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

DBWillis' foot fault!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    Given DBWillis apparent expression of concern about how he has tried to make something out of his Laetoli footprint position, I thought I would have a try
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 29, 2006
      Given DBWillis' "apparent" expression of concern about how he has tried to make something out of his Laetoli footprint position, I thought I would have a try at reconsidering that discussion and expressing my own opinion as to DBWillis' "apparent" concerns and the nature of his effort here.

      Following my name below are excerpts from what I considered relevant posts; mostly from DBWillis himself, but also some from Todd (who typically does a better job on the analysis of the substance of the details).

      Here are some of my observations:

      1. DBWillis has not accurately represented the scientific side of the issue.

      2. DBWillis believes the footprints were made by modern humans not more than a few thousand years ago.

      3. DBWillis' position is independent of the relevant science and is based on his theological position that nothing is more than a few thousand years old.

      4. DBWillis' fundamental problem has to do with the age of the footprints, but he refuses to actually sign Todd's propositions to discuss the evidence of age issue in a formal, in writing, for the record discussion.
      DBWillis has already admitted that the real world evidence is consistent with an ancient age for those footprints and many other things (i.e., his "apparent age" position).

      5. I think we can all agree that, if DBWillis can demonstrate that the footprints are not more than a few thousand years old, then it would be reasonable to conclude that they were made by someone likened unto us. Age does matter, but DBWillis has already admitted that the real world evidence is consistent with an ancient age for those footprints and many other things (i.e., his "apparent age" position).

      6. It is not true that DBWillis has shown that humans walked at Laetoli as DBWillis claimed.

      7. It is not true that the real science supports the tracks being human as DBWillis claimed.

      8. The context of the professional discussion is not as DBWillis might have led some to believe, but rather as Todd suggests; a discussion regarding how bipedal locomotion developed before modern humans came along.

      9. DBWillis admits that it is possible for some creature which is not a modern human to leave a foot print which "appears" to be the same as a modern human footprint.

      10. DBWillis is welcome to believe the Laetoli footprints are from a modern human and that they were left no more than a few thousand years ago and that based on his interpretation of a certain religious text. Where he gets into trouble, with justified criticism, is when he tries to promote his position by misusing the history of the scientific investigations and the men behind them.

      11. In the final analysis, it simply "appears" to be the case that DBWillis' footprint hobby really doesn't have anything substantive to offer by way of falsifying evolution or substantiating, by way of real world evidence, that nothing is more than a few thousand years old.

      Well, that's kinda where I am on the subject, and I offer this analysis for discussion should there be any that want to add anything or correct anything by way of my analysis.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

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

      Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
      Message #8108
      September 21, 2006

      > (T)here are footprints identical
      > to modern humans' in the volcanic
      > ash of Laetoli dated by radiometric
      > methods at 3.8 mya.

      > No...creature (except a human)
      > has a foot that could make such
      > tracks.

      > (I)f humans walked the earth
      > at that time, evolution falls
      > into the trash heap.

      > David Willis

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

      Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
      Message #8119
      September 21, 2006

      > All you did was spit out the
      > biased claim of those who
      > MUST make the monkey
      > foot fit into the human track.

      > Having the biased ev's tell us
      > to believe them rather than our
      > lying eyes...is not good enough.

      > Time to pretend that the monkey
      > foot could make human tracks
      > and hope there are dummies out
      > there who will buy it.

      > I guess there are some, but I'm
      > not one of them.

      > DW

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

      Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
      Message #8129
      September 21, 2006

      > A monkey foot cannot make
      > a human track...unless you
      > are determined to FORCE an
      > ugly sister's foot into the
      > glass slipper.

      > Jack:

      >> Please present your scientific
      >> evidence for a young earth ,
      >> but stick to the scientific
      >> evidence .

      > I did.

      > I refuted one aspect of AE which
      > says that humans are recent on
      > the earth and only pre-human
      > hominid creatures would be found
      > on earth 3.8 mya.

      > I showed that humans walked at
      > Laetoli...

      > No reasonable person who is not
      > biased could contend that a
      > chimp-like foot could have made
      > the Laetoli tracks.

      > (I)f you saw them in the sand on
      > the beach today you would have
      > no doubt at all that it was a
      > human who made them.

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

      Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
      Message #8136
      September 21, 2006

      > I am hoping to see if there is
      > anyone on this list who is
      > inquisitive and can see
      > something as easy to spot as
      > the fact that...

      > Or that a monkey foot can't
      > make a human track.

      > DW

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

      Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
      Message #8158
      September 23, 2006

      > I don't believe a human walked
      > 3.8 mya.

      > I do believe that the evidence,
      > once you rule out the "dating
      > problem" which AE's have,
      > points to the fact that
      > the Laetoli tracks DATED at
      > 3.8 mya are human.

      > DW

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

      Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
      Message #8187
      September 23, 2006

      > (M)any... NON-creationists
      > regarded the Laetoli tracks
      > as being very modern and
      > human-like.

      > I was for some time of the
      > opinion that few if any
      > disputed that, and so I may
      > have worded my statements
      > as if ALL thought that.

      > DW

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

      Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
      Message #8189
      September 23, 2006

      > (I)s it fair to say that IF the
      > evidence points to those feet
      > in Laetoli being virtually identical
      > to ours today, then since we now
      > know that a-pith feet were much
      > much different than ours...

      > then

      > either there is some OTHER
      > unknown pre-human hominid
      > out there... who made them...or
      > else evolution is wrong.

      > IF they are truly human like...

      > then

      > the science favors the view that
      > evolution and AE dating methods
      > are wrong...at least until another
      > pre-human candidate can be found.

      > (T)he real science supports it being
      > a human.

      > DW

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

      Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
      Message #8225
      September 24, 2006

      > Laetoli footprints were made
      > by modern humans

      > I have said that MANY if not
      > THE MAJORITY of AE ev's prior
      > to 1995 (when the Little Foot
      > fossil, STW 573, was revealed)
      > regarded the tracks as being
      > MODERN IN APPEARANCE and
      > human-like.

      > But they thought some pre-human
      > creature (most would say
      > a. afarensis) made them, rather
      > than accepting what the evidence
      > pointed to...that a human walked
      > in that volcanic ash.

      > ...Tuttle...is a committed evolutionist
      > and is biased if not dishonest...and
      > can't fit it in with his presumptions
      > about dates and the age of the
      > earth.

      > (H)e cannot conclude they
      > ACTUALLY WERE made by
      > humans.

      > DW

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

      Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
      Message #8237
      September 25, 2006


      > Re: Laetoli footprints were made
      > by modern humans

      > (I)t's David who is twisting the
      > words of paleoanthropologists.

      > ...David doesn't really understand
      > the context of what they're
      > talking about.

      > Note the words "in appearance"
      > and "like" (in "human-like").

      > This has to do with the fact that
      > paleoanthropologists realized
      > that bidedality similar to our own
      > evolved early (over 3 million years
      > ago).

      > David has COMPLETELY IGNORED
      > THIS CONTEXT...

      > (A) fossilised footprint of a *Homo
      > erectus* would also be
      > indistinguishable from modern
      > human prints.

      > But *Homo erectus* is not
      > a modern human.

      > This is the BLATANT FALLACY that
      > destroys David's entire argument.

      > Pretty amazing that in at least five
      > years of having the fallacy explained
      > to him he is incapable of figuring it
      > out.

      > We already know that, say, a
      > Homo habilis or a Homo erectus
      > would make footprints like that
      > (showing a bipedality and a foot
      > print like that of modern humans) -
      > and they are certainly not modern
      > humans.

      > Notice how David has completely
      > ignored this fallacy in his argument.

      > The best that David can come up
      > with is that paleoanthropologists
      > argue about what species exactly
      > made the footprints.

      > (Not one single paleoanthropologist
      > is talking about the footprints being
      > made by modern humans.

      > Now read David's subject header
      > and tell me the man is not lying
      > about what the paleoanthropologists
      > are talking about.)

      > But he pretends they're talking
      > about being made by modern
      > humans by completely ignoring
      > the context of the paleoanthro-
      > poligical discussion - and worse
      > he completely ignores the fact
      > that we already know about
      > hominid ancestors prior to modern
      > humans (back to at least two
      > million years ago; this is the Homo
      > habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo
      > erectus, and Homo heidelbergensis,
      > who have a bipedality and foot-
      > prints just like ours).

      > - Todd Greene

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

      Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
      Message #8255
      September 26, 2006

      > I'm going to make a very brief
      > reply to set the record straight...

      > I challenge Todd to produce any
      > quote from me saying that any
      > AE ev thinks a human actually
      > made the Laetoli prints.

      > He says I've misrepresented them
      > by claiming that about them...now
      > he should put up or shut up...

      > What I DID say (and have ALWAYS
      > said) was that many (even AE ev's)
      > have said the Laetoli tracks appear
      > like human prints...that they are
      > modern in appearance...that they
      > are indistinguishable from humans.

      > If all we are judging is how they
      > appear...then one would conclude
      > they were made by humans.

      > However that is not what the AE's
      > actually conclude...because they
      > just have so much faith in their
      > theory, and it would require
      > them to abandon evolution and
      > AE to admit to that.

      > But if they set aside their
      > prejudices and just looked at
      > this part of the evidence, it
      > would suggest humans made
      > the tracks.

      > Todd should stop lying about me.

      > What I have said about these AE
      > scientists is TRUE.

      > David Willis

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

      Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
      Message #8256
      September 26, 2006

      > (W)e see David promoting his
      > conspiracy theory. Modern
      > science is all just an evolutionist
      > conspiracy. Yeah, sure.

      > The day that David openly, clearly,
      > and explicitly states that Tuttle
      > is specifically referring to something
      > like Homo habilis is the day that I
      > shall not apologize for anything
      > but telling the truth, and then
      > thanking David for finally
      > acknowledging the obvious.
      >
      > David ignores the context of their
      > discussion, and so purposely
      > distorts the meaning of what they
      > are talking about.

      > The fact of this has been pointed
      > out to him many times. Yet he
      > continues to promote the
      > distortion in meaning.

      > This is deceitful.

      > David continues with his
      > meaningless argument-by-
      > equivocality, and continues to
      > PURPOSELY IGNORE the fact
      > that it is not just modern
      > human who could have made
      > such footprints.

