B. H. Manners

Here is the link:

<a href="http://www.creationevidence.org/colombian/colombian.html" target="_blank">http://www.creationevidence.org/colombian/colombian.html</a>

now what do you think?

Edited to fix the link.

[ September 27, 2002: Message edited by: Jeremy Pallant ]</p>

Jeremy Pallant

Insufficient information to form an opinion. I would like to know who else has examined this artifact, and what their conclusion was, and what diagnostic tests have been performed by what reputable institutions and what their conclusions were.

beoba

I know nothing about fossilized remains, so take this with a grain of salt:

The hands seem to be a lot clearer and well defined than the surrounding fossils in this image: <a href="http://www.creationevidence.org/colombian/hands_blk800.jpg" target="_blank">clicky</a>

Is that normal for these types of remains?

gravitybow

Compare the <a href="http://www.creationevidence.org/colombian/hands_blk800.jpg" target="_blank">clicky</a> that alphatronics gives to the <a href="http://www.creationevidence.org/colombian/hands_hands700.jpg" target="_blank">tricky clicky</a> in this photo. clicky give a dark appearance to the bones, while tricky shows them in a brilliant white! In fact, the whiter hands look downright fake. OK, I know they should be examined by an expert. I'm not one. But Lord knows, Baugh certainly isn't one either. He's still passing off a carved footprint as the real McCoy.
But if I were to examine suspicious features in tricky (the second picture with real hands in the frame), I would point out:

- the completely inlaid look of the bones, flat, smooth, and set in place like a new mosaic, while the surrounding rock has weathered peaks and valleys.

- the lighter colored "grout" which seems to be securing the bones in place. This is particularly noticeable in the lower portion of the left hand.

-features don't quite match up across the fault line in the rock. This could be an illusion due to lighting. Hard to say.

-the side-by-side hands are removed from other bones. I'm curious why a find of this quality doesn't have an almost complete skeleton with it, let alone a few more stray parts.

-bones embedded in rocks are themselves rock, the bone structure long-ago replaced by minerals. These look like they were placed there last week. And why do the bones in <a href="http://www.creationevidence.org/colombian/hands_blk800.jpg" target="_blank">clicky</a> look like aged rock, but in the second photo like newer bone?

I would also like to know:

-"Dr." Jamie Gutierrez's credentials and reputation in the scientific community.

-something of his peer-reviewed work.

-If Gutierrez is for real (although his "find" might be faked), why he's hooking up with "I'm-not-a-real-doctor-except-in-my-imagination" Baugh.

-by name, what evolutionary scholar refused the find as genuine and why, in their own words, not Baugh's.

Rest assured, if a legitimate scientist or laboratory wants to examine the fossil now, they can forget it. It's going in with the rest of the freak show where it will be safe from genuine scrutiny.

I'm going to have to catch Baugh's act sometime to see what he says about it.

Jesse

It also seems a bit convenient that out of all possible out-of-sequence fossils one could imagine that would falsify evolution (and that we should find on a regular basis if all animals lived at the same time), they just happened to find a neat pair of human hands. If I was a clever faker I would pick something a little less obvious, like the skull of some less familiar Cenezoic mammal next to Mesozoic fossils, or a bird in the Cambrian layer.

Amen-Moses

IF they are indeed genuine fossils they don't look anthing like human hands to me, in fact they look more like flippers from a marine vertibrate. Maybe a turtle?

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses

Specifically look at the little "finger" and compare with the index "finger", see aything strange? How many people do you know have a little finger that is bigger than their index finger?

Where are the knuckles? In human hads the knuckles are pronounced and all in line (so we can grasp things) these "hands" do not have grasping knuckles but instead appear to be straight "fingered".

Also I have never seen human hands fossilised whole like that , in fact even in recent burials the hands tend to fall apart within a very short time unless they are wrapped in something.

Amen-Moses

gravitybow

Those are troubling questions, A-M. Yet Baugh claims:
Here is a photo of <a href="http://www.gwc.maricopa.edu/class/bio201/hand/anhand.htm" target="_blank">bones of the right hand</a> . What do you guys think?

I'm equally troubled, but not surprised, at the way Baugh tries to sound educated while simultaneously dispensing with any specifics:

He loves that word "academic" and uses it often in his television show, as if its repeated use will make it so. But who cares about academic? Two college professors arguing about how many angels will fit on the head of a pin is academic. Measuring it and evaluating it with tools against a standard is scientific. That's what I want to see. Baugh's claim here is :

Oh, please. He's already declared them cretaceous human hands, and if you know anything about his M.O., that's what they're going to stay.

Really? What type tests? What were the results? If the institution is reputable, why not drop a name here? Did a researcher do any of the tests, or did Baugh get the janitor to light a bunsen burner, maybe pour a little alcohol on the fossil?

Why? What didn't the first tests reveal? Didn't get the results you wanted? When are they scheduled? At a "reputable" institution more to your liking?

But I'll tell you right now what will never be presented in any format: the actual data used to confirm his findings. Baugh prefers to say things like, "NASA scientists have confirmed..." and leave it at that. That's all the verification you'll ever get.

(edited for format)

[ September 29, 2002: Message edited by: gravitybow ]</p>

Coragyps

Gutierrez must be on the up-and-up: he's a published author! The book, on immortality, is <a href="http://shop.store.yahoo.com/dorrance/etyoutandims.html" target="_blank">here</a>. What more evidence could you need?

Amen-Moses

Just for comparison here is the Turtle skeleton:

<a href="http://tofino.ex.ac.uk/euroturtle/bones/skel.htm" target="_blank">http://tofino.ex.ac.uk/euroturtle/bones/skel.htm</a>

Amen-Moses