Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Willis on Colin Patterson!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty@webtv.net
    I recently wrote, quoting Bert s study guide and commenting on it, and in response to David Willis effort to use Colin Patterson as some sort of evidence
    Message 1 of 27 , Jul 31, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I recently wrote, quoting Bert's study guide and commenting on it, and
      in response to David Willis' effort to use Colin Patterson as some sort
      of evidence against "evolution":

      ########################

      In lesson number 6, THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS: PART III, the first multiple
      choice question is as follows:

      ______1. Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionary paleontologist, after an
      examination of the numerous differences among species, said in regard to
      the theory of evolution:

      (A) "The theory makes a prediction, we've tested it, and it is falsified
      precisely."

      (B) "The theory makes a prediction, we've tested it, and it is proven
      precisely."

      (C) "The theory makes a prediction, we've tested it, and the data are as
      yet inconclusive."

      > The question was related to material
      > which you (Bert) had copied from a
      > denominational source concerning Mr.
      > Patterson's work.

      > I have argued that this is an example of
      > misrepresentation.

      > (A) seems to be the obvious answer
      > intended to the question. But what did
      > Colin Patterson really say (and more
      > importantly, mean)?

      > Did he falsify the General Theory of
      > Evolution, or did he just come up with
      > some data to indicate that a particular
      > theory on "HOW" it might have happened
      > may not be correct?

      #######################

      While browsing for something else, I ran across that study guide of
      Bert's. Here's is what he says that Colin Patterson said:

      > "After all of his data were presented,
      > Dr. Patterson (a confirmed evolutionist)
      > remarked:

      > > 'The theory makes a prediction,
      > > we've tested it, and the prediction
      > > is falsified precisely'."

      Maybe that will help you understand why it is I figure Bert Thompson,
      Ph.D. misrepresented the whole matter, especially with his multiple
      choice question. Do you wonder why Bert didn't use the same words
      attributed to Patterson in his question that were used in the text of
      the lesson? Subsequent correspondence with Gil and Bert confirmed my
      opinion regarding the misrepresentation.

      A prediction was made and, science being what science is, it was tested
      and falsified. Big deal! That's how science works, right?

      So, David, the same question still might apply to you, today.

      If the amino acid sequences of the alpha hemoglobins are more similar
      between a crocodile and a chicken than between a crocodile and a viper,
      what is it that you think is "falsified precisely"?

      I would hope you (David) wouldn't try to use the same faulty logic that
      Gil and Bert tried to put over on me in response to that same question.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    • rlbaty50
      ... I also went back and checked what David Willis had written. The way ... Now, I realize that David Willis was simply trying to recall what Patterson
      Message 2 of 27 , Aug 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        As I noted earlier, Bert Thompson, Ph.D. had written:

        > "After all of his data were presented,
        > Dr. Patterson (a confirmed evolutionist)
        > remarked:

        > > 'The theory makes a prediction,
        > > we've tested it, and the prediction
        > > is falsified precisely'."

        I also went back and checked what David Willis had written. The way
        he put it was:

        > Colin Patterson (an ev. scientist) admitted that
        > this was enough to "falsify the theory precisely"
        > (my recollection of the quote). Whether he stands
        > by the quote now or not, the point is still a
        > strong argument against the theory.

        > How's that for succinctness?

        Now, I realize that David Willis was simply trying to "recall" what
        Patterson said, but you will see, here and in my earlier post on the
        matter, how it appears some YEC folk have misrepresented the
        Patterson matter.

        Maybe Willis' recollection is similar to Bert's Maury statue claim.
        We don't know where Bert actually got his Maury statue claim, but we
        can understand how it was made up. Similarly, Patterson didn't
        really have a "strong argument" against evolution, but we can
        understand how some YEC folk got to misrepresenting Patterson and the
        role of "transformed cladism" is the sytematics debate.

