Number: 348 Date: 4 Nov 91 14:26:51
From: Walt Stumper
To: Dave Horn
Subject: Re: Evolution
WS>> editorial by Ariel Roth in Origins (V.11, No. 2) -- "Is Creation
WS>> Scientific?" I found this while searching for material by Roth
WS>> refuting your claim that he said "he had no evidence whatsoever to
DH> Walt, in court, under oath, Roth did say this. To verify,
DH> all you need to do is get a copy of the transcript, which is a
Please provide me with a decent reference for this transcript--an
accurate title would be useful. I work in a large academic library and
have access to numerous databases and other library collections. I have
yet to see reference to an official transcript of the 1981 Arkansas
Trial. I'm not necessarily doubting your claim that it exists, but just
haven't seen a copy or reference except in this echo! (I would prefer
an official transcript, not something like Nelkin's or Ruse's personal
recollections...)
WS>> Thus the effects and products of both creation and evolution are
WS>> subject to some scientific analysis, and creation does not negate
WS>> science.
DH> The claim is not that creation negates science, Walt. The
DH> claim is that creationism is not science nor are it proponents
DH> practicing science.
This is an old canard. I suppose I'll get back from you and others
another 'survey' done by anti-creationists?
WS>> 3) Both evolutionists and creationists use the scientific method
WS>> to evaluate creation.
DH> No. Only the evolutionist applies the scientific method
DH> to those aspects of creationism that are testable. The
DH> creationist does not. Proof of that is the continued use of
DH> disproven "facts" (i.e., the Paluxy "mantracks," and polonium
DH> radiohalos in rocks) by creationists to support their
DH> "science." Use of outdated or disproven "facts" does not
DH> constitute science. In fact, there is no greater crime in
DH> science than the use of outdated information or the
DH> manufacture of other information.
Wow! Let's see, evolutionists have: Nebraska man, Piltdown man,
ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, gills slits, yoke sacs, vestigial
organs, KMR-1400 (check out the funny dating on this fossil), Lucy
(reconstruction of this creature with parts found over a mile away and
in strata 200 feet lower), and more! Our St. Louis Zoo has a relatively
new exhibit, The Living World, that features a full reconstruction of
Lucy. She has a very shapely body, including two very human female
looking breasts (I suppose there's fossil evidence for this?) and two
totally human looking feet. Except for the face and the hair covering
her from head to toe, she looks very human. This is not just bad
science, but outright deception.
Evolutionists also have their hands full with a considerable amount of
shoddy and bungled interpretation of the evidence...
On Paluxy:
I love the Paluxy "mantracks"!!! It shows what great lengths
evolutionists will go to discredit creationists! Never mind that these
are probably not mantracks. I've heard some incredibly wild
explanations from evolutionists about their origin and/or owner(s):
1) Carvings. A very popular explanation by evolutionists early on.
True, the locals carved a few tracks to sell to the tourists, but it's
never been proven that the creationists _ever_ did this. Except for a
few diehards, this explanation has all but disappeared from
anti-creationist literature when Baugh started videotaping his diggings.
2) Sea creature. I'll have to dig around for this one to get the exact
story, but for a time evolutionists suggested the tracks where caused by
some creature's fins/flippers hitting the bottom. This explanation
pretty much was dumped when Glen Kuban and Ronnie Hastings got together.
3) Dinosaurs tracks. This current explanation was offered up after
Glen and Ronnie got together. Glen Kuban bills himself as an expert in
ichnology (fossil tracks) when he's actually a computer programmer. He's
been allowed to present a paper or two at scientific conferences because
of his anti-creationist activity. (He's also presented himself to me as
a friend of creationism--an increasingly common tactic among
anti-creationists.) Ronnie is a high school science teacher with
connections to a local Skeptic organization and the N.C.S.E. In
anycase, the current scenario is that the original "mantracks" have
taken on secondary characteristics due to exposure to the elements.
They now look more like dinosaur tracks. (I'd be more accurate but I'm
writing this from another location without access to my files.)
Yep, evolutionists know what they're talking about as much as
creationists. :)
DH> creationists use the scientific method to evaluate
DH> creationism. I am aware of ATTEMPTS to refute this (such as
DH> "studies" of Mt. St. Helens and the Grand Canyon). However,
DH> these are easily refutable.
Hhmmm. You must know Phil Nichols. He dismissed Kurt Wise's
interpretations of the fossil record without even reading anything by
Wise. I bet you think you're not biased but a very objective person
who's willing to weigh all the evidence? Doesn't sound too much
different then the creationists...
DH> Creation (as opposed to creationISM) may be true, but
DH> evolution, i.e., the changes in biological forms over time, is
DH> also true. It is a fact as inescapable as gravity.
Poor analogy. Men and women _have_ escaped the grip of gravity. :)
WS>> Somehow, I don't think anyone should trust you when you're talking
WS>> about what creationists say...
DH> Gee, Walt, if you're going to get nasty, maybe I should
DH> point out that we shouldn't trust what you or Roth are
DH> claiming evolutionists "say." Fair enough? In order to make
Sorry, Dave, but I wasn't the person who fired the first shot about
'trusting' people. One of your collegues in this echo did! I've seen a
lot of insulting remarks on both sides of the fence--more of it coming
from the evolutionist side as far as I'm concerned. Over and over and
over again several proponents of evolution on this echo have jabbed and
thrusted with these silly little remarks. I'm just guilty of picking up
on that smart remark and continuing it's use...
Heh, if you want to debate, I can blow off short answers as easy as the
next person. If you want to argue/discuss the science of this issue, I
can do that, too. But, I'm NOT going to spend an hour or two digging
through my books, articles, and other material I have on evolution and
creation only to have you and others dismiss out-of-hand anything I
present! We could all raise the level of discussion a couple of notches
by avoiding the invectives...
I've read Cuffey's article on "Paleontologic Evidence and Organic
Evolution" in Montagu's _Science and Creationism_. I thought I'd check
up on a few of his references, so I started to track down his sources
for transitional forms among hominids. Do you want to read what I
think?
Of course, no matter what I say, somebody will come back with the remark
that I'm crazy and making this up. (After reading Graham Kendall's
claim that the title of Darwin's famous book, "On the Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in
the Struggle for Life" was a creationist fantasy, I almost gave up
responding here!)
Walt...
--- Via Silver Xpress V2.28
Number: 356 Date: 05 Nov 91 23:51:33
From: Scott Faust
To: Walt Stumper
Subject: Paluxy 1/3
> 4 Nov 91 14:26:51
> Walt Stumper To: Dave Horn
> Subj: Re: Evolution
>
> On Paluxy:
>
> I love the Paluxy "mantracks"!!! It shows what great lengths
> evolutionists will go to discredit creationists!
John Morris, Carl Baugh and many of the other creationists involved
in the Paluxy matter proved quite capable of discrediting
themselves, thank you. The "evolutionists" merely troubled
themselves to bring attention to the fact! :->
> Never mind that these are probably not mantracks. I've heard
> some incredibly wild explanations from evolutionists about their
> origin and/or owner(s):
>
> 1) Carvings. A very popular explanation by evolutionists early
> on. True, the locals carved a few tracks to sell to the tourists,
> but it's never been proven that the creationists _ever_ did this.
> Except for a few diehards, this explanation has all but
> disappeared from anti-creationist literature when Baugh started
> videotaping his diggings.
Right, there were carvings made during the depression. Glen Kuban
went to assiduous lengths to investigate these. He interviewed a
number of people and pursued various leads to determine, so far as
possible, the history of all the ones which had been touted in the
creationist literature as genuine "mantracks". He was succesful in
determining the present locations of and personally examining all
of them.
