Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: misc replies
Message-ID: <341@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Feb-85 16:51:12 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.341
Posted: Mon Feb 25 16:51:12 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 10:47:16 EST
References: <32500024@uiucdcsb.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 71
Summary: 

In article <32500024@uiucdcsb.UUCP> miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP writes:
>
>
>Someone passed the following into my hands the other day.  It, of course,
>should remind everyone of the Paluxy River data, which is fatal to the presumed
>evolutionary geological sequence.  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.
>
>Yu. Kruzhilin and V. Ovcharov, "A Horse from the Dinosaur Epoch?" Translated by
>A. James Melnick, MOSKOVSKAYA PRAVDA, Feb. 5, 1984.

	I would not consider this a reliable source, when was the last
time you saw a science article in a regular newspaper that was any good?
Presentation of this sort of 'data' should come from a proper scientific
journal.
>
>     How should the Baysun phenomenon be explained?  A TASS correspondent
>turned to the famous Soviet paleontologist, Academician B. Sokolov, Secretary
>of the Department of Geology, Geophysics and Geochemistry of the USSR Academy
>of Sciences, for an answer to this question.
>     "As a geologist and paleontologist," the scientist said, "I am used to
>dealing with interpreting various phenomena of the distant geological past with
>great caution.  But, judging by the data I receive from my colleagues during
>the 30th Session of the All-Union Paleontological Society (which recently took
>place in L'vovX, there is not the slightest doubt concerning the accuracy of
>the determination of the geologic age of the `Baysun tracks'.  They are of the
>Cretaceous period and the Cenomanian stage, that is, from a time that is sepa-
>rated from us by about 90 to 100 million years.
>     There is also no doubt that the tracks belong to an animal of that time
>and not to some later one - which sometimes takes place.  Yet the main question
>remains - what animal is it?  It is completely obvious that these are not the
>tracks of a dinosaur.  The tracks of any reptiles similar to these tracks are
>unknown to science at the present time.  It is also difficult to place them
>with confidence with any known group of mammals - the horse which they are now
>compared with, indisputably, appeared much later.  Most likely, we are talking
>about the discovery of some whole new group of animals.
>     In the face of so important a scientific discovery, it is necessary that
>detailed geological, paleontological and paleographical research in this area
>be established.
>
>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.  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

	Actually I have seen *no* reports from a repuable source which
would rule this out with regard to the Paluxy River prints. in fact I
saw one(preliminary) report which came to *just* this conclusion.
I will wait for a detailed analysis in a reputable journal before
making *any* conclusions on this matter.

>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.
	Actually this is perfectly reasonable in the Russians case, at
least assuming that the Pravda article is accurate.  Or haven't you
heard what early paleontoligists did to the Dinosaur footprints in Trissic
sediments on the eastern US coast befor Dinoasaurs were discovered.
They were considered to be *bird* footprints, so why *can't* there be
another group of undiscovered animals?  We have discovered several new
caregories of Dinosaur in the last 10 years, so the Mesozoic sediments
are *far* from exhausted.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen