|
|
Discussion With Two YECs Regarding the Paluxy River Tracks
In the middle of the discussion, along came a young earth creationist by the name of Mark Coppedge who claimed to be "an eyewitness to the excavation of human footprints in a limestone layer which also contains dinosaur prints in the immediate vicinity." Even though I wasn't interested in particating in that discussion at that time, because at that particular point in time I didn't have much free time for cyberspace discussion, I did immediately write a post insisting that Mark substantiate his claims. This, of course, promptly led to the typical misrepresentative and evasive YEC rhetoric by Mark and Allan, who — sure enough! — never actually got around to even trying to substantiate anything at all. But please don't take my word for it! Just read on... Regards, Todd S. Greene (2/17/2003) |
|
Mark Coppedge (9/7/00 10:34:22 am) I thought it might be of interest to some of your readers that in 1995, in Glen Rose, I was an eyewitness to the excavation of human footprints in a limestone layer which also contains dinosaur prints in the immediate vicinity. One doesn't need a Ph.D. to recognize a human footprint in wet cement or on a muddy river bank which is directly analogous to the situation of the fossil footprints. I had to see for myself so I went to the trouble of going down there when the actual excavations were taking place. Since my foot was the largest of those in attendance (about 50 men and women) they used my bare foot for documentary photos with my foot both in the track itself and beside it. The impression in the rock was clearly that of a human foot, exhibiting the toes and arch very clearly with the heel somewhat blurred, as if the individual had slipped in the mud. If anyone is interested, a fuller description of my experience is on my personal website, Mark Coppedge.com, under the title of Human Footprints in Rock. Godspeed, Mark |
|
Todd Greene (9/7/00 12:51:19 pm) Uh... Mark Coppedge's testimony is great, I suppose, for testimony. Science, however, doesn't work like that, for obvious reasons. Mark writes that "Several well-credentialed scientists had witnessed and testified to the genuineness of the discoveries." Hmmm... I wonder who these "scientists" were? Geologists? Paleontologists? Anthropologists, even? Or were they, perhaps, engineers with a specialty in water treatment plants? Were they even, really, scientists? What does it mean to be a scientist? What is considered really relevant in science, testimony or data? Mark even cites the infamous Carl Baugh, whose credentials are highly questionable. For detailed references regarding this issue, see: What About Carl Baugh?I do not wish to participate in this discussion at this time. I am simply making this one post as a sincere warning to people regarding Mark Coppedge's claims. The credibility is very seriously lacking. It is a terrible shame that this kind of material is still "making the rounds" in YEC circles. This would be like some crazy evolutionist still going around touting Piltdown Man. Beware! Regards, Todd S. Greene |
|
Mark Coppedge (9/7/00 2:51:22 pm) Despite your scathing sarcasm and ridicule the fact remains that I participated in the uncovering of a human footprint in limestone in the Paluxy River bed. Unlike many others such as yourself, I actually spent the time and effort to find out for myself, first-hand, whether the claims were true. I didn't just look at a web site, I busted rocks for two days in a very hot sun. So did many other honest men and women. It is unconscionable for you to question my integrity in this manner. You may believe that I was mistaken or misunderstood, etc., etc. but to essentially call me a liar is uncalled for and very inappropriate. You also seem to belittle the geological profession. I suspect professional, working geologists would be less than impressed with your opinion, even if they disagreed with mine. To all that happen to read this letter, I pledge that I actually saw a human footprint in the same limestone layer of the Paluxy River which also holds numerous dinosaur prints. I have not exaggerated the facts in any way. It looked just like the footprint of someone running on a wet, muddy river bank. It had lain under a heavy rock layer which was first removed with very hard labor and then under a clay layer which was taken off with exceedingly careful hand work. It was not carved or faked by anyone. It was human in every detail. Godspeed, Mark |
|
Todd Greene (9/8/00 12:50:21 pm) Do not misrepresent my comments. Not once did I call you a liar. I very specifically and intentionally wrote that "the credibility is seriously lacking." I meant what I said, and I said what I meant. If I genuinely thought you were lying, I would not have hesitated to state it. If your fossil human footprint is so excellent and so professional then please produce the specimen. What I wrote is exactly true ("Mark Coppedge's testimony is great, I suppose, for testimony. Science, however, doesn't work like that, for obvious reasons."), and I know that you understand the fact that science relies on data, not testimony, and I would think that you also realize why this is so. You can engage in a war of rhetoric all you wish to, Mark. I simply pointed out some facts. And your citation of Carl Baugh, especially, not only lends absolutely no credence to your claim, it substantially detracts from it. Produce your specimen, or all you have is unverifiable "testimony," which you cannot pretend represents scientific data (except for a sociological study, perhaps). And please do not even try to pretend that I am the one who belittles the geological profession. You and I both know fully well that it is the young earth creationist community, consisting of people such as yourself, that has belittled the entire profession of geology for at least the last 150 years. It is you who have belittled the professional geologists who have visited the Paluxy River site and studied the prints and have published the research in the peer-reviewed journals regarding the witness to a dinosaur attack that these prints represent. We both know who is belittling professional geologists, and we both know it is not me. Quite sincerely, Todd S. Greene |
|
Allan Turner (9/8/00 5:15:23 pm) Mark Coppedge is new to this discussion, so he doesn't know the rules you old-Earthers play by. I mean, think of the audacity he exhibited in thinking that one of you old-Earthers might actually be interested in his own firsthand experience with the alleged "man tracks" of Glen Rose. Imagine his total lack of scientific acumen in relating that he actually visited the Paluxy River in order to participate in a field dig, in which was discovered what, to him, appeared to be man tracks, or human foot prints. I mean, only a "crazy" YEC would even think of doing such a thing. If you will, further imagine his dismay at your intentionally brutal characterization of his testimony, in which you said: It is a terrible shame that this kind of material is still "making the rounds" in YEC circles. This would be like some crazy evolutionist still going around touting Piltdown Man. Beware!I ask you, Todd, is this any way to treat a newcomer? Moreover, when he took offense at your uncouth callousness (and what did you expect?), you then became indignant and in your condescending way, you accused him of unjustly misrepresenting what you had actually said. But did he misrepresent you? No, he most certainly did not. In truth, it is you who acted like the philistine in this situation. So, let me remind you, Todd, for whatever value it may be to you, that you are not playing by the rules which govern us here on this discussion board which, as you already know, are not patterned after the obtuse rhetoric and flaming insults that characterize so much of the Internet. Here is my question for you: Knowing, as you do, that the Earth is billions of years old, and believing, as you do, that dinosaurs came into and out of existence millions of years before man ever set foot on the planet, could the alleged man tracks of Paluxy River be anything other than what the critics have said — namely, (1) they are clearly fakes or (2) they are actually dinosaur tracks that look like man tracks? So, it is quite possible that the alleged man tracks of Paluxy River have been rejected by those who already had their minds made up. I realize that some creationists have also questioned these tracks, but the jury is really still out, except in the minds of those who already have their minds made up. Besides, we are not talking about one set of tracks here, and you know it. Excavations are still underway, and if these are to meet the criteria established by science, the evidence should not be tainted by minds that are already made up. Allan |
|
Mark Coppedge (9/8/00 6:13:32 pm) Thank you for replying again and providing me the opportunity to answer you more coolly. First, you are right that I was mistaken to believe that you were belittling geologists. Because I was a bit upset I didn’t read your letter carefully before beginning to write. Many of the men who have been involved in the Glen Rose work over the past century have been working petroleum geologists and a petroleum geology professor at the University of Texas, if my memory serves me correctly. I thought you were disparaging their reputation. I apologize for my mistake. I make no claims about my abilities or training. Nor do I make any claims for Dr. Baugh or his organization. He simply was the person in charge of the work detail. As I understand now, there is at least one other man who also works in this area. Dr. Baugh’s theories are of little or no interest to me. For me, I only wished to see if there really were human tracks in the Paluxy River limestone. So far as specimens, measurements, etc., they were neither my responsibility nor my place. Others did all of this and I am sure it is on file in Glen Rose if you have any interest. The particular print we found was about the 50th print uncovered and of only middling clarity among all of the prints. Because of this it was not cut out and preserved. However, the sharpest prints over the years have indeed been cut out and kept for further study, of which the Burdick track is probably the best example. I am sure these are available for the kind of close scrutiny you are demanding. For me to testify as to the authenticity of the manner of excavation and the conditions of the area prior to the work are probably the most valuable contribution I can make. I have heard and read all of the slanderous things written by those who are so threatened by the prints. They were simply not true on the visits I made in the summer of 1995. The mere fact of their existence belies the weakness and falsity of both evolution and the old age of the earth belief. What is most ironic to me is that this is clear and convincing evidence that can be discerned perfectly by any child of ten. Any normal pre-teen is able to tell what is and what is not a human footprint in the mud. Those in Glen Rose have done a lot of the “scientific” work that you are so fond of but it is consistently ridiculed without any consideration of its validity. Even many creationists back away from them because of the exceedingly vast skepticism coming from all the great academic circles. Why, you might say, would the scientific establishment not open their collective arms to such a great discovery if it were valid? If I am not mistaken, science is supposed to be interested in truth wherever it is found. However, you might ask Robert Gentry or Halton Arp how collective science acts when one or more of their sacred cows is threatened. A single footprint in this limestone layer overthrows the whole scheme. If it becomes generally accepted, a great many careers and reputations will be so much dust. No wonder they are opposed with every weapon in the arsenal of naturalism! You mention publication in the great, scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Did this do Gentry any good? I’ve read every one of them and also every one of the rebuttals of which I was aware. No one has come close to effectively showing a mistake in his work. The gist of the rebuttals is that though they cannot find the mistake, there must be one since it doesn’t fit with the established paradigm. When Gentry had the audacity to stand up publicly for creationism and a young earth, he was forced out of his position in Oak Ridge and subjected to incredible public ridicule. Halton Arp was one of the most respected astronomers in the United States until he had the idea that the red-shift might not mean what science had decided it meant. He was denied access to every major observatory in the United States and had to move to Germany to continue working. How much did his published work in the journals and elsewhere help him? My own tiny contribution is say publicly that I witnessed the careful excavation of a single, distinctly human, footprint in the limestone of the Paluxy River bed in the summer of 1995. As to whether I am truthful in declaring this, all I can say in rebuttal is that I will stand easy about it in the presence of the Lord when my time comes. Godspeed, Mark |
|
Todd Greene (9/9/00 12:21:24 pm) To Allan: Your comments are a sword, and as such it cuts both ways. I hope you see this, even in regard to your response to my post. I simply stated the facts. If this is "uncouth," I'm sorry, but that's what I choose to do, and I shall continue to do it. If people don't like the truth, as far as I'm concerned that's just tough. I am no newcomer to young earth creationism. I grew up with it. I believed it. Then I discovered it was wrong. I've had many, many years of experience with YEC. I'm used to the habitual carelessness with details, the attitude of remaining obstinate in error, and the endless repetition of anecdotal stories that characterizes so much of the YEC community. These are straightforward facts that non-YECs who have experience with YECs attest to, and there are even some YECs who have honestly acknowledged that these are problems characteristic of the "YEC culture." (Indeed, before I became a non-YEC, I was one of those YECs that acknowledged that.) If I believed anecdotal information was good science, Allan, I would believe that Bigfoot lives not too far from Portland, Oregon, and that intelligent humanoid aliens are regularly visiting earth right now and performing medical studies of human beings (whom they put in a hypnotic state so as to try to wipe out conscious memory of the examinations). If I believed anecdotal information, I would have to be a Catholic, a Hindu, and a Mormon, and I would believe in leprechauns to boot. You and I both know that anecdotal information is worthless in science, for good reason. I have stated the facts, and I shall continue to state the facts, and you should take my serious point seriously instead of merely trying to paint me as uncouth or biased regarding the evidence. The historical facts, the experience of YEC, show who is genuinely biased regarding the evidence. SN1987A is still there, and it shows very, very obviously that the universe has been around for at least about 168,000 years. You make comments about being open-minded on Paluxy River man tracks, but somehow you aren't open-minded enough to realize the implications of the direct observation of SN1987A, and the other millions of galaxies in the universe, in the sky right now. Why is this? If you wish to start accusing me of being closed-minded because I'm not gullible about Paluxy River stories, watch out or I may certainly use your own sword against you. (And SN1987A consists of a whole lot more than anecdotes!) Now, Allan, that you saw fit to try to chastise me for pointing out some facts and raising some very legitimate warning flags, please observe the following... To Mark: I hope you realize that I clearly did not state or insinuate that you were lying, as you accused me of. I was making the legitimate point that "testimony" (anecdotal information) is not scientific, and thus this is not scientifically credible. And in doing this, I get "climbed all over" by you and Allan merely for being insistent that the issue be handled responsibly. The problem with science is that "the devil is in the details," and, unfortunately, that can require extra work, effort, and detail-oriented attention to accuracy that is beyond what most people care to deal with. You still have not cites the "scientists" who were working with you. You need to provide the actual names of these people. How can I "disparage their reputation" if I don't know their names? I'm kidding! I'm kidding! But you really do need to provide their names. What is their genuine expertise? What scientific work have they published? Where are the specimens, and what careful pictures and measurements have been taken according to archaeological excavation standards, and where has this work been published? When you mention someone like Carl Baugh, you really do actually disparage your own comments. It is an established fact that Carl Baugh has played "fast and loose" regarding his "scientific" qualifications and regarding the facts of various projects that he has been involved in. When you cite him, red flags just automatically pop up all over - as they should. Thank you for clearly stating the fact that you do not possess any specimens. Thank you for acknowledging that the print you yourself are giving "testimony" about was part of a trail ("the 50th print") and "of only middling clarity." This wouldn't, perhaps, be one of the trails that have been studied by professional paleontologists regarding the fossilized marks left of a dinosaur attack? (You can read a popular presentation of this in the December 1997 issue of Scientific American; "Tracking a Dinosaur Attack," by D. A. Thomas and Jim A. Farlow [http://www.iuinfo.indiana.edu/HomePages/043099/text/farlow.htm].) Even YEC Kurt Wise, the only YEC paleontologist with a Ph.D. that I'm aware of, has disputed the validity of alleged man tracks at Paluxy. Regarding the Burdick print, see: The "Burdick Print"On Paluxy man tracks more generally: The Texas Dinosaur/"Man Track" ControversyNon-YECs are certainly not "threatened by the prints" (especially since, at the moment, you haven't yet even referred us to where we can find out about the prints you yourself are "testifying" about). This is merely empty rhetoric expressed for the sole purpose of trying to pretend that geologists and paleontologists are so prejudiced against YEC that they would ignore or falsify genuine data. (Mark, tell us, again, who is it who belittles the community of geologists and paleontologists?) In fact, the slanderous things that are being said are by YECs regarding one particular non-YEC by the name of Glen Kuban, including remarks specifically by Don Patton. It is also a historical fact that decades ago man tracks were manufactured and sold from the site, and for decades YECs have used anecdotal information of man tracks in the Paluxy based on carved prints and misidentified prints in support of YEC. This isn't slander, it's the truth. And if you find the truth "slanderous," then you have some serious pondering to do about your position. By the way, here is the testimony of Arthur Chadwick, who professes Christ and is a professional geologist. He writes (from http://origins.swau.edu/papers/geologic/geology/index.html): Along with a couple of colleagues, I next traveled to Glen Rose, Texas. The Paluxy River in Glen Rose reportedly contained human and dinosaur tracks side-by-side. These reports were being used widely as evidence to support the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs, which according to conventional geology were separated in time by 100 million years. Thus the Bible was right, the geologists were wrong. We concluded that if there were such tracks in the riverbed, it should be relatively easy to settle the matter. We arrived in late summer when the river was dry, and carefully analyzed the exposed trackways for evidence that human tracks were present alongside those of dinosaurs. We found the expected dinosaur tracks and a trackway composed of curious elongated tracks made by a dinosaur walking on its anklebones. The trackway did superficially resemble an elongate 'human' track. But occasionally the trackway showed all three of the dinosaur's toes. We also analyzed "human tracks" reported to have been removed from the riverbed, and compared the characteristics of these "tracks" with a genuine dinosaur track taken from the riverbed. We concluded on the basis of several lines of evidence that the "human tracks" were all carvings. The hypothesis that the trackways were human was falsified. We published the results [see http://origins.swau.edu/papers/dinos/tracks/default.html], but for ten years those Christian colleagues using the trackways to promote their views on origins ignored our results.Mark, was Arthur Chadwick one of the scientists you visited the Paluxy River with? Everything else you write about in your post is simply more anecdotal stuff mixed in with some prejudicial rhetoric, and not directly relevant to the Paluxy River fossils, so I won't say anything more. Sincerely, Todd S. Greene |
|
Mark Coppedge (9/9/00 1:54:55 pm) Forgive me, but I have to laugh at this one. Chadwick, intrepid explorer, walks down the riverbed, unaccompanied apparently by anyone involved with the Glen Rose work, discovers the mantracks all by himself and lo and behold, determines conclusively that they were instead made by a dinosaur walking on his ankles! This, my friends, is a discovery! Then, though his thorough examination, he determines that the tracks that have been cut out and preserved for study, are not actual tracks but rather carvings. What exactly led him to this conclusion? The Burdick track is so perfectly formed that Michelangelo would have had to come to Glen Rose to do it. Who is the hidden artist with Dr. Baugh's organization? A sculptor this talented should have more publicity! In frauds, usually there is a motive. What is Dr. Baugh's? Fame? Fortune? World-wide acclaim? You can tell they've certainly gotten quite wealthy from all this from the exquisite beauty of the Quonset Hut which houses the museum! Or perhaps is it that Carl perversely enjoys all the spiteful, mean, and slanderous accusations throw at him? Carl Baugh is gentle man who is doing what he feels is the Lord's calling for him. He endures all of this because of the truth of what he has found. I cannot judge his work in other areas nor do I wish to. But in my experience with him he was honest, humble, and careful in his work. I see no need for me to comment further to you in this matter. I've made plain what little I had to add to this string. Dr. Baugh is not here to defend himself from your slander so I feel that I must. Please try to restrain yourself from writing such terrible things about a man you've never met. I suspect that most of us on this string can read for ourselves and are reasonably familar with the controversy. Your concern for the readers' well-being is probably unnecessary. Godspeed, Mark |
|
Todd Greene (9/9/00 5:56:59 pm) Carl Baugh's record speaks for itself. I really don't care how quiet, humble, or gentle he is. Now, you specifically stated that you visited the Paluxy River site with some scientists. I have asked you to produce the names of these men, and so far you have not done so. Is your memory of them as good as your memory of the print you saw that you were so certain was a human print even though it was of "middling clarity"? Finally, Dr. Arthur Chadwick worked on Paluxy man track information with Dr. Berney Neufeld, Dr. Leonard Brand, Dr. Dexter Beary, Dr. Don Jones, and graduate student Walter Cox. I see that you wish to belittle these men, who have real live credentials and the work to back it up, and stick up for Carl Baugh, who does not. Kurt Wise, a YEC with a genuine Ph.D. in paleontology, with the work to back it up (he actually studied under Stephen Jay Gould), has studied the claims and man tracks and disputes them, but you'd rather support Baugh. Glen Kuban has done extensive study of the Paluxy River site, accompanied by various other scientists at various times, yet you ignore all of these geologists and paleontologists and go with Carl Baugh. But the truth is the truth, and the facts are the facts, and all the YEC rhetoric in the world can't change these. I very frequently ask people to "dig into the details" of these matters. This phrase has almost become my "mantra" in YEC discussions that I participate in. Do you know why? Because I don't want people to believe my "testimony" and I don't want people to trust me. I don't want people to trust anyone's testimony. YECs have gotten away with their shenanigans far too long because people trust them (just like I did). I want people to dig into the truth for themselves, because as a YEC who has done it repeatedly on a number of issues (and who bid YEC "Goodbye" because of what I found), I tell people quite honestly that they will find that the details do not support the YEC claims, and they will only discover this for themselves by digging into the details. I'm sorry, because it can take a lot of work and time, but that's the way it is. So here we are a few posts later, and nothing has changed. I pressed the matter, and dug into the details a bit, and forced the issue of responsibility, and we find that I really did speak the truth in my very first post in response to you on the Paluxy River man tracks. I have provided several references, and you have provided absolutely none. Thank you, Mark, for demonstrating the truth of the warning I gave in my first post. Sincerely, Todd S. Greene He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence.... |
|
Allan Turner (9/9/00 10:07:57 pm) For your information, I did not "try" to chastise you. I did it, but you seem to have no shame. Further, I am not "trying" to paint you as uncouth and biased. You are uncouth and biased. Your prejudice is most evident. For example, I have acknowledged several times during the course of these discussions that I understand the force of your argument concerning the star formerly known as Sanduleak 69 202, which we are now referring to as SN1987A. Instead of accepting this, as any honorable man would do, and even after you've been called on this already, you attempt to make it look like I have ignored these implications by saying, "...but somehow you aren't open-minded enough to realize the implications of the direct observation of SN1987A, and the other millions of galaxies in the universe, in the sky right now." Todd, I've had about enough of your shenanigans. Evidently you and Mathews are two peas in a pod. If you do this one more time, you are out of here, mister! I understand that you may feel I have misrepresented you or your position, but I assure you that I have not done so intentionally. On the other hand, you have taken it upon yourself to purposely portray YECs, including me, as a bunch of yahoos. I don't like these tactics when they are engaged in by the evolutionists against creationists, and I don't like them any better when OECs employ them against YECs. So stop it, please! As a self-described non-participant in this discussion, who for some reason just can't resist the temptation to interject himself into the dialogue from time to time, let me ask you another question which you will probably ignore, like you did my last one. Do you think you are the only one who can ask the questions? If not, then why didn't you answer my pertinent question in my last post to you? Was the question so obviously rhetorical and you felt no need to answer? Let me repeat it here for you again: Knowing, as you do, that the Earth is billions of years old, and believing, as you do, that dinosaurs came into and out of existence 100 million years before man ever set foot on the planet, could the alleged man tracks of Paluxy River be anything other than what the critics have said — namely, (1) they are clearly fakes or (2) they are actually dinosaur tracks that look like man tracks?I followed up by saying: So, it is quite possible that the alleged man tracks of Paluxy River have been rejected by those who already had their minds made up. I realize that some creationists have also questioned these tracks, but the jury is really still out, except in the minds of those who already have their minds made up. Besides, we are not talking about one set of tracks here, and you know it. Excavations are still underway, and if these are to meet the criteria established by science, the evidence should not be tainted by minds that are already made up.Frankly, I prefer to think that scientists on both sides of the Glen Rose, Paluxy River "man tracks" issue, even though