All of the carvings that I have seen, btw, are anatomically absurd.
I am frankly amazed that even people as uncritically minded as
Henry Morris or Clifford Burdick accepted them as genuine. Several
creationists I know of *still* insist that some of them are for
real! (This is one difference between creationists and
evolutionary scientists. Where are the evolutionist diehards for
Piltdown or Nebraska Man? I would bet a fair sum of money that
there will still be supporters of "Paluxy Man" a couple decades
from now.)
Kuban and Hastings have claimed (and I have personally noted) that
Baugh and his supporters often fail to clean their tracks properly,
and would sometimes form "toes" and such in the mud. These would
look very snappy at the time or in Baugh's photos, but when you
visited the actual tracks (often in highly erosion resistant rock)
the toes would be nowhere to be found. Also, although the
limestone matrix is very hard in most places, the infilling
material in the tracks is, in a number of cases, clayey and/or
friable. One can easily form toes and such in this material and I
have seen creationists doing so. This is not usually any sort of
intentional chicanery -- you just stop cleaning or excavating the
track when it looks right!
Also, Taylor and crew used oil or something to sort of "paint in"
the tracks from the Dinosaur Valley State Park park ledge which
appear in the film "Footprints in Stone". This rock is a marlstone
and contains no footprints of any kind, unless you really, really,
really want to see them and "enhance" things a bit.
So far as intentionally deceptive chisel work on Paluxy tracks by
modern creationists, I think that Stephen Schafersman may have
suggested this as a possibility at one time. (I seem to recal this
from an article in the _Journal of Geological Education_.) I don't
think that Kuban or Hastings have put that forward as an
explanation. Frankly, it is not necessary.
> 2) Sea creature. I'll have to dig around for this one to get
> the exact story, but for a time evolutionists suggested the
> tracks where caused by some creature's fins/flippers hitting the
> bottom. This explanation pretty much was dumped when Glen Kuban
> and Ronnie Hastings got together.
I would like to know what you are referring to should you find the
time to track it down. This area was a tidal flats and there are
many trace fossils of burrowing marine invertibrates and such.
Some of these (of an organism called _Thalassinoides_) formed
patterns at one site (on the second bank) in which Baugh and his
followers where able to see "mantracks". (I really, really, really
tried to see them myself, but was unsuccessful:-) There are also
some marks associated with some of the trackways that Kuban and
Hastings suggested may have been made by the tails or some other
appendage of the dinosaurs. I think you may be confabulating from a
combination of these or similar items, but I will wait and see.
[1 of 3 messages... Continued in next message.]
--- Echodor 3.10a
* Origin: Origins Talk - 314-821-1078 - (8:3006/28.0)
Number: 357 Date: 05 Nov 91 23:53:33
From: Scott Faust
To: Walt Stumper
Subject: Paluxy 2/3
> 4 Nov 91 14:26:51
> Walt Stumper To: Dave Horn
> Subj: Re: Evolution
>
> 3) Dinosaurs tracks. This current explanation was offered up
> after Glen and Ronnie got together.
This is your second nebulous reference to something being the
result of Kuban & Hastings "getting together." It sounds as though
you mean to imply something, but I can't tell what.
Anyway... Kuban concluded, on the anatomical evidence, that the
tracks in the riverbed were dinosaurian the first season he
examined them. This was in 1980, as I recall, and at least two
years before he met Hastings. (Both Glen and Ronnie say that it
was Kuban who first approached Hastings.) I don't think that
Hastings visited the Paluxy until 1982, and it may have been as
late as 1983 or '84 before he and Kuban began working together.
Kuban probably informed Hastings of his findings when they first
compared notes. Hastings had not then had an opportunity to
examine the river bed during a drought as Kuban had. (I think the
next good drought was in '84. If you want me to firm up all the
above dates just say so.)
