Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Wasatch · 10-04-2002, 05:07 AM

Fossilized Human Footprint With Trilobite..."The oldest fossil footprint yet found was discovered in June 1968 by William J. Meister on an expedition to Antelope Spring, 43 miles west of Delta, Utah, USA. He was accompanied by his wife and two daughters, and by Mr. and Mrs. Francis Shape and their two daughters. The party had already discovered several fossils of trilobites when Meister split open a two-inch-thick slab of rock with his hammer and discovered the print. The rock fell open 'like a book' revealing on one side the footprint of a human with trilobites right in the footprint itself. The other half of the rock slab showed an almost perfect mold of the footprint and fossils. Amazingly the human was wearing a sandal! The sandal that seems to have crushed a living trilobite was 10 1/4 inches long and 3 1/2 inches wide; the heel is indented slightly more than the sole, as a human shoe print would be." According to the "Theory of Evolution" humans and trilobites would not have been around at the same time, but as the photo shows, they were. (Creation Evidence Museum Artifact)

Note: The Creation Evidence Museum's team has uncovered over 80 human footprints among the dinosaur footprints on the Paluxy River, USA. The Burdick footprint, found many years ago, is a pristine example and can be seen at the Creation Evidence Museum website by clicking here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ps418 · 10-04-2002, 12:44 PM

Wasatch, the so-called 'Meister footprint' is a prime example of the type of indefensible claptrap uncritically accepted and promoted by Cremo and other pseudoscientists who wish to promote the Flintstone Model of earth history. See Glen Kuban's article <a href="http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/meister.htm" target="_blank">The "Meister Print": An Alleged Human Sandal Print from Utah.</a>

Quote:

The specimen does contain several real trilobites, but the "print" itself is questionable on several accounts. Upon closer inspection the overall shape is seen to consist of a spall pattern in a concretion-like slab, similar to others in the area. There is no evidence that it was ever part of a striding sequence, nor evidence that it was ever on an exposed bedding plane. The "print" is very shallow and shows no sign of pressure deformation nor foot movement at its margin. The supposed "heel" demarcation is actually a crack that runs across the entire slab, beyond the boundary of the supposed print. The slight relief difference at this point is due to slight movement along the crack line (Conrad, 1981; Stokes, 1986).

Similar spall patterns are abundant in the Wheeler formation, as are slabs showing concentric oval shapes of varying color, sometimes with stair-step like relief. Several other of these oblong features have also been interpreted as possible human prints (Cook, 1970), but are even less convincing than the Meister specimen (Conrad, 1981). None occur in striding trails or otherwise meet the scientific criteria by which genuine human prints are reliably identified. The geochemical processes such as solution penetrations, spalling, and weathering which form such features in fissile rocks of the Wheeler formation was discussed in considerable detail by Stokes (1986).

Several such "pseudo-prints" from Antelope Springs were sent to me in the early 1980's by creationist biologist Ernest Booth. One showed both an ovoid spall pattern similar to the Meister print, and another a color-distinct ovoid pattern without topographic relief. Booth expressed dismay that his fellow creationists had not explained that such superficially print-like features were abundant at the site, and were products of geological phenomena and not real prints (Booth, 1982).

Patrick

Dr.GH · 10-04-2002, 09:55 PM

Quote:

"On his part Cremo does make a few good points about the nature of this sort of science.
If an artifact seems too old to fit the 'accepted' age of man or civilization they blow it off. A piece of flint that looks like an arrowhead but is found in a place that would indicate it's X million years old "oh that's not an arrowhead, just a piece of flint" or if a hearth is too old to have been made by man at an "approved" time they will say that's not a hearth just 'a small forest fire' or something. They apply preconceived notions for dates not from science but from what is acceptable to the establishment.
There is much dogma for everyone"

marduck, this is a load of crap. There are quite well established criteria for all of the artifact categories you identified, and many more to boot. If an object satisfies the criteria it is an artifact. There are often complex stratigraphic relationships that in the hands of an incompetent analyst appear to be problematic. I defy you to provide a single instance where your ignorant, and unfounded allegations of scientific fraud can be documented. And I won’t allow such bullshit creationist frauds as the Paluxy “Man/Dinosaur” tracks, or the “instantly fossilized cowboy.”