        I'm just wondering if Willis is going to help us clarify and possibly
        improve his position regarding the Patterson matter. I haven't seen
        any more pending messages from him.

        I am also quite interesting in Todd's promised review and update of
        that previous discussion with Willis about those footprints. Todd, I
        hope you are finding the time and interest to put that together for
        us in some easy to understand format.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty
      • Todd S. Greene
        ... [snip] Hi, David. I have uploaded from CD the BereanSpirit posts that I have archived, and tracked down your accusations of lying. Your first accusation of
        Message 3 of 27 , Aug 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Maury_and_Baty, David Willis wrote (post #2082):
          > --- In Maury_and_Baty, Todd Greene wrote:
          >> --- In Maury_and_Baty, David Willis wrote (post #2048):
          >> [snip]
          >>> Todd, you are an atheist and accept macroevolution...right?
          >>> Will you answer these questions for me?
          >>>
          >>> 1. What age do you regard the Laetoli footprints to be?
          >>>
          >>> 2. What creature is the most likely one to have made them?
          >>>
          >>> 3. If a human made them, how would that affect your view of
          >>> human evolution?
          >>
          >> We already had this discussion. I was using the pseudonym and
          >> persona of Steve Heiden at the time.
          >
          > Well, Steve/Todd that is very interesting. If I had done as
          > poorly and behaved as dishonorably as Steve did (claiming I
          > agreed with him when I did not) on BS in replying to that line of
          > argument, I think I would try to avoid this subject...and maybe
          > change my name TOO! You sure don't mind rehashing the arguments
          > YOU think are supportive of your view.
          [snip]

          Hi, David.

          I have uploaded from CD the BereanSpirit posts that I have archived,
          and tracked down your accusations of lying.

          Your first accusation of lying occurred when we were discussing your
          erroneous "identical by definition" argument (i.e., your argument
          that instantaneously created objects *must* be identical to the same
          object that has come into existence by natural development over
          time), in the context of discussing the apparent age argument.

          You had admitted in this post

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/38725

          that they did not *have to be* identical. When you admitted that your
          argument was wrong, in this post

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/38727

          I immediately thanked for you doing so. I wrote:

          | Thank you for acknowledging that instantaneously created objects
          | are in fact *different* from objected that have gathered the
          | marks left by a history of events. Thank you for acknowledging
          | that instantaneously created objected are NOT *identical by
          | definition* as you had previously stated. This was the major flaw
          | in your argument that I and others have pointed out, and I thank
          | you for realizing it.

          What had you written in your post that showed you acknowledged that
          the "identical by definition" argument was actually wrong?

          | For instance, I believe God could create a mountain with cracks
          | in the rocks and smooth edges (as if some erosion had happened)
          | just as easily (and consistent with His nature) as He could
          | create a mountain which was pristine (whatever THAT might be in
          | [Steve Heiden's] mind). Indeed, it is pretty hard to imagine any
          | mountain God would create that would not have cracks, and even a
          | non-eroded edge would have some "apparent history" too.

          You then accused me of being a liar in this post:

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/38737

          I responded with further discussion of your comments, to draw you out
          more (i.e., to force you to clarify that you did in fact acknowledge
          what you had acknowledged), in these two posts:

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/38738
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/39146

          Then, in this post

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/39161

          you retracted your accusation of me being a liar, and also
          wrote, "...I can acknowledge that an all-powerful God could create
          trees without rings...."

          I then followed that up with a very detailed and thorough discussion
          and criticism of the apparent age concept as manifested in your own
          advocacy of it, in this post:

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/39273

          You then took offense at something else I wrote in that post, and
          again accused me of lying. In fact, in this post

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/39900

          here's what you wrote: "Once again you lie. This smart alecky tactic
          is offensive to me. 'It's nice to see' that I didn't also have to see
          your smarmy mocking 'thank you' you claim to say as a 'courtesy.'" So
          even though you had acknowledged that I was NOT lying, at least in
          the previous case, now you were accusing me of lying and of lying
          *again*. So who was lying?

          My reply, in this post

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/39917

          was this:

          | I'm noting now how much you apparently desire to frivolously
          | throw around this accusation of lying. I'm also noting how it is
          | you conveniently edited out your comment that I was responding to
          | (which show clearly what your words do in fact imply) and then
          | accuse me of lying.
          |
          | The fact remains that I've merely been stating the truth about
          | the position you've been advocating with your own words, not
          | making "smart-alecky" remarks and "smarmy mocking." If the
          | implications of your position are so troubling to you, this is
          | your problem, not mine. I'm satisifed if all you do is make
          | misrepresentative remarks about the criticisms I state, rather
          | than actually addressing the criticisms. However, if there was
          | actually something wrong with the criticisms I state, I would
          | appreciate it even more if you would correct them.
          |
          | That fact is that when a position that someone is arguing for is
          | incoherent and filled with inconsistencies, this indicates that
          | this position possesses some fallacies, and is evidence that the
          | entire position may be completely wrong. Those who are interested
          | in the truth should thus be aware of these things, because those
          | who are interested in the truth should abandon fallacious ideas.
          |
          | Here was the sequence of statements:
          |
          | Al Maxey wrote:
          |
          | >>> The jury is out on that one with me. If the flood was
          | >>> global in the recent past, then there is likely some
          | >>> objective physical evidence of that somewhere .... it is also
          | >>> likely we may not have yet discovered it. It is UNlikely
          | >>> that God deceived us about the whole matter (either
          | >>> theologically or scientifically).
          |
          | You wrote:
          |
          | >> Yes, very unlikely He deceived. But it is also possible that
          | >> the evidence is there but unrecognized because the data has
          | >> been misinterpreted.
          |
          | Then I wrote:
          |
          | > To me, This implies that now you think we should actually deal
          | > with the objective data and try to understand the details. This
          | > represents progress. Earlier, with the apparent age argument,
          | > you were arguing that you didn't care what the objective data
          | > showed since the objective data wasn't real. It's nice to see
          | > that you've abandoned that argument.
          |
          | I'm sorry if you are confused by your own position. I must admit
          | that its inconsistencies are confusing to me as well. Please make
          | up your mind: Are we supposed to take the details of the
          | objective data seriously, or are we supposed to believe that the
          | objective data is not real and thus useless for determining
          | anything?
          |
          | Your statement (quoted above) clearly implies that you are now
          | arguing that we are supposed to take the objective data seriously
          | ("it is also possible that the evidence is there but unrecognized
          | because the data has been misinterpreted"). This is in direct
          | contradiction of the apparent age concept which argues that the
          | objective data is not real and thus should not be taken
          | seriously. You should, thus, retract your false accusation about
          | me lying.
          |
          | In an earlier post you wrote that "You can't just 'pick and
          | choose' what 'evidence' or 'data' you want to accept from the
          | naturalists." Based on your comments here, I again point out that
          | the manner in which you are arguing your position is that if you
          | like what you think is "evidence," you choose it (such as
          | Setterfield, Humphreys, and Gentry, though all of this so-called
          | evidence is bogus). If you don't like the evidence, then you just
          | deny it by claiming (without any evidence) that it the objective
          | data isn't real. You've been picking and choosing only what
          | you've wanted to and been ignoring the rest right from the start.
          |
          | Inconsistencies... Incoherent position...

          So, David, each time you accused me of lying was not because I
          misrepresented what you had stated but simply because you were upset
          with me for having pointed out fallacies and inconsistencies in your
          own position.

          Here's how Al Maxey put it (BereanSpirit post #39341):

          | Brother, I think all Steve has done (and done extremely well, in
          | my view) is show the flawed logic of your position when carefully
          | scrutinized. It is obvious that you yourself do NOT perceive that
          | flaw in logic. If you did, you would most likely reject your
          | view. However, since you have yet to perceive the flaw in your
          | position, you perceive the reasoning of your opponents as being a
          | misrepresentation of what YOU think is a rational theology. We
          | are not putting words in your mouth, David, but merely logically
          | extending your inconsistencies to their ultimate end, and
          | spotlighting them. You apparently have not bothered to extend
          | them that far, so it was done for you. If you don't like where
          | your theology leads, change your theology.
          |
          | Steve is not a "liar." He has demonstrated rationally, logically,
          | and in much depth, the flaw in your position and the
          | inconsistency in your thinking. I think we all are aware that you
          | cannot see it, but that does not make Steve a liar. I think we
          | have a similar situation with Troy. He has declared ANYONE to be
          | a "liar" who believes that EVEN ONE of the spiritual gifts of
          | Romans 12, 1 Cor. 12, and Eph. 4 are in effect today. I have
          | shown (or tried to show) Troy the flaw in his thinking (as have
          | others). Does that make me a "liar?" Well, to TROY it does. But,
          | am I really a liar? No. I am only a "liar" because Troy is unable
          | or unwilling to perceive the flaw in his own logic. Thus, to HIM
          | I am a "liar." Others, who are looking on, can clearly see his
          | error, and are totally puzzled as to why HE cannot. I think the
          | same is true with your belief with regard to YEC and AA.

          So, David, in regard to the TRUTH of the matter it turns out that it
          was YOU who was doing poorly and behaving dishonorably. Of course,
          this is standard operating procedure for YECs and YEC supporters, so
          what else is new?

          Regards,
          Todd S. Greene (aka, Steve Heiden)
          http://www.creationism.cc/
        • Todd S. Greene
          ... [snip] ... [snip] Hi, David. What has changed? As usual, you *begin* with misrepresentation. Of course, since you re advocating a false position, what
          Message 4 of 27 , Aug 1, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Maury_and_Baty, David Willis wrote (post #2082):
            > --- In Maury_and_Baty, Todd Greene wrote:
            >> --- In Maury_and_Baty, David Willis wrote (post #2048):
            >> [snip]
            >>> Todd, you are an atheist and accept macroevolution...right? Will
            >>> you answer these questions for me?
            >>>
            >>> 1. What age do you regard the Laetoli footprints to be?
            >>>
            >>> 2. What creature is the most likely one to have made them?
            >>>
            >>> 3. If a human made them, how would that affect your view of
            >>> human evolution?
            >>
            >> We already had this discussion. I was using the pseudonym and
            >> persona of Steve Heiden at the time.
            [snip]

            > So...you have had 1.5 years to come up with an answer to my
            > simple question. Why is it you believe that the size of a 7 inch
            > footprint would cause us to conclude that the Laetoli prints
            > could not be made by a human??? Can you admit now that was a
            > bogus retort to my argument?
            >
            > Since (based on what the recent Little Foot find from
            > Sterkfontein proves) it is IMPOSSIBLE that an australopithecine
            > could have made the Laetoli prints (despite what a small number
            > of ev's may STILL say) and since there is NO OTHER CANDIDATE for
            > the track-maker, then a true scientist would conclude that the
            > best conclusion is that humans made the tracks, AND that the
            > dating presumptions made by evolutionists are false.
            [snip]

            Hi, David.

            What has changed? As usual, you *begin* with misrepresentation. Of
            course, since you're advocating a false position, what choice do you
            have? ;-)

            You copied a couple of our posts from our earlier discussion in your
            post here in this group (post #2082), but you quite conveniently
            neglected to cite the post that I copy here below.