Kuban, btw, went to the Paluxy that first summer fully and eagerly
expecting to find genuine human footprints. I am convinced that
this is the case not only because Kuban told me so himself, but
also because he was so reluctant to do so. A skeptical friend of
his (who was visiting the Paluxy one of the summers that I was
there) told me about how enthusiastic Kuban had been about this
evidence for the co-existance of humans and dinosaurs. When I
later asked Glen about this he was quite genuinely embarassed about
how he had been taken in by the creationist literature he had read
and the Taylor film. He clearly would have preferred to pretend
(to me and the others in that hotel room, at least) that he went
down there with a reserved and somewhat skeptical outlook, but
admitted that such was not the case.
Glen told me, btw, that he would still be perfectly happy to find
genuine human footprints at the Paluxy. It would, at least, allow
him to show his freind up after all these years .
> Glen Kuban bills himself as an expert in ichnology (fossil
> tracks) when he's actually a computer programmer. He's been
> allowed to present a paper or two at scientific conferences
> because of his anti-creationist activity.
Well... phfft, phfft, mee-ooOOW! :->
Seriously, though, Kuban and Hastings have collected a great deal
of data on dinosaur tracks and trackways which they have shared
with academically affiliated researchers. The maps Kuban makes of
the track sites are very meticulous (the creationists use them!).
Baugh has certainly not produced anything like them, though he is
there year 'round.
Not meaning to be "catty" myself, but I have much more respect for
a humble amateur like Kuban who simply (so far as I can tell) tries
to do good and diligent work then I do for an unctuous mountebank
like "Dr." Carl Baugh how goes about flaunting fraudulent
credentials.
In do not know Kuban to "bill" himself as anything but someone who
does his own research and reaches his own conlusions. He struck me
as amiable and rather reserved, but very fervent in his opinions
about the nature of the evidence for Paluxy "mantracks". I should
think you would be pleased that an "unbeliever" such as myself
knows that there are christian gentlemen like Glen Kuban around. I
would certainly think much less of evangelical or fundamentalist
christians if I considered Carl Baugh, or many other creationists I
could name, to be typical examples.
> (He's [Kuban] also presented himself to me as a friend of
> creationism--an increasingly common tactic among
> anti-creationists.)
Oh, its much worse than this, Walt. Anti-creationists have been
infiltrating your organizations for YEARS! Kurt Wise, the secret
director of the NCSE (Eugenie Scott is just a figurehead), will be
leading selected and heavily armed members of Students for Origin
Research (each a thoroughly committed humanist) in a strike against
the headquarters of the ICR at high-noon tomorrow. Some places the
coup will be fairly bloodless: We are already pretty much in
control at Loma Linda; but few members of the CRS will survive, I
am afraid. Almost the entire membership of the Bible Science
Association will be hunted down and terminated with extreme
predjudice. Only the geocentrists will be spared. (They're right,
you know, but thats a whole other conspiracy.)
I can reveal all this now as it is too late for you to do anything
about it! Yes, December 6th will be a glorious... Hey, wait a
tick!![D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D
[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D
[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D
/e
[C[C[C[C[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D
/a
[2 of 3 messages... Continued in next message.]
--- Echodor 3.10a
* Origin: Origins Talk - 314-821-1078 - (8:3006/28.0)
Number: 358 Date: 05 Nov 91 23:55:45
From: Scott Faust
To: Walt Stumper
Subject: Paluxy 3/3
> 4 Nov 91 14:26:51
> Walt Stumper To: Dave Horn
> Subj: Re: Evolution
>
> (He's [Kuban] also presented himself to me as a friend of
> creationism--an increasingly common tactic among
> anti-creationists.)
Glen is definitely a creationist in the sense that he considers God
to be the Maker of heaven and earth, as the creed says. At the
time that he first went to the Paluxy he was a believer in (or
leaned strongly towards) young earth creationism. I think that he
now favors progressive creationism but is willing to accept the
possibility of evolution. This was my impression of his position
when I met him about three years ago anyway.