      > This is deceitful.

      > David wants us to use the sieve
      > of the ~a priori~ assumptions
      > of young earth creationism to
      > filter out all the relevant
      > scientific facts, such as those from
      > paleontology, geology, and
      > geophysics.

      > That's right. If one ignores the
      > relevant scientific facts...then
      > one could conclude that they
      > were the footprints of modern
      > humans.

      > In other words, if they ignore all
      > of the relevant scientific data
      > that young earth creationists
      > don't like...

      > On this single sentence, I agree
      > with David. If we ignore all of
      > the other scientific data, then
      > we might think the tracks were
      > made by modern humans (with
      > small feet).

      > David wants everyone to ignore
      > Tuttle is really talking about.

      > David should stop trying to deceive
      > people about what the
      > paleoanthropologists, including
      > Tuttle, are talking about.

      > David...is not at all fair with the
      > scientific evidence since he has
      > already argued that we should
      > purposely ignore the fossil record,
      > the geology, and the geophysics.

      > It doesn't matter what a young
      > earth creationist considers them.

      > Essentially David's whole argument
      > is based on saying that the features
      > of bipedality and basic physical
      > features of the human foot could
      > not have evolved before 200,000
      > years ago... David's argument is a
      > logical fallacy.

      > David purposely ignores almost
      > all of the relevant science, and
      > purposely ignores the context
      > of the paleoanthropological
      > discussion, and then on top of
      > that makes a fallacious argument
      > based on equivocality, all because
      > the religious doctrine of young
      > earth creationism is so much
      > stronger than the science.

      > - Todd Greene

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

      Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
      Message #8291
      September 27, 2006

      > All I did was speak the truth
      > about what some AE's had
      > said about the APPEARANCE
      > of the Laetoli tracks...

      > I did not lie or misrepresent
      > AT ALL what Clarke and Tobias
      > said.

      > I did NOT say that they thought
      > that humans made them.

      > David Willis

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



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Robert Baty
      It has been several hours since I originally sent this in. It didn t post to the archives or show up in my in-box. So, I m sending it again (Saturday, Sept.
      Message 2 of 4 , Sep 30, 2006
        It has been several hours since I originally sent this in. It didn't post to the archives or show up in my in-box. So, I'm sending it again (Saturday, Sept. 30, 2006, 6:33 a.m. MT).

        Given DBWillis' "apparent" expression of concern about how he has tried to make something out of his Laetoli footprint position, I thought I would have a try at reconsidering that discussion and expressing my own opinion as to DBWillis' "apparent" concerns and the nature of his effort here.

        Following my name below are excerpts from what I considered relevant posts; mostly from DBWillis himself, but also some from Todd (who typically does a better job on the analysis of the substance of the details).

        Here are some of my observations:

        1. DBWillis has not accurately represented the scientific side of the issue.

        2. DBWillis believes the footprints were made by modern humans not more than a few thousand years ago.

        3. DBWillis' position is independent of the relevant science and is based on his theological position that nothing is more than a few thousand years old.

        4. DBWillis' fundamental problem has to do with the age of the footprints, but he refuses to actually sign Todd's propositions to discuss the evidence of age issue in a formal, in writing, for the record discussion.
        DBWillis has already admitted that the real world evidence is consistent with an ancient age for those footprints and many other things (i.e., his "apparent age" position).

        5. I think we can all agree that, if DBWillis can demonstrate that the footprints are not more than a few thousand years old, then it would be reasonable to conclude that they were made by someone likened unto us. Age does matter, but DBWillis has already admitted that the real world evidence is consistent with an ancient age for those footprints and many other things (i.e., his "apparent age" position).

        6. It is not true that DBWillis has shown that humans walked at Laetoli as DBWillis claimed.

        7. It is not true that the real science supports the tracks being human as DBWillis claimed.

        8. The context of the professional discussion is not as DBWillis might have led some to believe, but rather as Todd suggests; a discussion regarding how bipedal locomotion developed before modern humans came along.

        9. DBWillis admits that it is possible for some creature which is not a modern human to leave a foot print which "appears" to be the same as a modern human footprint.

        10. DBWillis is welcome to believe the Laetoli footprints are from a modern human and that they were left no more than a few thousand years ago and that based on his interpretation of a certain religious text. Where he gets into trouble, with justified criticism, is when he tries to promote his position by misusing the history of the scientific investigations and the men behind them.

        11. In the final analysis, it simply "appears" to be the case that DBWillis' footprint hobby really doesn't have anything substantive to offer by way of falsifying evolution or substantiating, by way of real world evidence, that nothing is more than a few thousand years old.

        Well, that's kinda where I am on the subject, and I offer this analysis for discussion should there be any that want to add anything or correct anything by way of my analysis.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

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

        Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
        Message #8108
        September 21, 2006

        > (T)here are footprints identical
        > to modern humans' in the volcanic
        > ash of Laetoli dated by radiometric
        > methods at 3.8 mya.

        > No...creature (except a human)
        > has a foot that could make such
        > tracks.

        > (I)f humans walked the earth
        > at that time, evolution falls
        > into the trash heap.

        > David Willis

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

        Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
        Message #8119
        September 21, 2006

        > All you did was spit out the
        > biased claim of those who
        > MUST make the monkey
        > foot fit into the human track.

