TerryTryon

Does anybody here know anything about the side by side dinosaur and human footprints shown in a photograph from Dinosaur Flats, Texas in Cremo's Forbidden Archeology? Why is information independent of that book so hard to com by?

RufusAtticus

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html</a>

Writer@Large

They tend to be discussed with--or pushed aside in favor of debunking--the <a href="http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/paluxy.htm" target="_blank">Paluxy "man" tracks.</a> Here's <a href="http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/paluxy.htm" target="_blank">another link</a>. I'm sure others herehave far better links than I do, too .

--W@L

Writer@Large

See? I told you. Thanks, Rufus.

--W@L

Late_Cretaceous

I accidently posted this in the wrong thread

Ok, lets say for a minute that the fossilized remains of humans were found in Cretaceous deposits. Would that disprove evolutionary theory. No, not at all. It would cause a re-examination of the human (and perhaps primate) family tree, but it would not debunk the concept of evolution for a minute.

theyeti

Actually, I think it would be extremely difficult to reconcile evolution (at least as currently understood) with a hominid fossil in the Cretaceous. Anti-evolutionists who like to claim that evolution would just be twisted around are being uncharitable and hypocritical to put it mildly. I don't think they appreciate the scientific process; part of the reason we accept evolution is that we don't find fossils out of place like that. Of course, if we did, then we would have to rethink evolution (and we would) but we would need some other theory that explains everything else that evolution explains, like biogeography, taxonomy, genetics, etc. That's why a question like that isn't really fair. Simply using a hypothetical example of a singular anomaly and then asking what scientists would do doesn't change the fact that they follow the evidence in toto. It is perfectly normal in science to question the validity of an anomaly rather than throw out a sucessful theory whole-hog.

Now what I would like to see is a creationist's reaction to a well-ordered fossil record including transitionals, lots of homologous non-coding sequences between morphologically similar organisms, unique biogeographical patterns that suggest descent... Oh wait, I have seen their reaction. It didn't cause them to abandon creationism, so I doubt that anything could.

theyeti

TerryTryon

The thing is the Paluxy tracks are ambiguous at best. The tracks Cremo shows are not. The human track is clearly human. The alleged dinosaur track certainly appears reptilian, but I cannot identify species other than human from their tracks. I could not even tell you whether a print is javalina or deer.

Then again, it's too clean. It looks like those tracks they put in the concrete paths at dinosaur parks. What bothers me is that I cannot look at it and say that it's an obvious hoax, or an alligator track someone is alleging to be dinosaur, or genuine, and all of biology since the triumph of Darwin has to be reassessed.

I told my conspiracy theorist friend that it looked very suspect, but I'd look it up on the internet anyway, since I do not have the background to comment on it authoritatively. I cannot find it. The other creationists don't have it on their sites. The defenders of evolution do not discuss it in reviews of Cremo or elsewhere.

This silence, of course, along with its flaky source, leads me to dismiss the tracks out of hand. But that is just the kind of thing Cremo and my conspiracy theorist accuse scientists of doing, so I really need to know, what is the origin of these tracks?

Yet, it seems odd that the biblical creationists won't touch it and they accept almost any bullshit as evidence. Maybe my skills at web surfing are ebbing. Maybe my friend's conspiracy tendencies are rubbing off on me.