(Yes, I am being serious this time!)
> Ronnie is a high school science teacher with connections to a
> local Skeptic organization and the N.C.S.E.
Ronnie is a Texas liason for the N.C.S.E. and is on the board as
chair of the publications committee, I believe. Yes, I consider
N.C.S.E. a fine organization (fundamentalist and evangelical
christians are welcome as members, btw) but I would be happy to
listen to lurid tales of dark conspiracy .
> In anycase, the current scenario is that the original "mantracks"
> have taken on secondary characteristics due to exposure to the
> elements. They now look more like dinosaur tracks. (I'd be more
> accurate but I'm writing this from another location without
> access to my files.)
Well, Walt, maybe they look like dinosaur tracks because they ARE
dinosaur tracks. So whats the prob?
Different of the proposed "mantracks" do have different
explanations. The reason is very simple: Baugh is able to see
mantracks where ever he looks. He can imagine them out of
dinotracks, log rolls, trace fossils, erosional features, or what
have you. The man is a boob. He has claimed that ordinary rocks
were monkey skulls and that trilobites were rib cages. He insists
that a neural spine he has from big fish was actually the horn of a
unicorn-like dinosaur and that the creature could fold it back into
its head like a jack-knife!
With regard to the Taylor trail and the other tracks in the river
bed at that site, sufficiently critically minded observers
(including a number of creationists) have never had much problem
recognizing them as dinosaur tracks. They do have some unusual
features, but they are ones which are now known from other dinosaur
track sites as well. It was only that, after '84, the coloration
phenomena indicating the outline of the still infilled dinosaurian
digits (which Kuban had noticed in '80 and which he tells me can
even see in the frames of "Footprints in Stone" if you stop the
film) became so obvious that even most creationists had to conceede
the case.
> Yep, evolutionists know what they're talking about as much as
> creationists. :)
Wait! Is that it? What happened to the "incredibly wild
explanations from evolutionists" you were going to tell us about?!
[3 of 3 messages.]
--- Echodor 3.10a
* Origin: Origins Talk - 314-821-1078 - (8:3006/28.0)
Number: 385 Date: 08 Nov 91 02:10:11
From: Scott Faust
To: Walt Stumper
Subject: Paluxy
I just talked to Ronnie Hastings the other day. Herein correction
or addition to my earlier postings to you:
> 05 Nov 91 23:51:33
> Scott Faust To: Walt Stumper
> Subj: Paluxy 1/3
>
WS> 2) Sea creature. I'll have to dig around for this one to get
WS> the exact story, but for a time evolutionists suggested the
WS> tracks where caused by some creature's fins/flippers hitting
WS> the bottom. This explanation pretty much was dumped when Glen
WS> Kuban and Ronnie Hastings got together.
>
> there are many trace fossils of burrowing marine invertibrates
> and such. [...] There are also some marks associated with some
> of the trackways that Kuban and Hastings suggested may have been
> made by the tails or some other appendage of the dinosaurs. I
> think you may be confabulating from a combination of these or
> similar items [...]
Ronnie tells me that he vaguely recalls something like this
himself. He thinks a creationist told him (during his first season
at the Paluxy in 1982) that this had been offered as an explanation
for some of the "mantracks." Hastings doesn't remember if the
creationist told him who had put this forth or when, or if the
creationist even knew. Glen Kuban might know something more since
he has collected lots of information on the history of the Paluxy
"mantrack" controversy.
If you have some written documentation on this, Walt, I would be
very interested. In the absence of that or some other source it is
at least possible that this is a myth or a creationist
misunderstanding.
> 05 Nov 91 23:53:33
> Scott Faust To: Walt Stumper
> Subj: Paluxy 2/3
>
> Anyway... Kuban concluded, on the anatomical evidence, that the
> tracks in the riverbed were dinosaurian the first season he
> examined them. This was in 1980, as I recall, and at least two
> years before he met Hastings.