        > Having the biased ev's tell us
        > to believe them rather than our
        > lying eyes...is not good enough.

        > Time to pretend that the monkey
        > foot could make human tracks
        > and hope there are dummies out
        > there who will buy it.

        > I guess there are some, but I'm
        > not one of them.

        > DW

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

        Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
        Message #8129
        September 21, 2006

        > A monkey foot cannot make
        > a human track...unless you
        > are determined to FORCE an
        > ugly sister's foot into the
        > glass slipper.

        > Jack:

        >> Please present your scientific
        >> evidence for a young earth ,
        >> but stick to the scientific
        >> evidence .

        > I did.

        > I refuted one aspect of AE which
        > says that humans are recent on
        > the earth and only pre-human
        > hominid creatures would be found
        > on earth 3.8 mya.

        > I showed that humans walked at
        > Laetoli...

        > No reasonable person who is not
        > biased could contend that a
        > chimp-like foot could have made
        > the Laetoli tracks.

        > (I)f you saw them in the sand on
        > the beach today you would have
        > no doubt at all that it was a
        > human who made them.

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

        Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
        Message #8136
        September 21, 2006

        > I am hoping to see if there is
        > anyone on this list who is
        > inquisitive and can see
        > something as easy to spot as
        > the fact that...

        > Or that a monkey foot can't
        > make a human track.

        > DW

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

        Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
        Message #8158
        September 23, 2006

        > I don't believe a human walked
        > 3.8 mya.

        > I do believe that the evidence,
        > once you rule out the "dating
        > problem" which AE's have,
        > points to the fact that
        > the Laetoli tracks DATED at
        > 3.8 mya are human.

        > DW

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

        Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
        Message #8187
        September 23, 2006

        > (M)any... NON-creationists
        > regarded the Laetoli tracks
        > as being very modern and
        > human-like.

        > I was for some time of the
        > opinion that few if any
        > disputed that, and so I may
        > have worded my statements
        > as if ALL thought that.

        > DW

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

        Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
        Message #8189
        September 23, 2006

        > (I)s it fair to say that IF the
        > evidence points to those feet
        > in Laetoli being virtually identical
        > to ours today, then since we now
        > know that a-pith feet were much
        > much different than ours...

        > then

        > either there is some OTHER
        > unknown pre-human hominid
        > out there... who made them...or
        > else evolution is wrong.

        > IF they are truly human like...

        > then

        > the science favors the view that
        > evolution and AE dating methods
        > are wrong...at least until another
        > pre-human candidate can be found.

        > (T)he real science supports it being
        > a human.

        > DW

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

        Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
        Message #8225
        September 24, 2006

        > Laetoli footprints were made
        > by modern humans

        > I have said that MANY if not
        > THE MAJORITY of AE ev's prior
        > to 1995 (when the Little Foot
        > fossil, STW 573, was revealed)
        > regarded the tracks as being
        > MODERN IN APPEARANCE and
        > human-like.

        > But they thought some pre-human
        > creature (most would say
        > a. afarensis) made them, rather
        > than accepting what the evidence
        > pointed to...that a human walked
        > in that volcanic ash.

        > ...Tuttle...is a committed evolutionist
        > and is biased if not dishonest...and
        > can't fit it in with his presumptions
        > about dates and the age of the
        > earth.

        > (H)e cannot conclude they
        > ACTUALLY WERE made by
        > humans.

        > DW

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

        Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
        Message #8237
        September 25, 2006


        > Re: Laetoli footprints were made
        > by modern humans

        > (I)t's David who is twisting the
        > words of paleoanthropologists.

        > ...David doesn't really understand
        > the context of what they're
        > talking about.

        > Note the words "in appearance"
        > and "like" (in "human-like").

        > This has to do with the fact that
        > paleoanthropologists realized
        > that bidedality similar to our own
        > evolved early (over 3 million years
        > ago).

        > David has COMPLETELY IGNORED
        > THIS CONTEXT...

        > (A) fossilised footprint of a *Homo
        > erectus* would also be
        > indistinguishable from modern
        > human prints.

        > But *Homo erectus* is not
        > a modern human.

        > This is the BLATANT FALLACY that
        > destroys David's entire argument.

        > Pretty amazing that in at least five
        > years of having the fallacy explained
        > to him he is incapable of figuring it
        > out.

        > We already know that, say, a
        > Homo habilis or a Homo erectus
        > would make footprints like that
        > (showing a bipedality and a foot
        > print like that of modern humans) -
        > and they are certainly not modern
        > humans.

        > Notice how David has completely
        > ignored this fallacy in his argument.

        > The best that David can come up
        > with is that paleoanthropologists
        > argue about what species exactly
        > made the footprints.

        > (Not one single paleoanthropologist
        > is talking about the footprints being
        > made by modern humans.

        > Now read David's subject header
        > and tell me the man is not lying
        > about what the paleoanthropologists
        > are talking about.)

        > But he pretends they're talking
        > about being made by modern
        > humans by completely ignoring
        > the context of the paleoanthro-
        > poligical discussion - and worse
        > he completely ignores the fact
        > that we already know about
        > hominid ancestors prior to modern
        > humans (back to at least two
        > million years ago; this is the Homo
        > habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo
        > erectus, and Homo heidelbergensis,
        > who have a bipedality and foot-
        > prints just like ours).