In terms of controversial dates, I need only mention Medowcroft Rockshelter.

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]</p>

Marduk · 10-05-2002, 06:17 AM

“I defy you to provide a single instance where your ignorant, and unfounded allegations of scientific fraud can be documented. And I won’t allow such bullshit creationist

Fine, this is a quote from a link on Doug Weller’s site from someone who was very critical of Cremo and where I got the notion in the first place..

“Cremo and Thompson are quite right about the extreme conservatism of many archaeologists and physical anthropologists. While an undergraduate at a prominent southwestern university, I participated in classroom discussions about the claims for a very early occupation at the Timlin site (in New York) which had just been announced. The professor surprised me when she stated flatly that, if the dates were correct, then it was "obviously not a site." This dismissal of the possibility of such an ancient site, without an examination of the data or even a careful reading of the published claim, is dogmatism of the sort rightfully decried by Cremo and Thompson. George Carter, the late Thomas Lee, and Virginia Steene-McIntyre are among those whose claims for very early humans in America have been met with unfortunate ad hominem attacks by some conservative archaeologists; but, regardless of how shamefully these scholars were treated, the fact remains that their claims have not been supported by sufficiently compelling evidence. Cremo and Thompson are wrong, however, when they condemn scientists for demanding "higher levels of proof for anomalous finds than for evidence that fits within the established ideas about human evolution" (p. 49). It is axiomatic that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. “

Here is the Weller site and this guy’s page:

<a href="http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk/" target="_blank">http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk/</a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html</a>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-04-2002, 05:07 AM	#11
Wasatch Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Utah Posts: 30	Fossilized Human Footprint With Trilobite..."The oldest fossil footprint yet found was discovered in June 1968 by William J. Meister on an expedition to Antelope Spring, 43 miles west of Delta, Utah, USA. He was accompanied by his wife and two daughters, and by Mr. and Mrs. Francis Shape and their two daughters. The party had already discovered several fossils of trilobites when Meister split open a two-inch-thick slab of rock with his hammer and discovered the print. The rock fell open 'like a book' revealing on one side the footprint of a human with trilobites right in the footprint itself. The other half of the rock slab showed an almost perfect mold of the footprint and fossils. Amazingly the human was wearing a sandal! The sandal that seems to have crushed a living trilobite was 10 1/4 inches long and 3 1/2 inches wide; the heel is indented slightly more than the sole, as a human shoe print would be." According to the "Theory of Evolution" humans and trilobites would not have been around at the same time, but as the photo shows, they were. (Creation Evidence Museum Artifact) Note: The Creation Evidence Museum's team has uncovered over 80 human footprints among the dinosaur footprints on the Paluxy River, USA. The Burdick footprint, found many years ago, is a pristine example and can be seen at the Creation Evidence Museum website by clicking here. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10-05-2002, 06:17 AM	#14
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	“I defy you to provide a single instance where your ignorant, and unfounded allegations of scientific fraud can be documented. And I won’t allow such bullshit creationist Fine, this is a quote from a link on Doug Weller’s site from someone who was very critical of Cremo and where I got the notion in the first place.. “Cremo and Thompson are quite right about the extreme conservatism of many archaeologists and physical anthropologists. While an undergraduate at a prominent southwestern university, I participated in classroom discussions about the claims for a very early occupation at the Timlin site (in New York) which had just been announced. The professor surprised me when she stated flatly that, if the dates were correct, then it was "obviously not a site." This dismissal of the possibility of such an ancient site, without an examination of the data or even a careful reading of the published claim, is dogmatism of the sort rightfully decried by Cremo and Thompson. George Carter, the late Thomas Lee, and Virginia Steene-McIntyre are among those whose claims for very early humans in America have been met with unfortunate ad hominem attacks by some conservative archaeologists; but, regardless of how shamefully these scholars were treated, the fact remains that their claims have not been supported by sufficiently compelling evidence. Cremo and Thompson are wrong, however, when they condemn scientists for demanding "higher levels of proof for anomalous finds than for evidence that fits within the established ideas about human evolution" (p. 49). It is axiomatic that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. “ Here is the Weller site and this guy’s page: <a href="http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk/" target="_blank">http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk/</a> <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html</a>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.