Footprints 'too old' to be human

[UTEOTW]

Now, after all that, there is a lesson to be learned in addition to the suggestion to always investigate YE claims closely.

The peer review proces works. When you make a claim, you put your evidence on the table for all to see. You give your methods and your results. You explain your conclusions and interpretations. And then you let others try and support or refute your claims.

Once you put yourself out there, then others who are experts in the right fields check up on your work. If you made a mistake, chances are high that they will catch it. If your data is weak, you should not be surprised when someone points this out. And if you try and pull a fast one, someone always seems ready to expose you.

And you see just that process here. Others read the paper and decided it did not meet their standards. Others happened to be in the area studying another find and decided to examine it for themselves. They found that the data was inconsistent with the claims.

You do the work, and you should be able to find someone to publish you. But then others will chack. They will also publish other papers that critique your work and challenge it. They will publish letters criticizing your work.

It is how science is done.

Do you see this in "creation science"? NO!

Do you think that the TJ is going to publish a paper where geologists respond to the RATE group? Do you think they are going to let any geolgist publish the weaknesses in Baumgardner's flood model? Are they going to let some physicists and astronomers respond to Humphreys' cosmology or to c-decay claims?

Do you think any of these guys have any plans to publish these works in mainstream science journals and subject themselves to the same review that scientists do daily? They would rather put it on their webpages and their own little magazines. They cannot afford to put their ideas into the proper marketplace because they cannot compete.

And as long as this is the case, you can call what they do a lot of things but "science" is not one of them.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Let's look at this one more time. There are important lessons to be learned.

YEers will often make the claim that scientists ignore or cover up data that contradits their theories. In this case, you see the claim being made that the ONLY reason that these were rejected as footprints is because they were too old. Let's review some of the quotes on this thread.

You are better than this.

Your whole response is built upon a false premise. Evolutionists don't accept that the evidence can support creation or can contradict evolution. It is an a priori assumption and this one instance is a case study.

Notice that I didn't say that the only reason given was that it didn't meet the time frame supposed by evolution. I said that alternatives weren't considered necessary until the "fatal doubt" was cast by chemical dating... which we know has problems.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Now, after all that, there is a lesson to be learned in addition to the suggestion to always investigate YE claims closely.

The peer review proces works. When you make a claim, you put your evidence on the table for all to see. You give your methods and your results. You explain your conclusions and interpretations. And then you let others try and support or refute your claims.

It only works if the range of possible answers aren't artificially limited like in this case.

I don't know what the tracks are or where they came from. We don't know where the hard evidence might lead... but we do know where evolutionists will not allow it to lead. It will not lead to a rejection of the evolutionary time frame. It will not lead to a rejection or even questioning of the evolutionists' assumptions behind chemical dating. And it certainly won't lead evolutionists to accept that this can be proof of human activity in eras when they say humans didn't exist.

Once you put yourself out there, then others who are experts in the right fields check up on your work. If you made a mistake, chances are high that they will catch it.

Of course. They look at the evidence. Filter it through evolution's presuppositions and reject any conclusion/explanation that doesn't fit.

If your data is weak, you should not be surprised when someone points this out.

IOW's, if the data doesn't support evolution's assumptions then it is weak. If it is weak, you manipulate it until it becomes "strong"... and consistent with evolution.

And if you try and pull a fast one, someone always seems ready to expose you.

Yes. Creationists try... and are summararily rejected because they don't accept evolution/naturalism as the truth going in.

And you see just that process here. Others read the paper and decided it did not meet their standards.

Yes. It was contrary to evolutionary assumptions... therefore the evidence must be reinterpretted until it doesn't.

It is incredible that a critical mind can not see that it is the assumption of evolution as "truth" that drives explanations of the evidence in one direction or another.

 

[Helen]

Do you see this in "creation science"? NO!

Do you think that the TJ is going to publish a paper where geologists respond to the RATE group? Do you think they are going to let any geolgist publish the weaknesses in Baumgardner's flood model? Are they going to let some physicists and astronomers respond to Humphreys' cosmology or to c-decay claims?

You are speaking out of pure ignorance here. There are a multitude of times when all of these have been challenged in the creation journals, and discussed.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Notice that I didn't say that the only reason given was that it didn't meet the time frame supposed by evolution. I said that alternatives weren't considered necessary until the "fatal doubt" was cast by chemical dating... which we know has problems."

Nope.

I provided a quote from an expert who said he doubted that they were footprints based on the original paper.

