Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
In recent years Baugh has claimed a "Masters Degree in Archaeology from Pacific College" and a "Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Anthropology from College of Advanced Education."[15]
Agreed. What a dummy.Gotta tell ya, Charlie. This charlatan deserves to have his character bashed.
Muddying the water?
It is sad that Carl Baugh will 'muddy the water' for many Christians and non-Christians. Some Christians will try to use Baugh's 'evidences' in witnessing and get 'shot down' by someone who is scientifically literate. The ones witnessed to will thereafter be wary of all creation evidences and even more inclined to dismiss Christians as nut cases not worth listening to.
Also, the Christian is likely to be less apt to witness, even perhaps tempted to doubt their own faith (wondering what other misinformation they have gullibly believed from Christian teachers). CSF ministers to strengthen the faith of Christians and equip them for the work of evangelism and, sadly, the long term effect of Carl Baugh's efforts will be detrimental to both.
We would much rather be spending all our time positively encouraging and equipping rather than countering the well-intentioned but misguided efforts of some like Carl Baugh, but we cannot stand idly by knowing people are being misled. Truth sets people free, not error!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/whatbau.html
So. I stand corrected. John Morris suggests that the Paluxy tracks not be used as evidence against evolution.John Morris, current president of ICR, has a fairly objective write up on Paluxy:
1. Fifteen years of erosion (contrary to the usual effects of erosion) seems to have "improved" the quality of the trackways. It is possible that a thin overlying layer is eroding, revealing an underlying print, but then why didn't the adjacent, deep dinosaur trail receive this infilling material, since it was evidently made first?
2. Since the marl which filled in the deep dinosaur tracks was unconsolidated and easily removed by investigators, why did the Taylor tracks retain much of the material while providing a solid print bottom and flush toes?
3. If the reddish stain is due to minerals in the river water, why did the Ryals Trail, which has been exposed at least 60 years, begin to stain at the same time as the more recently exposed prints?
4. Applying a reddish stain to a rock surface can easily be accomplished by the application of certain readily available chemical agents.
5. Is the Giant Trail extension valid? Likewise, are the tridactyl prints in the Turnage Trail really part of that trail? How could the "old timers" all be so wrong about the track removed from the Ryals Trail?
6. Why do the cores not show unequivocal evidence of toe infilling if the red surface stain is indeed a chemical alteration of an infilling material?
Even though it would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution, in the light of these questions, there is still much that is not known about the tracks and continued research is in order. We stand committed to truth, and will gladly modify or abandon our previous interpretation of the Paluxy data as the facts dictate.
http://icr.org/article/255/
So who's engaging in wishful thinking and an unwillingness to face the evidence? Certainly not those who support the human track theory. They place the evidence in full view for everyone to see, whereas those claiming that they are not human tracks only give their theories without presenting any evidence. If any one is unwilling to face the evidence, it is those who claim that these are not human tracks.
http://creationwiki.org/Human_footprint ... _at_Paluxy
Yeah, yeah, yeah...I conceded the point that ICR does not recommend using the alleged tracks as evidence.if you think that the flintstones was a documentary theres another word for it apart from bad
Insane?theres another word for it apart from bad
light entertainment
Gotcha. I wouldn't mind going and checking them out in person. Not too far from here. I gotta say, some of the in situ prints are pretty interesting.well we'd been over and over those footpronts before with Arch
min might know which thread
i dont want to remember
No doubt.lol
lucky guy
got some anomalous footprints
i bet when you get within a certain distance all the shops start selling creationist literature
its like that round here at avebury
the closer to the stones you get the more extreme gets the speculation as to their origin
theres a shop right next to them that sells books claiming merlin did it
Some of the tracks, photographed, look pretty darn interesting, though.Perhaps the human prints are real and the others are not dino. Depends on how you see things.
