suggestions?

Yes, absolutely, Peter. Paluxy is the first thing that comes to mind. However, during the re-write of Creation and Catastrophe, which Barry and I are undergoing right now (we are almost finished!), we have included an entire section on some false evidences which he had accepted before -- assuming others researched as carefully as he did. Here is a part of that:

================

As Chadwick has so ably stated, “It is the responsibility of Christians to prevent outrageous and unsubstantiated claims from being used in “support” of Christianity. Our search for Truth is not helped by assertions, however sincere, that are false or pretentious.”
[http://origins.swau.edu/papers/geologic/geology/index.html]

So there are many supposed evidences used for a recent creation which are not evidences at all. Our own research in attempting to contact people involved and verify documentation has been very convoluted and often frustrating. Nevertheless, as we sifted through material, there were a few bits and pieces that may be holding up under scrutiny.

First of all, if one is looking for out of place fossils, the interest lies in evidence of life which was supposed to occur only later in geologic strata, but ends up appearing earlier in the fossil record. Anything from supposed earlier strata which also appears in later strata is not of interest. We are quite aware that there are discoveries of life forms thought long extinct which show up again on earth in some remote valley or mountain range, or under the depths of the sea. So what we have been interested in finding are those remains and clues that supposedly later life forms existed earlier than evolution has proposed.

Going through some of the ‘evidences’ that were used before, in the first edition of this book, we will work our way through and see what we get.

1. “Footprints in the Sands of Time” – this is supposed to be a trilobite fossil found within a sandal print in the Wheeler Formation in the House Range east of Antelope Springs in Utah. This we are still willing to put a question mark after instead of discarding completely. The shape certainly fits that of a sandal, and there is certainly a trilobite right there in the heel! BUT, there is a type of rock fracture called a spall, in which a part of the rock face cracks and falls away. This can take a variety of shapes, and the claim has been made that this is simply a spall exposing a trilobite. Without evidence of actual tracks (And the state of Utah would probably rather preserve the cliff formation than chip sections away looking for tracks!) going in a left-right pattern, the most that can be said for this piece of evidence is that it is very questionable.

2. The Iron Hammer – all the evidence we were able to accumulate is that this is an artifact that started out as an innocent mistake in the late nineteenth century and gradually got promoted to the ranks out outright fraud. (The problem with evidence that seems this exciting is that it very easily can be promoted without a thorough checking of the facts first. That appears to be what happened here where some creation magazines were concerned. They might take some comfort in knowing that even National Geographic has fallen victim to fraudulent stories in the past, as have other magazines and journals. But if we are going to be credible, it is essential that those of us who publish this material make every effort to research and validate it for ourselves. The old adage about “if it seems to good to be true, it probably is,” is a good warning flag for anyone considering new ‘evidence’.)


3. Modern pollen in the Hakatai Shale of Grand Canyon – evidence here points to the fact that there was probably contamination of the samples. Those who have attempted to repeat the find under sterling conditions have not been able to find the claimed pollen. Nevertheless, the following from Chadwick, should be noted:

Although there may not be evidence for Precambrian pollen in the Grand Canyon, there is one thoroughly documented report of the occurrence of pollen and vascular tissue of higher plants which does support the existence of angiosperms earlier in the fossil record. The story surrounding the discovery of authentic higher plant remains in the Saline series of the Salt Range in Punjab, India, and its subsequent elaboration is anecdotal but nevertheless is worth investigating. Although the subject of the Salt Range beds is proscribed among Indian and many western paleontologists today, the case rests precisely where it did 30 years ago (Ghosh et al. 1951). The fossils are modern in aspect (“Eocene” according to Sahni 1944) yet the beds containing the fossils are overlain conformably by early Cambrian sediments (Coates et al. 1945). Creationists who wish evidence for the existence of angiosperms early in the fossil record should cite this well-known case.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/08007.htm

4. There is, however, also evidence of other items in out of order strata in other places in the world which have been verified and published:

a. Spores belonging to the Tertiary era were found in Permian Strata in New Zealand (Wilson, G.J. 1976. Permian Palynomorphs from the Mangarewa Formation, Productus Creek, Southland, New Zealand, New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics 19:137).
b. Foraminifers belonging to the Tertiary were found in the Cretaceous Strata in North Italy (Alvarez W. and W. Lowrie. 1981. Upper Cretaceous to Eocene pelagic limestones of the Scaglia Rossa are not Miocene Turbidites Nature 294:246-7).
c. Palm wood associated with the Tertiary was found in the Jurassic strata in Utah, U.S.A. (Scott, R.A. Willians W.L. Craig L.C., Barghoorn E., Hickey L.J., and U.D. MacGinitie. 1972. American Journal of Botany 59:886-96).