        > - Todd Greene

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

        Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
        Message #8255
        September 26, 2006

        > I'm going to make a very brief
        > reply to set the record straight...

        > I challenge Todd to produce any
        > quote from me saying that any
        > AE ev thinks a human actually
        > made the Laetoli prints.

        > He says I've misrepresented them
        > by claiming that about them...now
        > he should put up or shut up...

        > What I DID say (and have ALWAYS
        > said) was that many (even AE ev's)
        > have said the Laetoli tracks appear
        > like human prints...that they are
        > modern in appearance...that they
        > are indistinguishable from humans.

        > If all we are judging is how they
        > appear...then one would conclude
        > they were made by humans.

        > However that is not what the AE's
        > actually conclude...because they
        > just have so much faith in their
        > theory, and it would require
        > them to abandon evolution and
        > AE to admit to that.

        > But if they set aside their
        > prejudices and just looked at
        > this part of the evidence, it
        > would suggest humans made
        > the tracks.

        > Todd should stop lying about me.

        > What I have said about these AE
        > scientists is TRUE.

        > David Willis

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

        Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
        Message #8256
        September 26, 2006

        > (W)e see David promoting his
        > conspiracy theory. Modern
        > science is all just an evolutionist
        > conspiracy. Yeah, sure.

        > The day that David openly, clearly,
        > and explicitly states that Tuttle
        > is specifically referring to something
        > like Homo habilis is the day that I
        > shall not apologize for anything
        > but telling the truth, and then
        > thanking David for finally
        > acknowledging the obvious.
        >
        > David ignores the context of their
        > discussion, and so purposely
        > distorts the meaning of what they
        > are talking about.

        > The fact of this has been pointed
        > out to him many times. Yet he
        > continues to promote the
        > distortion in meaning.

        > This is deceitful.

        > David continues with his
        > meaningless argument-by-
        > equivocality, and continues to
        > PURPOSELY IGNORE the fact
        > that it is not just modern
        > human who could have made
        > such footprints.

        > This is deceitful.

        > David wants us to use the sieve
        > of the ~a priori~ assumptions
        > of young earth creationism to
        > filter out all the relevant
        > scientific facts, such as those from
        > paleontology, geology, and
        > geophysics.

        > That's right. If one ignores the
        > relevant scientific facts...then
        > one could conclude that they
        > were the footprints of modern
        > humans.

        > In other words, if they ignore all
        > of the relevant scientific data
        > that young earth creationists
        > don't like...

        > On this single sentence, I agree
        > with David. If we ignore all of
        > the other scientific data, then
        > we might think the tracks were
        > made by modern humans (with
        > small feet).

        > David wants everyone to ignore
        > Tuttle is really talking about.

        > David should stop trying to deceive
        > people about what the
        > paleoanthropologists, including
        > Tuttle, are talking about.

        > David...is not at all fair with the
        > scientific evidence since he has
        > already argued that we should
        > purposely ignore the fossil record,
        > the geology, and the geophysics.

        > It doesn't matter what a young
        > earth creationist considers them.

        > Essentially David's whole argument
        > is based on saying that the features
        > of bipedality and basic physical
        > features of the human foot could
        > not have evolved before 200,000
        > years ago... David's argument is a
        > logical fallacy.

        > David purposely ignores almost
        > all of the relevant science, and
        > purposely ignores the context
        > of the paleoanthropological
        > discussion, and then on top of
        > that makes a fallacious argument
        > based on equivocality, all because
        > the religious doctrine of young
        > earth creationism is so much
        > stronger than the science.

        > - Todd Greene

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

        Maury_and_Baty �� Maury and Baty
        Message #8291
        September 27, 2006

        > All I did was speak the truth
        > about what some AE's had
        > said about the APPEARANCE
        > of the Laetoli tracks...

        > I did not lie or misrepresent
        > AT ALL what Clarke and Tobias
        > said.

        > I did NOT say that they thought
        > that humans made them.

        > David Willis

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





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • rlbaty50
        OK, I ve sent this twice from my WebTv mailbox. Now I m going to try it from the list website. Saturday, Sept. 30, 2006, 7:09 a.m. MT. Given DBWillis
        Message 3 of 4 , Sep 30, 2006
          OK, I've sent this twice from my WebTv mailbox. Now I'm going to try
          it from the list website. Saturday, Sept. 30, 2006, 7:09 a.m. MT.

          Given DBWillis' "apparent" expression of concern about how he has
          tried to make something out of his Laetoli footprint position, I
          thought I would have a try at reconsidering that discussion and
          expressing my own opinion as to DBWillis' "apparent" concerns and the
          nature of his effort here.

          Following my name below are excerpts from what I considered relevant
          posts; mostly from DBWillis himself, but also some from Todd (who
          typically does a better job on the analysis of the substance of the
          details).

          Here are some of my observations:

          1. DBWillis has not accurately represented the scientific side of the
          issue.

          2. DBWillis believes the footprints were made by modern humans not
          more than a few thousand years ago.

          3. DBWillis' position is independent of the relevant science and is
          based on his theological position that nothing is more than a few
          thousand years old.

