Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: misc replies
Message-ID: <371@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-Feb-85 14:31:28 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.371
Posted: Thu Feb 21 14:31:28 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Feb-85 20:08:50 EST
References: <32500024@uiucdcsb.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 43
Summary: 

In article <32500024@uiucdcsb.UUCP> miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP writes:
> 
> ... One extra note, however:  no one can accuse
> the Soviet Union of having a "creationist bias".  In fact, this is the *last*
> thing I would expect to see in Pravda.

That's almost as amusing as your using Pravada as an authority.  Usually
rightwing Christians think of it as an organ of the "evil empire" used
solely for spouting heretical propaganda.  But then, I don't think much of
it (or most other newspapers) in terms of scientific accuracy.

> I was amused to see part of the same logic which is used as a defense against
> the Paluxy River human prints also used here.  [in the Pravda article]

Well then, I guess Pravda doesn't have a creationist bias, does it?

> That is, with the Paluxy prints
> evolutionists claim, depending upon how much they know of the finds:
> 1)  The prints don't exist. - for those who don't know much about them
> 2)  They are erosion or a hoax. - for those who have heard a little about them
> 3)  The prints do exist & do date to that period, but *must* belong to some
>     unknown, hypothetical creature, rather than what they plainly appear to be.
>     - this is for those who have studied the area extensively.  This is also
>     where the Russians now appear to be.

All three of these can be resolved simply by producing the specimens.

The last, determination of the nature of the print, is not as straight forward
as it may sound.  What kind of grouping were the prints in?  What mode of
walking is indicated by the grouping?

Nor are all Russian scientist to be taken at face value.  The nation that
brought the world Lysenkoism is reknowned for bad taxonomy and paleontology
(my specific knowledge in the way of paleontology is primarily in fossil
insects, where some very fanciful but ungrounded work was done.)  Let's
see the specimens: until then I wouldn't place any faith in nth hand claims
by way of Russian paleontologists, Pravda, and creationists.

Finally, why is it that creationists scoff at scientists reconstructions
from partial skeletons, but insist on the accuracy of certain footprints?
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh