by the message by Jerry D. Harris saying,
"suffice to say that there are non-faked tracks that some creationists 
still purport are human tracks based on funky track morphology."  
    What does that mean, Jerry?  Are you implying that these are or may 
be genuine human tracks?  On what basis?  I have exhaustively 
researched every publicized Paluxy claim, and have found no convincing 
evidence of genuine human footprints, or anything close.  Moreover, as 
I mentioned before, even most creationists now acknowledge that the 
Paluxy does not provide good evidence of human tracks.  The FEW 
creationists who disagree (such as Carl Baugh) are generally considered 
disreputable even by other creationists, and with good reason (as 
explained in previous posts).  As to the term "non faked tracks," 
yes--there are many non-faked tracks in the sense that they were not 
carved.  Some are erosional features (sometimes selectively highlighted 
with water to make them appear more humanlike); others are metatarsal 
dinosaur tracks.  What are you questioning? Are you suggesting some are 
legitimate human tracks?  If so, which ones, and where, and on what 
basis?  (I hope we can do better "funky track morphology").  
    Yes, Jerry, the human track claims are not limited to Glen Rose. 
But I have carefully looked into tracks in other areas also, and most 
are even less plausible than those in Glen Rose, which most 
creationists also acknowledge.  I know of not ONE case where a 
convincing or even probable human track occurs "out of place"--in rocks 
older than they should.  By saying that some  tracks are inexplicable 
to geologists, it sounds like you are lending credence to the idea that 
they are or might be human.  In fact those tracks of unknown origin are 
either too indistint to identify confidently with any trackmaker, or 
else are uncertain only because there are a number of possible causes, 
not because they look convincingly human.  The J. of Geologic Education 
article you cite discusses tracks of uncertain origin.  Fine.  What is 
your point?  That unidentified tracks exist, or that they could be 
human?  If the latter, on what basis?  The last statement that 
purported human tracks go back as far as the Carboniferous is true, 
with "purported" being the key word. The tracks in question are not 
even close to those of normal human tracks in outline or bottom 
contours, and give every appearance of being petroglyphs by ancient 
native Americans.  They also have been addressed in a number of 
mainstream sources, such as p. 461-2 of Strahler's book (mentioned in a 
previous post).  
    I do not want to be presumptuous, but if I am correctly reading 
between the lines, it sounds like you are inviting us to believe 
geologists are puzzled by some apparently human tracks in ancient 
rocks.  This simply is not the case.  Even the source you referenced 
discussed some spurious and unidentified prints, not ones that were 
plausibly human.  It you have ANY specific examples of plausible human 
tracks in ancient rocks (older than a few million years), please be 
specific with the location and description and references.  If I 
misjudged your intent, I apologize.

Glen Kuban