          4. DBWillis' fundamental problem has to do with the age of the
          footprints, but he refuses to actually sign Todd's propositions to
          discuss the evidence of age issue in a formal, in writing, for the
          record discussion.
          DBWillis has already admitted that the real world evidence is
          consistent with an ancient age for those footprints and many other
          things (i.e., his "apparent age" position).

          5. I think we can all agree that, if DBWillis can demonstrate that the
          footprints are not more than a few thousand years old, then it would
          be reasonable to conclude that they were made by someone likened unto
          us. Age does matter, but DBWillis has already admitted that the real
          world evidence is consistent with an ancient age for those footprints
          and many other things (i.e., his "apparent age" position).

          6. It is not true that DBWillis has shown that humans walked at
          Laetoli as DBWillis claimed.

          7. It is not true that the real science supports the tracks being
          human as DBWillis claimed.

          8. The context of the professional discussion is not as DBWillis might
          have led some to believe, but rather as Todd suggests; a discussion
          regarding how bipedal locomotion developed before modern humans came
          along.

          9. DBWillis admits that it is possible for some creature which is not
          a modern human to leave a foot print which "appears" to be the same as
          a modern human footprint.

          10. DBWillis is welcome to believe the Laetoli footprints are from a
          modern human and that they were left no more than a few thousand years
          ago and that based on his interpretation of a certain religious text.
          Where he gets into trouble, with justified criticism, is when he tries
          to promote his position by misusing the history of the scientific
          investigations and the men behind them.

          11. In the final analysis, it simply "appears" to be the case that
          DBWillis' footprint hobby really doesn't have anything substantive to
          offer by way of falsifying evolution or substantiating, by way of real
          world evidence, that nothing is more than a few thousand years old.

          Well, that's kinda where I am on the subject, and I offer this
          analysis for discussion should there be any that want to add anything
          or correct anything by way of my analysis.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty

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

          Maury_and_Baty · Maury and Baty
          Message #8108
          September 21, 2006

          > (T)here are footprints identical
          > to modern humans' in the volcanic
          > ash of Laetoli dated by radiometric
          > methods at 3.8 mya.

          > No...creature (except a human)
          > has a foot that could make such
          > tracks.

          > (I)f humans walked the earth
          > at that time, evolution falls
          > into the trash heap.

          > David Willis

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

          Maury_and_Baty · Maury and Baty
          Message #8119
          September 21, 2006

          > All you did was spit out the
          > biased claim of those who
          > MUST make the monkey
          > foot fit into the human track.

          > Having the biased ev's tell us
          > to believe them rather than our
          > lying eyes...is not good enough.

          > Time to pretend that the monkey
          > foot could make human tracks
          > and hope there are dummies out
          > there who will buy it.

          > I guess there are some, but I'm
          > not one of them.

          > DW

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

          Maury_and_Baty · Maury and Baty
          Message #8129
          September 21, 2006

          > A monkey foot cannot make
          > a human track...unless you
          > are determined to FORCE an
          > ugly sister's foot into the
          > glass slipper.

          > Jack:

          >> Please present your scientific
          >> evidence for a young earth ,
          >> but stick to the scientific
          >> evidence .

          > I did.

          > I refuted one aspect of AE which
          > says that humans are recent on
          > the earth and only pre-human
          > hominid creatures would be found
          > on earth 3.8 mya.

          > I showed that humans walked at
          > Laetoli...

          > No reasonable person who is not
          > biased could contend that a
          > chimp-like foot could have made
          > the Laetoli tracks.

          > (I)f you saw them in the sand on
          > the beach today you would have
          > no doubt at all that it was a
          > human who made them.

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

          Maury_and_Baty · Maury and Baty
          Message #8136
          September 21, 2006

          > I am hoping to see if there is
          > anyone on this list who is
          > inquisitive and can see
          > something as easy to spot as
          > the fact that...

          > Or that a monkey foot can't
          > make a human track.

          > DW

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

          Maury_and_Baty · Maury and Baty
          Message #8158
          September 23, 2006

          > I don't believe a human walked
          > 3.8 mya.

          > I do believe that the evidence,
          > once you rule out the "dating
          > problem" which AE's have,
          > points to the fact that
          > the Laetoli tracks DATED at
          > 3.8 mya are human.

          > DW

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

          Maury_and_Baty · Maury and Baty
          Message #8187
          September 23, 2006

          > (M)any... NON-creationists
          > regarded the Laetoli tracks
          > as being very modern and
          > human-like.

          > I was for some time of the
          > opinion that few if any
          > disputed that, and so I may
          > have worded my statements
          > as if ALL thought that.

          > DW

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

          Maury_and_Baty · Maury and Baty
          Message #8189
          September 23, 2006

          > (I)s it fair to say that IF the
          > evidence points to those feet
          > in Laetoli being virtually identical
          > to ours today, then since we now
          > know that a-pith feet were much
          > much different than ours...

          > then

          > either there is some OTHER
          > unknown pre-human hominid
          > out there... who made them...or
          > else evolution is wrong.

          > IF they are truly human like...

          > then

          > the science favors the view that
          > evolution and AE dating methods
          > are wrong...at least until another
          > pre-human candidate can be found.

          > (T)he real science supports it being
          > a human.

          > DW

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

          Maury_and_Baty · Maury and Baty
          Message #8225
          September 24, 2006

          > Laetoli footprints were made
          > by modern humans

          > I have said that MANY if not
          > THE MAJORITY of AE ev's prior
          > to 1995 (when the Little Foot
          > fossil, STW 573, was revealed)
          > regarded the tracks as being
          > MODERN IN APPEARANCE and
          > human-like.

          > But they thought some pre-human
          > creature (most would say
          > a. afarensis) made them, rather
          > than accepting what the evidence
          > pointed to...that a human walked
          > in that volcanic ash.

          > ...Tuttle...is a committed evolutionist
          > and is biased if not dishonest...and
          > can't fit it in with his presumptions
          > about dates and the age of the
          > earth.

          > (H)e cannot conclude they
          > ACTUALLY WERE made by
          > humans.

          > DW

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

          Maury_and_Baty · Maury and Baty
          Message #8237
          September 25, 2006


          > Re: Laetoli footprints were made
          > by modern humans

          > (I)t's David who is twisting the
          > words of paleoanthropologists.

          > ...David doesn't really understand
          > the context of what they're
          > talking about.

          > Note the words "in appearance"
          > and "like" (in "human-like").

          > This has to do with the fact that
          > paleoanthropologists realized
          > that bidedality similar to our own
          > evolved early (over 3 million years
          > ago).

          > David has COMPLETELY IGNORED
          > THIS CONTEXT...

          > (A) fossilised footprint of a *Homo
          > erectus* would also be
          > indistinguishable from modern
          > human prints.

          > But *Homo erectus* is not
          > a modern human.

          > This is the BLATANT FALLACY that
          > destroys David's entire argument.

          > Pretty amazing that in at least five
          > years of having the fallacy explained
          > to him he is incapable of figuring it
          > out.

          > We already know that, say, a
          > Homo habilis or a Homo erectus
          > would make footprints like that
          > (showing a bipedality and a foot
          > print like that of modern humans) -
          > and they are certainly not modern
          > humans.

          > Notice how David has completely
          > ignored this fallacy in his argument.

          > The best that David can come up
          > with is that paleoanthropologists
          > argue about what species exactly
          > made the footprints.

          > (Not one single paleoanthropologist
          > is talking about the footprints being
          > made by modern humans.

          > Now read David's subject header
          > and tell me the man is not lying
          > about what the paleoanthropologists
          > are talking about.)

          > But he pretends they're talking
          > about being made by modern
          > humans by completely ignoring
          > the context of the paleoanthro-
          > poligical discussion - and worse
          > he completely ignores the fact
          > that we already know about
          > hominid ancestors prior to modern
          > humans (back to at least two
          > million years ago; this is the Homo
          > habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo
          > erectus, and Homo heidelbergensis,
          > who have a bipedality and foot-
          > prints just like ours).

          > - Todd Greene

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

          Maury_and_Baty · Maury and Baty
          Message #8255
          September 26, 2006

          > I'm going to make a very brief
          > reply to set the record straight...

          > I challenge Todd to produce any
          > quote from me saying that any
          > AE ev thinks a human actually
          > made the Laetoli prints.

          > He says I've misrepresented them
          > by claiming that about them...now
          > he should put up or shut up...

          > What I DID say (and have ALWAYS
          > said) was that many (even AE ev's)
          > have said the Laetoli tracks appear
          > like human prints...that they are
          > modern in appearance...that they
          > are indistinguishable from humans.

          > If all we are judging is how they
          > appear...then one would conclude
          > they were made by humans.

          > However that is not what the AE's
          > actually conclude...because they
          > just have so much faith in their
          > theory, and it would require
          > them to abandon evolution and
          > AE to admit to that.

          > But if they set aside their
          > prejudices and just looked at
          > this part of the evidence, it
          > would suggest humans made
          > the tracks.

          > Todd should stop lying about me.

          > What I have said about these AE
          > scientists is TRUE.

          > David Willis

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

          Maury_and_Baty · Maury and Baty
          Message #8256
          September 26, 2006

          > (W)e see David promoting his
          > conspiracy theory. Modern
          > science is all just an evolutionist
          > conspiracy. Yeah, sure.

          > The day that David openly, clearly,
          > and explicitly states that Tuttle
          > is specifically referring to something
          > like Homo habilis is the day that I
          > shall not apologize for anything
          > but telling the truth, and then
          > thanking David for finally
          > acknowledging the obvious.
          >
          > David ignores the context of their
          > discussion, and so purposely
          > distorts the meaning of what they
          > are talking about.

          > The fact of this has been pointed
          > out to him many times. Yet he
          > continues to promote the
          > distortion in meaning.

          > This is deceitful.

          > David continues with his
          > meaningless argument-by-
          > equivocality, and continues to
          > PURPOSELY IGNORE the fact
          > that it is not just modern
          > human who could have made
          > such footprints.

          > This is deceitful.

          > David wants us to use the sieve
          > of the ~a priori~ assumptions
          > of young earth creationism to
          > filter out all the relevant
          > scientific facts, such as those from
          > paleontology, geology, and
          > geophysics.

