Re: Fossils

From: James Mahaffy (mahaffy@mtcnet.net)
Date: Tue Apr 11 2000 - 00:58:36 EDT

  • Next message: Adam Crowl: "Re: America inhabited at least by 15,000 - 18000 years ago"

    Folks,

    The first thing I noticed when I looked at the site that Wayne mentioned
    (the one that described a finger, footprint and hammer from the
    Cretaceous), was that the site referred to Carl Baugh. Somehow that
    name raised a bit of a warning so I did a goggle search. The short
    answer to Wayne's question is to be very cautious about Carl's claims.
    An interesting well-written history by someone who respects Carl's sound
    evangelical position is that of Wayne Spenser at url:
    http://pws.prserv.net/creation/Articles/BAUGH1.HTM. As Spencer, kindly
    says, Carl, "unfortunately over-steps the bounds of accurate
    representation on some issues. " The interesting thing is that just when
    many of the YEC creationists, including Morris were being convinced that
    the footprints were not human Baugh set up his museum in the area and
    apparently continues to push the prints in the area as human. I then
    found a report by Art Chadwick on the web
    (http://pws.prserv.net/creation/Articles/BAUGH1.HTM) and found to my
    surprise that he investigated and discounted the tracks before Glen
    Kubban who is referred to in both histories.

    Both of these histories are interesting and I found it illuminating that
    Morris and other YEC (young earth creationists), were open to changing
    their minds when the evidence was shown to not fit their theory.
    Sometimes I think we don't give them credit enough for trying to be
    honest from their perspective and willing to admit they were wrong (I am
    not YEC). You can see Henry Morris' recitation at url:
    http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-151.htm

    I went back to the creation-evidence web site to see what Baugh had
    posted there. The folks referred to above discount the footprint, so I
    took a look at his "finger". The finger is NOT at all convincing to me
    (and I teach a course in fossils). He threw labels on his cross section
    but the bone does not seem right (too big and not right tissue) and
    besides soft tissue if it were preserved would not mineralize in the
    fashion he has in his "finger". One could have dried or mummified
    organic material but I would not expect to see a complete mineralization
    of the soft material. If he really had a completely mineralized finger
    he should have been able to have given us a cross section that shows
    more detail.

    -- 
    James and Florence Mahaffy    712 722-0381 (Home)
    227 S. Main St.              712 722-6279 (Office)
    Sioux Center, IA 51250
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 11 2000 - 00:56:43 EDT