            Regards,
            Todd S. Greene
            http://www.creationism.cc/

            ---------------------------------------------------------------------

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/41511

            From: Steve Heiden
            Date: Wed Dec 12, 2001 7:14 pm
            Subject: Re: "Walking with Prehistoric Beasts" Lucy & Little Foot

            Dear David Willis,

            Your statements about Dr. Phillip V. Tobias' conclusions are totally
            wrong. You wrote:

            > But in 1995, one of Discover Magazine's 100 most important
            > scientific finds of that year showed "Little Foot." Phillip
            > Tobias was going through a pile of bones from Sterkfontaine Cave
            > in southern Africa, where many aust. fossils had been found.
            > Aust. afarensis was Donald Johanson's find in 1973 and DJ claimed
            > it was older than other aust. already discovered. One of the
            > supposedly "younger" aust. was aust. africanus. However, Tobias
            > regarded them both (afarensis and africanus) as being of the same
            > specie. Tobias found and identified foot bones for aust.
            > africanus ...supposedly a younger and more evolved species of
            > aust. dating at about 3 mya. The foot bones could NOT have made
            > the Laetoli prints! The hallux was clearly divergent. A
            > splayed-out great toe would have left obvious markings in the long
            > set of walking tracks found at Laetoli dating 3.8 mya.

            I find it rather interesting that the conclusions of Dr. Phillip
            Tobias based on his analysis are directly contrary to the way you
            mischaracterized the matter. Let's see what Dr. Tobias himself said
            (from a New York Times News Service 1995 article by John Noble
            Wilford):

            But of greatest importance to the history of human
            evolution, analysis of the bones, dubbed "Little Foot," has
            revealed that this hominid combined humanlike and apelike
            foot characteristics.

            The weight-bearing heel and the springy arch of the foot
            were unquestionably adapted for upright walking much like
            modern humans, said paleontologists who examined the
            fossils, while the great toe was set at a wide angle to the
            other toes and was highly flexible, presumably capable of
            grasping and climbing.

            In particular, the shape of the joint forming the ball of
            the foot indicated that the big toe could rotate inward
            like the opposable human thumb, useful in tree climbing.

            In a report of their research being published in Friday's
            issue of the journal Science, Dr. Ronald J. Clarke and Dr.
            Phillip V. Tobias, paleontologists at the University of
            Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, said the foot fossils were
            "the best available evidence that the earliest South
            African australopithecine, while bipedal, was equipped to
            include arboreal or climbing activities in its locomotor
            repertoire."

            The scientists said that Little Foot strongly suggested
            that this early ancestor was not exclusively bipedal, as
            are modern humans, butmust have been at home both on the
            ground and in the trees.

            "The exact proportion of its activities spent on the ground
            and in the trees is at present indeterminate," they said.

            The bones were discovered in 1980 but their significance
            was not recognized until last year. They were found in the
            deepest part of sediments in the Sterkfontein cave, which
            is near Johannesburg and has been the site of numerous
            early human discoveries.

            The bones probably belonged to an early member of
            Australopithecus africanus or another early hominid
            species, the paleontologists said. They are the first
            connected bones found from the same foot of a single
            individual of such creatures.

            "This may be the kind of foot that made Mary Leakey's
            footprints," Tobias said in a telephone interview from
            Johannesburg.

            He was referring to 3.7 million-year-old footprints
            embedded in hardened volcanic ash at the Laetoli site in
            Tanzania. This trail of footsteps, made by two or three
            individuals walking with an upright, humanlike gait, was
            discovered in 1977 by scientists on an expedition led by
            Mary Leakey, the prominent Kenyan archaeologist.

            You refer to Dr. Tobias and them state that "The foot bones could
            NOT have made the Laetoli prints," yet Dr. Tobias himself
            specifically states, "This may be the kind of foot that made Mary
            Leakey's footprints." While you may disagree with Dr. Tobias, it
            should be absolutely clear to you and to everyone else that you have
            no right to misrepresent his analysis.

            Sincerely,
            Steve Heiden
          • Todd S. Greene
            Hi, everyone. I copied my old post and forgot to correct something that was bad about the original post. Sorry about that. The problem is that when you try to
            Message 5 of 27 , Aug 1, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi, everyone.

