Thursday, June 01, 2006

Analysis: Glen Rose Fossils

The fossil evidence, as presented by Dr. Carl Baugh, would utterly destroy modern evolutionary theories. After all, how would they explain human footprints right alongside dinosaur prints? How did the scientific community respond?

They resorted to nothing less than utter character assassination, especially after his public appearance on NBC.

But what about his evidence? As for his footprints, they worked their hardest to discredit such a problematic find. After concluding that they were dinosaur prints, rather than human prints, they considered the matter settled. But not all of the prints could be classified as dinosaurian. For those, they resorted to the impeccable logic of obscurity:

"Some of the reputed prints are erosional features or other irregularities" - See above link for context -

...except for the ummistakably human print, which they readily labelled a hoax. In fact, after labelling this a hoax they seemed content to discredit all of his evidence without so much as a stir.

As for the artifacts, they gave worthless responses. His cretaceous hammer was dealt with easily enough:

"The hammer is encrusted with calcium carbonate, which can happen quickly. The fossils are in nearby rocks, not part of the material encrusting the hammer. There is no evidence that the hammer is more than a few decades old."

His fossilized finger, an impressive fossil indeed, was labelled a shrimp tunnel, despite the CT Scans showing bones and the very clear outline of a fingernail.

There is more evidence, but the scientific community doesn't seem too concerned. After dealing with him once (and fiercely discrediting everything about him along the way), they feel ignoring him is safe enough now. So his iron pot found in coal, and his cretaceous handprint from Glen Rose are condemned to the annals of silence.

Do Dr. Baugh's fossils prove that dinosaurs and man lived contemporaneously? Maybe, maybe not. But the behavior of many evolutionists shows that they won't tolerate evidence that doesn't support them and that they'll gladly resort to disgraceful behavior when threatened. Science doesn't matter to them, only evolution matters.

What about Richard Leaky whose credentials were lacking (as claims about Baugh)? Sure his parents were famous, but that doesn't give him automatic credentials. Yet he's a hero for evolution because his evidence was what they wanted. Credentials only matter if you're on the right side of the fence.

Not all evolutionists would necessarily behave this way (and I grant that my only sources for this post are from, but I really think that Dr. Baugh was unfairly the butt of dogmatic hatred instead of the professional respect he certainly deserves.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home