prejudiced by what they think to be true, are basically honest. Therefore, what one scientist interprets as human footprints, the other describes as "a dinosaur walking on its anklebones" which "superficially resemble an elongate 'human' track." Because what I ultimately believe on the age of the Earth is not determined by either of these interpretations, it does not matter to me what the final verdict will be at Glen Rose. However, if it can be demonstrated that fossilized man tracks and dinosaur tracks occupy the same stratum that historical geologists thought to be laid down 100 million years before man ever walked on this Earth, then the whole thing will be something considerably more than an interesting anecdote. Mark Coppedge and I disagree on many subjects, but because we are both YECs, that little ol' Paluxy River holds a certain fascination, so much so that he decided to go done there and see for himself firsthand what was going on. I respect that, and I have visited the Paluxy River myself. I think it would be wonderful if those creationists working at Glen Rose were finally rewarded with a find that would serve to knock the socks off of evolutionary science. However, it is not my intention to question the integrity of either side as they go about doing what it is that they do. In the meantime, I'll be concentrating my efforts in other areas. Finally, while I continue to work on SN1987A, why don't you give us the definitive rebuttal to Robert V. Gentry's Polonium halos findings? Allan |
|
Todd Greene (9/10/00 6:44:52 pm) When a forum moderator uses his moderator status as a way to intimidate discussion participants away from "pressing their case," there's really not much point in pressing their case, is there? (I happen to be a forum moderator myself, and not once have I ever used such a role to manage criticisms that others have leveled at my position in discussion. So I'm not just talking out of the blue.) Mark interjected his anecdote about human tracks in the Paluxy River, and since I was aware that the Paluxy River tracks are a perfect case in point of YECs misconstruing the "evidence," I chose to interject comments specifically about the Paluxy River. (If this discussion thread is "invite only," and only selected people are invited to post, and no one else is supposed to interject anything regarding YEC interjections, then lock down the posting permissions. I was observing the discussion, and Mark's comments were an interjection. Mine was simply a response to him. You know this fully well.) Anecdotal information is not scientific. This is a fact, Allan. I know that you know this. Yet that is all that Mark Coppedge, or you in his defense, have offered in any of your posts on this specific issue. Read my first post on the matter again. I wrote truly. I made the appropriate criticisms and the appropriate warnings. You and he both saw fit to chastise me for stating these legitimate criticisms and warnings. (I chose, then, to defend my first post, and I continue to stick by what I wrote. I did not wish to participate in this discussion forum in this particular discussion at this time. This time is inconvenient for me. I stated that truly. And I have specifically remained focused on the one issue Mark raised.) I criticized what deserved to be criticized, and for you to use your moderator status to ward off or cut off such legitimate criticism is extremely unfair. If someone has genuine human prints from the Paluxy River, then they should produce them. That's the way it works. (And that's my answer to your question, which I did already state, though somewhat differently.) Trying to pretend that scientists are somehow closed-minded because they refuse to accept anecdotes, carvings, and misidentifications as good evidence, and because they don't think YECs have credibility because YECs have promoted such things specifically in the case of the Paluxy River, just isn't right. I know that you know this. Tough criticism against bad or questionable information and approaches is termed by you as "shenanigans"? If you don't want tough criticism, then state that forthrightly rather than calling it shenanigans. What I have written is true, and I'll leave it at that. Sincerely, Todd S. Greene |
|
Allan Turner (9/10/00 11:46:52 pm) You are entitled to your opinions. You are welcome to criticize anything and everything, and you are free to press your points. I have no problem with you doing any of these. My criticism of your tactics does not involve these things, and you know it. My position as participant and moderator is a difficult one, and I suppose I should not be surprised that you are the one who is now questioning my fairness. It seems clear that I don't come up to your impeccable standards as a moderator, but how could I -- after all, I'm a YEC. Allan |