              I copied my old post and forgot to correct something that was bad
              about the original post. Sorry about that. The problem is that when
              you try to indent text in posts that you make online in your web
              browser, the indent spaces are removed by the editor. I had indented
              my quote of John Wilford's 1995 news article in that original post,
              and the online editor had removed my indent spaces. In my post today
              I neglected to repair that problem with the technique I use now with
              the online editor of "indenting" with the use of the pipe character
              ("|"). So here I just want to let you know that the article text I
              quoted begins with "But of greatest importance to the history of human
              evolution..." and ends with "...an expedition led by
              Mary Leakey, the prominent Kenyan archaeologist." The quote consists
              of 10 paragraphs. After the quote of the article I only have one
              paragraph I wrote at the end of the post. I hope this makes things
              clearer.

              Regards,
              Todd Greene
            • Todd S. Greene
              In response to my 12/12/01 BereanSpirit post #41511, David Willis ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/41542 From: David Willis Date: Thu
              Message 6 of 27 , Aug 1, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                In response to my 12/12/01 BereanSpirit post #41511, David Willis
                wrote the following:

                ---------------------------------------------------------------------

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/41542

                From: David Willis
                Date: Thu Dec 13, 2001 6:56 am
                Subject: Little Foot: Tobias quote

                David Willis to Steve H,

                >>"This may be the kind of foot that made Mary Leakey's
                footprints," Tobias said in a telephone interview from
                Johannesburg.

                He was referring to 3.7 million-year-old footprints
                embedded in hardened volcanic ash at the Laetoli site in
                Tanzania. This trail of footsteps, made by two or three
                individuals walking with an upright, humanlike gait, was
                discovered in 1977 by scientists on an expedition led by
                Mary Leakey, the prominent Kenyan archaeologist.

                You refer to Dr. Tobias and them state that "The foot bones could
                NOT have made the Laetoli prints," yet Dr. Tobias himself
                specifically states, "This may be the kind of foot that made Mary
                Leakey's footprints." While you may disagree with Dr. Tobias, it
                should be absolutely clear to you and to everyone else that you
                have no right to misrepresent his analysis.

                Sincerely,
                Steve Heiden
                >>

                (I'm sorry I hadn't seen your post when I said none had disputed my
                comments about Little Foot.)

                I am appreciative that you found this quote from Tobias. I was
                unaware that Tobias had formed an opinion yet about the compatibility
                with the Laetoli prints. Up to now the evolutionists have had the L
                prints to be regarded as proof positive that Lucy and her kind were
                very efficient and modern walkers, with feet like ours. Now I guess
                that tale has to be scrapped for something more "transitional". It
                indeed appears that he believes that a foot with a splayed out great
                toe (as he described the foot of australopithecines) could have made
                the Laetoli prints. This is astonishing. I would like to post to the
                BS site's picture files a .jpg of what this foot looked like
                alongside pictures of the Laetoli footprints which have been
                described by experts as "indistinguishable from modern". I believe
                Tobias is wrong to say that his Little Foot could have made the L
                prints. And when you see it, you'll have to agree I believe. It is
                like one of the ugly stepsisters trying to jam their foot into
                Cinderella's glass slipper. It won't fit.

                Someone who is an expert at critical analysis of footprints and who
                is disinterested in the outcome should examine the Laetoli prints and
                the Little Foot model and determine if they are compatible. Tobias is
                not disinterested. Don Patton (a creationist) has had police forensic
                footprint analysts used for some of his work with the Taylor track
                trail in the Paluxy river. Perhaps I could get him to see if they
                would evaluate this.

                So Steve...it appears that you are going to side with the idea that
                the Little Foot specimen COULD have made the Laetoli prints. I'm sure
                you'll have lots of evolutionists who will also agree, since this is
                so damaging to their pet theory. Do you have your argument prepared
                yet for if the aust. couldn't have made the prints? I'm sure you'll
                have one. Either way evolution always wins, eh?