          > That's right. If one ignores the
          > relevant scientific facts...then
          > one could conclude that they
          > were the footprints of modern
          > humans.

          > In other words, if they ignore all
          > of the relevant scientific data
          > that young earth creationists
          > don't like...

          > On this single sentence, I agree
          > with David. If we ignore all of
          > the other scientific data, then
          > we might think the tracks were
          > made by modern humans (with
          > small feet).

          > David wants everyone to ignore
          > Tuttle is really talking about.

          > David should stop trying to deceive
          > people about what the
          > paleoanthropologists, including
          > Tuttle, are talking about.

          > David...is not at all fair with the
          > scientific evidence since he has
          > already argued that we should
          > purposely ignore the fossil record,
          > the geology, and the geophysics.

          > It doesn't matter what a young
          > earth creationist considers them.

          > Essentially David's whole argument
          > is based on saying that the features
          > of bipedality and basic physical
          > features of the human foot could
          > not have evolved before 200,000
          > years ago... David's argument is a
          > logical fallacy.

          > David purposely ignores almost
          > all of the relevant science, and
          > purposely ignores the context
          > of the paleoanthropological
          > discussion, and then on top of
          > that makes a fallacious argument
          > based on equivocality, all because
          > the religious doctrine of young
          > earth creationism is so much
          > stronger than the science.

          > - Todd Greene

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

          Maury_and_Baty · Maury and Baty
          Message #8291
          September 27, 2006

          > All I did was speak the truth
          > about what some AE's had
          > said about the APPEARANCE
          > of the Laetoli tracks...

          > I did not lie or misrepresent
          > AT ALL what Clarke and Tobias
          > said.

          > I did NOT say that they thought
          > that humans made them.

          > David Willis

          ------------------------------------
        • Todd S. Greene
          Hi Robert, I don t say this very often (intentionally; after all, we don t want to be littering the post archives with a bunch of Hear hear! posts), but this
          Message 4 of 4 , Oct 1, 2006
            Hi Robert,

            I don't say this very often (intentionally; after all, we don't want
            to be littering the post archives with a bunch of "Hear hear!"
            posts), but this one is so good because your points here do such an
            excellent job of clearly and concisely summarizing the topic of the
            Laetoli footprints in the context of their misrepresentation by David
            Willis in particular and young earth creationists in general.

            - Todd Greene


            --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #8326):
            > Given DBWillis' "apparent" expression of concern about how he has
            tried to make something out of his Laetoli footprint position, I
            thought I would have a try at reconsidering that discussion and
            expressing my own opinion as to DBWillis' "apparent" concerns and the
            nature of his effort here.
            >
            > Following my name below are excerpts from what I considered
            relevant posts; mostly from DBWillis himself, but also some from Todd
            (who typically does a better job on the analysis of the substance of
            the details).
            >
            > Here are some of my observations:
            >
            > 1. DBWillis has not accurately represented the scientific side of
            the issue.
            >
            > 2. DBWillis believes the footprints were made by modern humans not
            more than a few thousand years ago.
            >
            > 3. DBWillis' position is independent of the relevant science and
            is based on his theological position that nothing is more than a few
            thousand years old.
            >
            > 4. DBWillis' fundamental problem has to do with the age of the
            footprints, but he refuses to actually sign Todd's propositions to
            discuss the evidence of age issue in a formal, in writing, for the
            record discussion.
            > DBWillis has already admitted that the real world evidence is
            consistent with an ancient age for those footprints and many other
            things (i.e., his "apparent age" position).
            >
            > 5. I think we can all agree that, if DBWillis can demonstrate that
            the footprints are not more than a few thousand years old, then it
            would be reasonable to conclude that they were made by someone
            likened unto us. Age does matter, but DBWillis has already admitted
            that the real world evidence is consistent with an ancient age for
            those footprints and many other things (i.e., his "apparent age"
            position).
            >
            > 6. It is not true that DBWillis has shown that humans walked at
            Laetoli as DBWillis claimed.
            >
            > 7. It is not true that the real science supports the tracks being
            human as DBWillis claimed.
            >
            > 8. The context of the professional discussion is not as DBWillis
            might have led some to believe, but rather as Todd suggests; a
            discussion regarding how bipedal locomotion developed before modern
            humans came along.
            >
            > 9. DBWillis admits that it is possible for some creature which is
            not a modern human to leave a foot print which "appears" to be the
            same as a modern human footprint.
            >
            > 10. DBWillis is welcome to believe the Laetoli footprints are from
            a modern human and that they were left no more than a few thousand
            years ago and that based on his interpretation of a certain religious
            text. Where he gets into trouble, with justified criticism, is when
            he tries to promote his position by misusing the history of the
            scientific investigations and the men behind them.
            >
            > 11. In the final analysis, it simply "appears" to be the case that
            DBWillis' footprint hobby really doesn't have anything substantive to
            offer by way of falsifying evolution or substantiating, by way of
            real world evidence, that nothing is more than a few thousand years
            old.
            >
            > Well, that's kinda where I am on the subject, and I offer this
            analysis for discussion should there be any that want to add anything
            or correct anything by way of my analysis.
            >
            > Sincerely,
            > Robert Baty

            [snip]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.