Four years. 1980 was Kuban's first season and he did not approach
Hastings until 1984.
> 05 Nov 91 23:55:45
> Scott Faust To: Walt Stumper
> Subj: Paluxy 3/3
>
> It was only that, after '84, the coloration phenomena indicating
> the outline of the still infilled dinosaurian digits (which Kuban
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> had noticed in '80 and which he tells me can even see in the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> frames of "Footprints in Stone" if you stop the film) became so
> obvious that even most creationists had to conceede the case.
He is not 100% certain, but Ronnie tells me that I am probably
wrong on this point. Kuban has able to identify the coloration
phenomena ex post facto in his photographs from 1980. He showed
these to me in 1988 and I apparently jumped to the above conclusion.
--- Echodor 3.10a
* Origin: Origins Talk - 314-821-1078 - (8:3006/28.0)
Number: 490 Date: 10 Nov 91 15:00:00
From: Dave Horn
To: Walt Stumper
Subject: Reply 2
Continued from previous message -->
WS> ...gills slits...
I don't particularly care for that term, myself, Walt. However, I am
at a loss as to what else to call these embryonic structures. Would you
care to try?
WS> ...yoke sacs...
I don't know what a "yoke sac" is, Walt.
WS> ...vestigial organs...
That vestigial organs and structures exist in the animal kingdom is
undeniable, Walt. If such things do not exist, how do you explain the
obvious vestigial pelvic girdle found in boids?
WS> KMR-1400 (check out the funny dating on this fossil)...
I have, thanks. What's the problem? The previous dating difficulty
with "this fossil" has long been resolved. We seem to be seeing more
evidence that your criticisms are out of date, Walt.
Oh, and I probably should point out that the difficulty in dating
KMR-1400 was resolved by evolutionary scientists, not creationists.
WS> ...Lucy (reconstruction of this creature with parts found over a
WS> mile away...
Complete fossil skeletons are a rare find, Walt, and the construction
of Lucy's skeleton was not as haphazard as you appear to be trying to make
it. Many fossil skeletons have been constructed from multiple pieces
apparently derived from different individual animals. This is not a random
practice. There is a method to it.
WS> ...and in strata 200 feet lower...
I'm not a geologist, Walt, but I am aware of a perfectly reasonable
explanation as to why this is possible. However, I am allowing that what
you are saying is correct. In fact, I have not heard this, and would like
to see you cite some evidence to this effect.
WS> Our St. Louis Zoo has a relatively new exhibit, The Living World,
WS> that features a full reconstruction of Lucy. She has a very
WS> shapely body, including two very human female looking breasts...
Walt! You sly dog! What were you doing looking at her breasts? ;-)
WS> (I suppose there's fossil evidence for this?)...
Not that I'm aware of. Breasts are soft tissue -- adipose tissue,
mostly -- and therefore do not readily fossilize.
WS> ...and two totally human looking feet. Except for the face and
WS> the hair covering her from head to tow, she looks very human.
WS> This is not just bad science, but outright deception.
Maybe it's just bad art... :-)
Did you take your complaint to the Zoo director? If not, why not? If
this display was truly deceptive, you had an obligation to bring it to the
attention of the director.
In doing so, however, you must be prepared to provide an alternative
to what is being proposed. That is where creationists also fail in their
"science." They complain plenty, but they don't offer a viable,
scientifically tenable alternative.
WS> On Paluxy: I love the Paluxy "mantracks"!!! It shows what great
WS> lengths evolutionists go to discredit creationists!
Indeed? The first clear refutation of the Paluxy "mantracks" that I
ever read was written by Neufeld, an admitted creationist. Of course, as
far as any discrediting goes, the creationists seem to provide plenty of
fodder by their pseudo-scientific methods and their adherence to falsified
"facts," as mentioned earlier. The shoddy science of "Dr." Carl Baugh and
John Morris are cases in point.