These and other examples of out of order fossils, most of which, however, are those from earlier times found in ‘later’ eras, are part of a list of more than two hundred compiled by John Woodmorappe and found on the internet in several places, including here:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4881/anomalies.html

5. Skeletons in the Dakota Sandstone – These were evidently Indians mining for copper when they were killed in a cave-in. The skeletons represent short adults, and are impregnated with copper minerals.

6. The Paluxy Tracks – There are tracks there. None of them are human. This has been one of the most thoroughly researched sites in the world ever since it was reported that human tracks and dinosaur tracks were found together. What is seen are dinosaur tracks. Some are bipedal. But they are not man tracks. Warnings about using the Paluxy material as evidence for a young earth creation have been published a number of times, including John Morris’ Impact articles #35 (1976) and #151 (1986). In 1998, Berney Neufeld, Ph.D., wrote the paper with the most recent research documenting the tracks, “Dinosaur Tracks and Giant Men,” available now on the internet here:
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/dinos/tracks/default.html


7. The Nampa Image – There is a possibility that this is a true out-of-order artifact. The major problem is that there is no context for it. We have the depth from which it was recovered (320 feet), which seems to indicate the Pliocene period, but we have no culture to associate it with, and thus no civilization time for a connection. Nevertheless, a search by these authors revealed an almost total lack of comment on this image, and nothing of negative nature. It seems to have been largely ignored by those who make a point of debunking evidences for creation. A thorough article was done by Robert Gentet and Edward Lain in the Creation Research Society Quarterly of March, 1999, on this image, or doll. Their findings, from the abstract and the conclusion are quoted below:


“The July 1889 find in Nampa, Idaho, of a small human figure during a well-drilling operation caused intense scientific interest last century. Unmistakably made by human hands, it was found at a depth (320’) which would appear to place its age far before the expected arrival of man in this part of the world, according to accepted evolutionary dating techniques. Although all but forgotten by the general scientific community, the evidence, when viewed without evolutionary bias, still sounds convincing over a century after its discovery.”

“…Nevertheless, the evidences for the genuineness of the Nampa Image seem weighty. The condition of the image would present a very sophisticated challenge for someone on the early frontier. And the workings of the sand pump, which was in operation at the discovery of the image, excludes it being introduced during the on-going operation from on top and surviving. Furthermore, while one might envision a motive for a hoax (though the idea of a hoax to promote the new frontier town was never mentioned by any other writer the authors researched), the people involved were always described as citizens of stature in the community and trusted in their words.
There is, however, always the possibility that all is not as it first seems to be. Perhaps we will never know for sure, but this much we do know: had the find come from a geologic horizon where man’s artifacts were expected, there would have been far less controversy involved. The current theories of evolution and the stretched out geologic timetable should not hinder acceptance of human artifacts or bones found in stratum where conventional “wisdom” prohibits. [p.210]

============

There are a lot of other 'artifacts' which I discount on the simple basis that they are artifacts! Evidently there is quite a trade in manufacturing some of them!

There has also been some very sloppy research done by people on BOTH sides of the argument. As a result, my own tendency now is to do a lot of the research myself -- checking references, IN CONTEXT, looking up materials I am interested in -- that sort of thing.

Despite being married to Barry, my areas of interest on my own are ancient civilizations and their mythologies and legends, and also cells and genetics. Barry and I are very different! So the material I tend to look at on my own is in the areas where I am most comfortable and interested. And it is in these areas I have found some real evidence that the early sections of Genesis are true and remembered and that evolution doesn't stand a snowball's chance in a hot oven (that's more acceptable here, I think!).

As far as recognizing some creationist arguments as being invalid -- I often just shake my head and groan when presented with some of the material we get in emails and in person. In this sense I fully understand the frustration of a number of evolutionists. However I also think that it would behoove honest evolutionists to shake their heads and groan when presented with some of what comes down that avenue as well. But that is up to you folks!

Honesty is hard to come by, in either camp, more the shame for us who wear the name Christian. People get enthused about the strangest things, and propagate them as truth long before they are confirmed or even in spite of disconfirmation.

So, perhaps the best way to answer your query in general is to say that I have learned to discount a great deal of what I get from either side. I have seen some of the most ridiculous arguments put up by evolutionists here -- but they certainly don't hold the corner on ridiculous, either!

It would be impossible for me to go through years of material to give a more thorough answer to your question. The general answer is 'yes,' which is, I hope, the answer evolutionists would also give about some of their material.

 

Paul of Eugene: regarding the evolutionary tree of life, I thought you might be interested in the following (I'm stuck home today because I can't take Chris out in this heat, so I'm doing some research for both speeches) --

======

"the wealth of competing morphological, as well as molecular proposals [of] the prevailing phylogenies of the mammalian orders would reduce [the mammalian tree] to an unresolved bush, the only consistent clade probably being the grouping of elephants and sea cows." (De Jong, W. W. Molecules remodel the mammalian tree. Tree Vol 13, No 7, pg. 270-274 (July 7, 1998))