                David Willis
              • Todd S. Greene
                Here s is my 12/13/01 response to David s 12/13/01 Bereanspirit post ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/41559 From: Steve Heiden Date: Thu
                Message 7 of 27 , Aug 1, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Here's is my 12/13/01 response to David's 12/13/01 Bereanspirit post
                  #41511:
                  ---------------------------------------------------------------------

                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/41559

                  From: Steve Heiden
                  Date: Thu Dec 13, 2001 8:25 am
                  Subject: Re: "Walking with Prehistoric Beasts" Lucy & Little Foot

                  Dear David Willis,

                  First of all, as far as I'm concerned, Don Patton has destroyed any
                  credibility he may have had. This is the same man who claims a Ph.D.
                  -- which happens to be from a young earth creationist diploma mill in
                  Australia. He purposely spreads lies about Glen Kuban (see
                  http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/rebutt.htm ), and touts dinosaur
                  carvings in pots made by a tour guide in the Yucatan peninsula. If
                  you want to walk in Don's wake, be my guest, but I'm absolutely not
                  interested.

                  Here's another article for you, this one by Dr. R. J. Clarke, who
                  worked with Dr. Phillip V. Tobias on "Little Foot," from the *South
                  African Journal of Science* 95, November/December 1999
                  (http://www.nrf.ac.za/sajs/rclarke.pdf ). Accompanied by a picture of
                  the Laetoli footprints, Dr. Clarke writes:

                  | ...in 1978, a
                  | chemistry professor from Rhode Island,
                  | Paul Abell, discovered a hominid heel impression
                  | in 3.6-million-year-old volcanic
                  | tuff at Laetoli, Tanzania. The subsequent
                  | excavation by Tim White (of the University
                  | of California at Berkeley) uncovered
                  | the first footprints of what would prove to
                  | be a trail made by two individuals (Fig. 4).
                  |
                  | These first few prints appeared very human[4]
                  | and gave little hint of the revelations
                  | that were to come. In 1979, I was invited
                  | by Mary Leakey to continue the excavation
                  | and, as more footprints were revealed,
                  | I was struck by their ape-like
                  | morphology with slightly divergent big
                  | toe. In the prints of the larger individual
                  | there was, at a regular distance behind the
                  | tip of each big toe, another toe-like impression
                  | that I interpreted as left by the
                  | metatarso-phalangeal joint. Subsequent
                  | study by Yvette Deloison (of the Natural
                  | History Museum, Paris) of several detailed
                  | casts that I had made of the prints
                  | led her not only to agree with my conclusions
                  | concerning divergence of the big
                  | toe but also to make observations of her
                  | own that indicated a foot with ape-like
                  | characteristics.[5] These included weight-
                  | bearing on the lateral side of the foot, a
                  | prominent medial expansion of the abductor
                  | hallucis muscle, pointed heel, and
                  | absence of individual toe impressions
                  | apart from the hallux.

                  | [4] Clarke, R.J. (1979). Early hominid footprints
                  | from Tanzania. S. Afr. J. Sci. 75: 148–149.
                  |
                  | [5] Deloison, Y. (1991). Les australopitheques
                  | marchaeientils comme nous? In Y. Coppens & B.
                  | Senut (eds) Origine(s) de la Bipédie chez les
                  | Hominidés. CNRS, Paris, pp 177–186.

                  Now, the fact is, David, that your entire article on this was based
                  on a false premise. Thank you for acknowledging that you
                  misrepresented this matter.

                  You state to me that "it appears that you are going to side with the
                  idea that the Little Foot specimen COULD have made the Laetoli
                  prints. I'm sure you'll have lots of evolutionists who will also
                  agree, since this is so damaging to their pet theory. Do you have
                  your argument prepared yet for if the aust. couldn't have made the
                  prints? I'm sure you'll have one. Either way evolution always wins,
                  eh?"