And, of course, once the faulty nature of the "mantracks" became
widely known, a number of creationist organizations disavowed them.
Arguments then cropped up among these creationist societies as to the
validity of the "mantracks." My point was that there are creationists whom
still insist that the tracks of men can be found alongside the tracks of
dinosaurs, even though this proposition has been thoroughly debunked. You
seem to be going off on a tangent here to avoid that point.
WS> Never mind that these are probably not mantracks.
There's really no "probably" to it, Walt. Science can never really
prove anything fully, completely, or immutably; but it can disprove. That
has been done with the Paluxy "mantracks."
WS> I've heard some incredibly wild explanations from evolutionists
WS> about their origin and/or owner(s): 1) Carvings. A very popu-
WS> lar explanation by evolutionists early on. True, the locals car-
WS> ved a few tracks to sell to the tourists, but it's never been
WS> proven that the creationists _ever_ did this.
_Non sequiter_, Walt. I didn't claim that they did. I simply said
that some creationists still proclaim that "mantracks" found in the Paluxy
among the tracks of dinosaurs "proves" that men and dinosaurs lived at the
same time. This claim is continually made despite the fact that the
"mantracks" have been debunked.
WS> 2) Sea creature. I'll have to dig around for this one to get the
WS> exact story, but for a time evolutionists suggested the tracks
WS> were caused by some creature's fins/flippers...
Again, this is irrelevant. I am aware of the various hypotheses
formwarded to explain the apparent tracks of unknown creatures -- be they
men or something other than men. My point remains that some creationists
still use the "evidence" of the Paluxy "mantracks" as a "proof" against
evolution. Of course, even if we ever did find evidence that men and
dinosaurs were contemporary creatures, that would in no way falsify
biological evolution.
WS> This was pretty much dumped when Glen Kuban and Ronnie Hastings
WS> got together.
You seem to be accusing the scientific community of being scientific,
Walt. A series of hypotheses were presented, and Kuban and Hastings
gathered evidence that debunked some hypotheses, one myth (that the
legitimate tracks were human), and provided a cogent theory as to how these
tracks were made and preserved. Either way, we still haven't dealt with
continued creationist misuse of this "evidence."
Continued next message --->
--- ZMailQ 1.10 @8:7703/11.0
* Origin: GRACENET - DENVER - HST - 303-935-6323 (1:104/810)
Number: 491 Date: 10 Nov 91 15:01:00
From: Dave Horn
To: Walt Stumper
Subject: Reply 3
Continued from previous message -->
WS> 3) Dinosaur tracks. The current explanation was offered up after
WS> Glen and Ronnie got together...
...And provided a scientifically feasible explanation for the various
depressions found in the Paluxy.
WS> Glen Kuban bills himself as an expert in ichnology (fossil tracks)
WS> when he's actually a computer programmer.
Yes, well, having read Kuban's writing, I am not convinced that he has
claimed to be an "expert." However, it is possible to have expertise in
more than one area, Walt. Yes, Kuban is a computer programmer; but that
does not negate what he has done with Hastings at the Paluxy. If you want
to try to show that there was something scientifically wrong with Kuban's
work, you're going to have to come up with something better than "but he's
a computer programmer." That doesn't automatically disqualify him from
conducting research in another area and delivering a scientifically
feasible hypothesis in that area. Remember that van Leeuwenhoek, the
inventor of the microscope, was a merchant by trade.
So, rather than try to discredit what Kuban has done by appealing to
his full-time occupation, why not propose those aspects of Kuban's work
that you feel are unscientific? Then we'd have something to consider.
WS> He's been allowed to present a paper or two at scientific confer-
WS> ences because of his anti-creationist activity.
This isn't quite accurate, Walt. Kuban has been "allowed" to do what
anyone would be allowed to do, i.e., present scientifically tenable
hypotheses before gatherings of scientists. The "professional"
creationists *claim* to be scientists, yet they never do this with their
creationism "research." Any idea why?