I also showed that it was much more than dating that led to doubt. It was that the markings were not arranged as footprints would be expected and that the markings did not show signs of alteration after cooling that would be required if they were footprints.

"Of course. They look at the evidence. Filter it through evolution's presuppositions and reject any conclusion/explanation that doesn't fit. "

"Yes. It was contrary to evolutionary assumptions... therefore the evidence must be reinterpretted until it doesn't."

Did you read the original article?

In the original, the footprints were 40,000 years old. This raises absolutely no challenges to the "evolutionary" timeline. At most, it would mean that the evidence for men in the America's gathered thus far had missed about 30,000 years of habitation.

This conclusion appears to have been finally dismissed because the data does not support the conclusion.

You are trying to equivocate the two different dates here. Only the older date in the recent review of the site would cause a problem, but the date is only one part of several that says that the original work was flawed.

I stand by my assertion that this is an excellent example of a story being twisted by YEers to make it look like dishonesty on the part of scientists. An assertion that falls apart and reveals the YE tactics for what they are when examined more closely.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Helen:
Do you see this in "creation science"? NO!

Do you think that the TJ is going to publish a paper where geologists respond to the RATE group? Do you think they are going to let any geolgist publish the weaknesses in Baumgardner's flood model? Are they going to let some physicists and astronomers respond to Humphreys' cosmology or to c-decay claims?

You are speaking out of pure ignorance here. There are a multitude of times when all of these have been challenged in the creation journals, and discussed.

So they often have opened their pages to mainstream scientists to criticize their work and published the results? I have never heard of such. Could you please enlighten us on where and when? I must have missed something. Sorry for the mistake.

Do you still assert that the ONLY reason that the markings were dismissed as footprints is because of the dating? What about the doubts prior to the dating and what about the other reasons given in Renne's paper?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

I also showed that it was much more than dating that led to doubt. It was that the markings were not arranged as footprints would be expected and that the markings did not show signs of alteration after cooling that would be required if they were footprints.

No. You showed that these were the reasons given. Amazingly, you are so close minded on this that you are actually arguing with what the article said. It said that the fatal doubt was cast by the dating of the rock.

In the original, the footprints were 40,000 years old. This raises absolutely no challenges to the "evolutionary" timeline.

Footprints in rock that is supposedly 1.3 million years old does though.

Through all the blather... are you really going to contend that evolutionists would allow those footprints to be human after the rock was dated?

At most, it would mean that the evidence for men in the America's gathered thus far had missed about 30,000 years of habitation.

Again, based on the presuppositions the original discoverers applied to the evidence... and not the evidence itself.

This conclusion appears to have been finally dismissed because the data does not support the conclusion.

Only after the data has been thoroughly filtered through evolutionists' presuppositions about what can and cannot be true.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Evolutionists don't accept that the evidence can support creation or can contradict evolution.

This is a blatant untruth with most evolutionists with whom I am acquainted, when the statement is generalized. They may reject particular evidence, but they don't reject all evidence. Most of them admit that evolution requires a faith of it's own. (I like to call it "hopeful atheism", because they hope their isn't a God.) However, they don't outright reject the idea of creationism, because it is impossible to prove a negative.

Of course. They look at the evidence. Filter it through evolution's presuppositions and reject any conclusion/explanation that doesn't fit.

IOW's, if the data doesn't support evolution's assumptions then it is weak. If it is weak, you manipulate it until it becomes "strong"... and consistent with evolution.

Most evolutionists filter it through scientific observation and accept or reject data and form opinions from that. (Sometimes, it does fit their preconceived ideas, just like many Christians in Bible study and many Young Earthers.)

Both sides tend to ignore the difference between observable scientific fact and theory.

 

[Helen]

UTE, the journals are open to challenges from within the creation field, just the way the secular journals are open to challenges from within the secular field. BOTH sides refuse material from the other.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Evolutionists don't accept that the evidence can support creation or can contradict evolution.

This is a blatant untruth with most evolutionists with whom I am acquainted, when the statement is generalized.</font>[/QUOTE] It is a very accurate generalization of every evolutionist I have read or encountered.

The first premise of evolution is naturalism... that everything can be explained by natural law without appeals elsewhere.

They may reject particular evidence, but they don't reject all evidence.

That's not what I said. I don't think they reject any evidence. They reject that any evidence can contradict evolution or support creation IOW's, they accept the philosophical premise of naturalism as true (whether cognatively or not) and supernaturalism as untrue with regard to anything in nature.