                  The truth is that I haven't "sided" with any idea on the Laetoli
                  footprints. As a matter of fact, I've never examined this particular
                  issue at all before now when you brought it up and I read your
                  comments. As I've begun to examine it -- and I've only just begin to
                  do so -- I've immediately found that you badly misrepresented the
                  matter, and that is what everyone who is genuinely interested in
                  understanding the details about this particular issue should
                  understand.

                  And I see by your comments how you love to try to paint anyone who
                  would dare accept biological evolution with the brush of being biased
                  about the objective evidence. But the fact is, we already know who is
                  biased against accepting the objective data. The direct observation
                  of the supernova SN1987A that exploded 168,000 years ago isn't going
                  to vanish into thin air, David. We already know that you are so
                  biased against the objective data that you have chosen to deny that
                  this data (and almost all of astronomical observation of the
                  universe) is even real. So please don't try to use this bias brush
                  against anyone, because you've already been rolling in the pan.

                  Sincerely,
                  Steve Heiden
                • Todd S. Greene
                  ... Hi, David. 1. What age do you regard the Laetoli footprints to be? The age of the Laetoli footprints is determined by radiometric dating of the geologic
                  Message 8 of 27 , Aug 1, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In Maury_and_Baty, David Willis wrote (post #2082):
                    > --- In Maury_and_Baty, Todd Greene wrote:
                    >> --- In Maury_and_Baty, David Willis wrote (post #2048):
                    >> [snip]
                    >>> Todd, you are an atheist and accept macroevolution...right? Will
                    >>> you answer these questions for me?
                    >>>
                    >>> 1. What age do you regard the Laetoli footprints to be?
                    >>>
                    >>> 2. What creature is the most likely one to have made them?
                    >>>
                    >>> 3. If a human made them, how would that affect your view of
                    >>> human evolution?

                    Hi, David.

                    1. What age do you regard the Laetoli footprints to be?

                    The age of the Laetoli footprints is determined by radiometric dating
                    of the geologic layers between which the layer that the footprints
                    are in is sandwiched. Without looking it up, what I "guess-recalling"
                    is that the layer is estimated to be from around 3-1/2 million years
                    ago.

                    2. What creature is the most likely one to have made them?

                    Of the fossil animals that have been discovered that were around at
                    that particular time, the Australopithecus.

                    3. The footprints can't have been made by modern humans because
                    modern humans did not exist 3 million years ago. (Indeed, Homo
                    erectus didn't even exist 3 million years ago.)

                    >> We already had this discussion. I was using the pseudonym and
                    >> persona of Steve Heiden at the time.
                    [snip]

                    > So...you have had 1.5 years to come up with an answer to my
                    > simple question. Why is it you believe that the size of a 7 inch
                    > footprint would cause us to conclude that the Laetoli prints
                    > could not be made by a human??? Can you admit now that was a
                    > bogus retort to my argument?

                    Who said that the size *alone* established anything? This is a matter
                    of ambiguity. The size *alone* establishes nothing at all. The
                    footprints can't have been made by modern humans because modern human
                    simply didn't exist 3 million years ago.

                    > Since (based on what the recent Little Foot find from
                    > Sterkfontein proves) it is IMPOSSIBLE that an australopithecine
                    > could have made the Laetoli prints (despite what a small number
                    > of ev's may STILL say) and since there is NO OTHER CANDIDATE for
                    > the track-maker, then a true scientist would conclude that the
                    > best conclusion is that humans made the tracks, AND that the
                    > dating presumptions made by evolutionists are false.

                    This is nothing more than your (non-expert, biased YEC opinion).
                    Furthermore, no creationist has ever established anything at all
                    regarding their claims about dating "presumptions" made
                    by "evolutionists." Indeed, in case after case after case after case
                    after case after case after... well, you get the picture... what we
                    find is that young earth creationists make an awful lot of false
                    presumptions in their religious propaganda efforts attacking
                    astronomy and geology.

                    Regards,
                    Todd S. Greene
                    http://www.creationism.cc/
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.