Kuban's "anti-creationist activity" is irrelevant. If what he has to
say is scientifically tenable, then he should be allowed to present it, no
matter what he does to pay his bills. This is a straw man argument, Walt.
WS> (He's also presented himself to me as a friend of creationism--an
WS> increasingly common tactic among anti-creationists.)
I'm not sure that this is as widespread as you suppose, Walt. I've
seen no evidence of it. Every so-called "anti-creationist" that I have
ever known is actually quite vocal about their position.
Of course, as a Christian, it is possible that Kuban is a "friend of
creationism." But I am, too, if you consider the classic definition of the
term. I am a friend of the classic creation scientists such as Sedgewick
and Buckland, who studied science to know the work of G*d, but whom
adjusted their theories when science falsified their previous conclusions.
The historical creationists were true scientists, and their modern-day
counterparts are a pale image of these great men, at best.
WS> Ronnie is a high school science teacher...
This is true, but it no more invalidates what he's done scientifically
than the early "revelation" that Kuban is a computer programmer and not a
paleogeologist. Again, their occupations are irrelevant. However, if you
want to use this argument, then you must consider that an overwhelming
number of creationists are also well out of their fields. Henry Morris is
a hydraulic engineer, Gish is a biochemist (sort of!), Geisler a
theologian. If we use your argument, we can claim that none of these men
are qualified to speak out on evolutionary biology (never mind for the
moment that they are not, anyway, because they don't do what Kuban does --
science). It works both ways, Walt.
In fact, I would imagine that "a high school science teacher," as well
as a holder of a Ph.D. and the chairperson of the science department at
Waxahatchie High School is far better qualified to deal with these things
than the Morris's, the Gish's, the Brown's (Walter Brown is an engineer),
et al.
WS> ...with connections to a local Skeptic organization and the NCSE.
Okay. So what's the problem? I, too, have "connections" to the NCSE,
the Audobon Society, the American Museum of Natural History, the Wilderness
Society, the National Wildlife Federation, blah, blah, blah. None of this
proves anything, Walt. The issue here has to do with the value of
Hastings' *science*, not to what clubs he may belong to.
WS> ...the current scenario is that the original "mantracks" have
WS> taken on secondary characteristics due to exposure...
No excuses, Walt. Either they are "mantracks" or they are not. The
best available evidence seems to indicate that they are not.
WS> Yep, evolutionists know what they're talking about as much as
WS> creationists. :)
We are, together, demonstrating that they, in fact, know a great deal
more -- at least about science.
WS>DH> ...creationists use the scientific method to evaluate creation-
WS>DH> ism. I am aware of ATTEMPTS to refute this (such as "studies"
WS>DH> of Mt. St. Helens and the Grand Canyon). However, these are
WS>DH easily refutable.
WS> Hhmmm. You must know Phil Nichols. He dismissed Kurt Wise's
WS> interpretation of the fossil record without even reading anything
WS> by Wise.
There you go again, Walt: "Assuming" that I am not aware of the
"findings" by creationists at Mt. St. Helens and the Grand Canyon. I can't
think of any other reason for you to respond in this manner. You seem to
be implying that I am dismissing these studies out-of-hand and that I am
ignorant of what they "reveal." I can assure you that this isn't true.
As to Phil and Wise's "interpretation," well, I was not writing to
this echo when that exchange took place, but I was reading. Let's just say
that I remember that a little differently than you seem to.
Finally, of course, you haven't really responded to what I said. What
I said, in essence, was that what the creationists are doing at Mt. St.
Helens and the Grand Canyon simply isn't science. That is what you should
be responding to. Your response is another _non sequiter_.
Continued next message -->
--- ZMailQ 1.10 @8:7703/11.0
* Origin: GRACENET - DENVER - HST - 303-935-6323 (1:104/810)
