[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
>Glen, look at http://www.bcvideo.com/bcvideo. There is a picture of a
>footprint there, called the Burdick footprint, which will be in an NBC
>sleazumentary on Sunday night. Baugh is apparently one of their experts.
>>It looks too triangular and flat to be human. Is this one a dino print,
>carving, or something else?
>>This will doubtless become a hot topic on t.o in the next few days.
>Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, CO
>Jim.Foley@symbios.com (970) 223-5100 x9765
Jim, to increase public awareness I am forwarding a copy of my response to
the Rocks and Fossils list, Fossil Nuts list and Dinosaur's group, since
people there may watch the show and be curious also.
As you know from my previous posts, most alleged human tracks in Glen
Rose, Texas (the hotbed of the past creationist "man track" claims), are
forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks. Others were erosional marks
and ambiguous markings of uncertain origin, whereas a smaller number were
carvings. The Burdick track is one of the carvings. It is called the
Burdick print because it was first publicly promoted by Clifford Burdick in
the late 1940's, and latter becaue more widely known when puctures of it were
shown in the popolar creationist book _The Genesis Flood_ by Henry Morris and
John Whitcomb_, 1961).
The carver of the Burdick Print was probably George Adams, a Glen Rose
resident known to have carved several tracks on loose blocks of rock during
the 1930's. In 1970 his nephew Wayland "Slim" Adams even gave a talk to a
group of creationists explaining his uncle's carving techinque (which was
included in John Morris' now defunct 1980 book _Tracking Those Incredible
Dinosaurs_). Even John Morris (son of Henry Morris) and most other
creationist authors regard the Burdick print as a likely carving. Besides
being over 15 inches long (from heel to toe), it shows severe anatomic errors
(misplaced ball and arch, excessively wide ball, excessively long "little
toes" with multiple pad marks even on the little piggies--which do not appear
on real prints, etc). Moreover, it was cross sectioned in the early 1970's
by a creationist team from Loma Linda University, with the subsurface
features confirming its carved origin. Despite knowing all this, Baugh and
his partner Don Patton (who are two of the most disreputable creationists)
have actively promoted this "track" as a genuine giant human footprint.
Several years ago, as part of my ongoing work on the Paluxy claims, Gregg
Wilkerson and I wrote an article specifically addressing the Burdick print
and the Baugh/Patton claims about it. However, because their claims about it
slowed somewhat soon afterward (as he was busy making equally empty claims
about other things), we never published the article. Perhaps that was a
mistake in terms of public awareness, but as far as Baugh and Patton go, it
probably did not matter. Neither has ever never much inclination to correct
their errors, mostly because they evidently are ot accidents in the first
place. Indeed, both have actively promoted false claims about many other
Paluxy mantracks (as addressed in my other articles), and have even
misrepresented their credentials--claiming Ph.D's in various scientific
fields, even though neither one any valid degrees (I wrote an article some
time ago addressing this also), and can send a copy if you are interested).
Thanks for letting me know about Baugh's appearance--someone told me that
Baugh was going to appear on TV Sunday, but I did not know the particulars )
and was not aware of the Burdick track being part of it. As Paul Harvey
says, now you know "the rest of the story." I should probably contact the
show producers, but I suppose it is too late to do anything about the
By the way, in case I did not mention it before, a topical summary is in
the talk.origins archives at address
A more general menu of creation/evolution related articles is available at
the same address minus the paluxy.html suffix. Soon I will be adding a
longer historical review of the "man track" controversy.
I hope this answers your question. I may have said more than you or
others wanted to know, but it disturbes me to see Baugh continuing his
misrepresentations, especially on national TV. Even though most creationists
have largely abandoned the Paluxy "man track" claims, it is disappointing to
me that creationist groups have declined to correct the bogus claims still
being made by Baugh and a few other persistent "man track" promotors. I
cannot see where it does anything to advance creationism. In fact, I think
it dishonors the Creator to spread falsehoods in his name.