Most of them admit that evolution requires a faith of it's own. (I like to call it "hopeful atheism", because they hope their isn't a God.)

The admission is not evident in the current debates over how origins should be taught in school nor in how literature and textbooks are written... though the faith is overwhelmingly evident.

However, they don't outright reject the idea of creationism, because it is impossible to prove a negative.

They apply a double standard. Creationism is unscientific because its premise cannot be falsified... but they don't even consider that their premise cannot be falsified either. However, they have redefined science to be wholly equal to naturalism- and anything that contradicts science, can not be true.

BTW, if that were true, they would welcome a critical comparison of the two ideas as often as possible.

"Outright reject" is an interesting term. Probably more accurately, they outright "dismiss" creationism.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Of course. They look at the evidence. Filter it through evolution's presuppositions and reject any conclusion/explanation that doesn't fit.

IOW's, if the data doesn't support evolution's assumptions then it is weak. If it is weak, you manipulate it until it becomes "strong"... and consistent with evolution.

Most evolutionists filter it through scientific observation and accept or reject data and form opinions from that. </font>[/QUOTE] Nope. We all start with assumptions... they just deny that they do so.

I will plainly admit that I start with a presupposition that the Bible is true and that any "true" interpretation of the natural phenomenon will be consistent with God's eyewitness account of creation.

Evolutionists pretend that they are completely and totally objective and bring no overriding presupposition to the evidence. That is simply untrue.

Both sides tend to ignore the difference between observable scientific fact and theory.

I disagree. I believe that both sides are forced on occasions to resort to tenuous and improbable explanations because they are necessary- else their presupposition would have to be abandoned.

I have told UTE several times before that evolution is "possible". It is. It is incredibly, ridiculously unlikely... but none the less possible.

It is possible that all the necessary information for the ascension of new creatures came about by purely natural forces... but not likely.

 

[UTEOTW]

" No. You showed that these were the reasons given. Amazingly, you are so close minded on this that you are actually arguing with what the article said."

I am arguing with the article?

OK. Straight question.

So if they had no redated the material or if they had dated it and had come up with the same age as in the original, or younger, it is your opinion that these would still be considered to be human footprints, right?

They would have ignored the doubts that had been expressed as to whether the original paper made a convincing claim for human footprints.

They would have ignored the observations from the site when they went that the markings were not really consistent with footprints.

They would have ignored the paleomagnetic data that showed that these could not possibly have been footprints made in the manner of the original paper.

It is your contention that if the dating had not been a problem that these other concerns would have been ignored?

 

[UTEOTW]

"UTE, the journals are open to challenges from within the creation field, just the way the secular journals are open to challenges from within the secular field. BOTH sides refuse material from the other."

But that was not the issue I raised. (Remember, I was making the point of how the original scientist was forced to put his work into the marketplace of ideas where anyone is free to review his work. It did not stand up to scrutiny. This was contrasted to YE ideas which are not allowed to be put under the same intense scrutiny. They would assuredly fail if they were as closely examined by all the world's experts.)

I said that the YEers will not subject their work to review by experts in the fields in which they work, allowing mainstream scientists to review and critique the work and to have the critiques published in the same places, websites and magazines, as their ideas.

You said that "You are speaking out of pure ignorance here. There are a multitude of times when all of these have been challenged in the creation journals, and discussed."

So I asked for examples.

Now you change your statement.

I would also like an answer to the same question I asked Scott. If it was not for the dating, do you think they would still be proclaiming these markings as human footprints despite the other issues that were raised? If not, does this not refute the assertion that you made in the OP? I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you made the original post in ignorance of the rest of the story. There were multiple reasons given other than the dating, but perhaps what you read failed to mention the others. If so, what makes you think they would have ignored the other reasons?

[ December 07, 2005, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:


So if they had no redated the material or if they had dated it and had come up with the same age as in the original, or younger, it is your opinion that these would still be considered to be human footprints, right?

No. I already said that I don't know what they are. I simply pointed out that this article demonstrates that any evidence that might point away from evolution is subjected to the standard: "Evolution is true" and reinterpretted until it fits.

In this case, all that was needed was chemical dating that said the rock was 1.3 million years old to dismiss all possibility that these marks were a) as old as the rock and b) human. All of those explanations you point to come afterward. There was a real debate apparently over what they were and whether they were human footprints until the notion of them being human was found to contradict evolutionary timeframes.

How you miss this is beyond me. I am not asking you to agree with me, only to recognize that the a priori assumption of evolution and its timeframe limited the alternative explanations available. This happens frequently. Evolutionists insist that the evidence must be interpretted within their framework then lo and behold declare it to "support" their theory.

You know for someone who was so sensitive to the "deception" of creationists that it caused them to reject the plain reading of scripture... you seem to have little problem with the dishonest methods of evolutionists. What could be more dishonest than claiming pure objectivity while building a whole system on philosophical naturalism and the assumption that the system itself is true and all evidence must conform to it?

They would have ignored the doubts that had been expressed as to whether the original paper made a convincing claim for human footprints.

Again, the debate was cut short and the opposition fell in line when it was determined that the rock was 1.3 million years old. They didn't question the dating methods. They didn't question whether genuinely human evidence should appear on that rock. They simply agreed that there had to be another explanation.

It is your contention that if the dating had not been a problem that these other concerns would have been ignored?

It is my contention that this article, apparently written by an honest person, said that the "fatal doubt" came from the dating... not all the other things you cite.

Had the dating said "40,000 or 15,000" then I suspect the debate would be on-going with some still asserting that some of the markings are human footprints. We will never know though because the alternatives have been limited to those consistent with evolution. The only people left to critically consider whether these markings are human in origin are creationists... which evolutionists will summararily dismiss since creationists may propose explanations that are not consistent with evolution... and "science" has already determined that those possibilities are invalid.

 

[Scott J]

Two more recent cases in point- see "Genome Complexity No Measure of Evolution" and "Genes Attack the Trees" at this site:

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200512.htm

Contrary to frequent accusations, these folks are careful with context and often provide links to the full text they quote from or else cite the printed reference.

The findings in these two stories contradict the expectations of evolution but fit my contention that the originally created "kinds" had very complex genomes and gave rise to all other species through a more intense version of the adaptation we see today.

Evolution needs long time frames because it requires massive additions to an originally simple genome. Creation of "kinds" requires much less time because it depends on the loss of information. While the mechanisms for adding the necessary information and systems remain speculative and unproven, the mechanisms for losing information and physical features are well established.

Will evolutionists allow this info to point them toward complex original copies and a designer? Doubtful. The same assumption that was applied to the "foot prints" here will be applied to this other data as well... By the time it is sufficiently spun, evolutionists will claim that the evidence actually supports the ToE, does not support creationism, and is not debatable other than how it might be interpretted in light of the "truth" of evolution.

 

[LadyEagle]

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 04:00 a.m. ET by one of the Moderators.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Contrary to frequent accusations, these folks are careful with context and often provide links to the full text they quote from or else cite the printed reference.

Frequent accusations because it is frequently the case.

The findings in these two stories contradict the expectations of evolution but fit my contention that the originally created "kinds" had very complex genomes and gave rise to all other species through a more intense version of the adaptation we see today.

Or they fit the point of view that genes are a tangled mess due to random generation of mutations and nothing but natural selection to preserve some over others.

Evolutionists have been saying that there is no "law" of unrelenting increasing complexity for many decades. Evolution simplifies when simplifying increased survivability. Evolution generates complexity when complexity increases survivability.

What doesn't seem to matter much is the number of chromosones and the amount of doubling of solid working genes.

I remember reading about the chromosones of crabs being more numerous than the chromosones of humans back when I was in high school. This stuff isn't all that new!

Evolution needs long time frames because it requires massive additions to an originally simple genome. Creation of "kinds" requires much less time because it depends on the loss of information.

Well its good for the science of evolution, then, that the age of the earth is so well documented, as well as the age of the whole universe for that matter, by very simple direct means.

Your proposed mechanism will still require more than 10,000 years to derive Lions and Tigers and Cheetahs from an original generic cat.

While the mechanisms for adding the necessary information and systems remain speculative and unproven, the mechanisms for losing information and physical features are well established.

information addition has been documented over and over. One common example: Bacteria developing immunity to antibiotics.

Will evolutionists allow this info to point them toward complex original copies and a designer? Doubtful. The same assumption that was applied to the "foot prints" here will be applied to this other data as well... By the time it is sufficiently spun, evolutionists will claim that the evidence actually supports the ToE, does not support creationism, and is not debatable other than how it might be interpretted in light of the "truth" of evolution.

Yes, there is lots of conceivable evidence against evolution, but those articles merely shed light on some of the complexities involved. But clutching at mere straws is perfectly understandable, since that's all there is for those determined to clutch.

 

[LadyEagle]

Closed, per previous warning.