(I highly recommend his Delk print article linked here that bolsters the Juby findings.)
In my early days of blogging I discovered talk origins and was surprised to find outdated information and/or information that was NCSE-style Darwinist propaganda posted on that site and carried on a short exchange of emails with a couple of the people involved in the site. To my amazement they seemed to think that they were providing a service by "bringing Christianity in line with the findings of modern science" or words to that effect. How being in league with propagandists and anti-theists like the NCSE could possibly be a good thing from a Christian perspective is beyond me. After I came to realize that they were going to simply ignore anything I said I gave up and moved forward. It is kind of a stretch to characterize Glen Kuban as a "creationist" but Henry gave him that title in his post so I will not argue over it here.
To some extent this blog has been a documentary following my exploration of the world of origins science. I quickly understood that most scientists began with a worldview and were restricted to that worldview. As a former non-Christian Darwinist I had looked at things from both sides. I also quickly found that there were a steadily increasing number of scientists who had come over to the Creationist side and that YEC scientists were creating organizations and pursuing investigations apart from the standard scientific organizations because such organizations had such a bias towards naturalism that they were blind to any other view no matter what the evidence! Worse yet, they were then refusing to consider the research done by YEC science because the work was not peer-reviewed because none of their organizations would review the work! This is obviously not simply prejudicial but it is in fact anti-science. Shame on the NCSE and every other organization that is putting worldview ahead of truth!
So much of so-called science being taught in schools today is simply religious propaganda. Darwinism is a basic tenet of atheism and the teaching of evolution is protected with religious fervor by the adherents despite the complete absurdity of the 19th Century hypothesis in the light of 21st Century knowledge. The idea that mutation and natural selection could account for modern organisms is completely absurd. It is laughable. It is also indefensible and that is why Darwinists are afraid to debate a Jonathan Sarfati or a Carl Baugh or even a Ken Ham. They are afraid that you will look behind the curtain. Well, this blog is Dorothy's little dog and Toto keeps pulling back the curtain. That sad little man with no power and no magic? Yep, that is the heart of Darwinism. Check out my last post and watch and listen to the befuddlement and incoherency of Richard Dawkins when asked how information could be shown to have entered the genome!
You will find that I post a lot of content from other sources along with my own words, providing evidence for people to consider. You will usually find Darwinist commenters naysaying with no evidence to bring to the table but simply because...The wise reader will consider evidence presented and use their own minds to sort out truth from error. In any event, while the Johnson site is rather hard to read I still have it linked so you may peruse at your leisure. The following is content from Henry Johnson's site so it is both attributed and linked:
TWO OPPOSING EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS OF ICHNITES (FOSSIL FOOTPRINTS) OF MAN & DINOSAUR TRACKS IN THE PALUXY RIVER BEDS OF GLEN ROSE, TEXAS
THIS PAGE COMPARES TWO METAPHYSICAL CREATIONISTS "OPPOSING" POINTS OF VIEW REGARDING THE DINOSAUR & MAN TRACK DEBATE.
BOTH AUTHORS PROFESS TO BE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AND THAT "THE ONE TRUE GOD" PERSONALLY CREATED EVERYTHING FROM NOTHING AT A SPECIFIC POINT IN TIME PAST, "BUT" DIFFER AS TO HOW LONG AGO THAT "POINT" BEGAN.
"BROTHER KUBAN," ON HIS WEB SITE, USES HIS EXPERIENTIAL AND EMPIRICAL "EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY" PLUS "ILLUSTRATED DRAWINGS" TO MAKE HIS CASE FOR "FALSIFYING" THE EXISTENCE OF MAN TRACKS WITH DINOSAUR TRACKS, ALONG WITH ALL THE EMPIRICAL "EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY" OF MANY PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS AND RESEARCH ASSOCIATES WHO HAVE INVESTIGATED AND VERIFIED, TO THEIR REASONED SATISFACTION, THE EXISTENCE OF MANY DOZENS OF MAN TRACKS WITH DINOSAUR TRACKS IN THE PALUXY RIVER BEDS AT GLEN ROSE, TEXAS.
ON THIS WEB SITE, I TOO USE MY EXPERIENTIAL AND EMPIRICAL "EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY" PLUS "ILLUSTRATED DRAWINGS" TO MAKE MY CASE FOR "VERIFYING" THE EXISTENCE OF MAN TRACKS WITH DINOSAUR TRACKS. BUT, IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, I ALSO USE THE EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF MANY PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCES, C-14 TEST RESULTS AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH REPORTS FROM INDEPENDENT SOURCES EXCLUDED ON BROTHER KUBANS' WEB SITE.
NOTE: MY GRAPHICS & PHOTOS MAY TAKE SOME TIME TO DOWNLOAD BUT I THINK YOU'LL FIND THEM WORTH THE WAIT
YOU ALSO NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT IN SCIENCE, AS WELL AS MANY OTHER FIELDS OF HUMAN INTEREST INVOLVING THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN "UNBIASED" POINT OF VIEW. IN YOUR PURSUIT OF THE TRUTH REGARDING ANY SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW, YOU'LL NEED TO KEEP THIS FACT IN MIND.
THIS USUALLY LEADS TO THE DELETION OR IGNORING OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OR FACTS THAT WOULD WEAKEN OR FALSIFY ONE'S "FOUNDATIONAL" WORLD VIEW.
YOUR MISSION, SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO ACCEPT IT, IS TO DETERMINE WHAT EACH AUTHORS' BIAS IS AND WHETHER THE EVIDENCE THEY PRESENT SUPPORTS IT.
YOU WILL ALSO NEED, IN YOUR PURSUIT OF "THE TRUTH", TO RECOGNIZE AND BE WILLING TO CHANGE OR MODIFY YOUR OWN "BIASED" POINTS OF VIEW "IF" THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE WARRANTS IT.
BROTHER KUBAN'S POSITION HAS BEEN COPIED "VERBATIM" FROM HIS WEB SITE AND IS HIGHLIGHTED IN "Italics blue"
THE UNDERLINED TEXT BEING LINKS TO HIS GRAPHICS AND PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE.
BROTHER JOHNSON'S POSITION IS NORMAL PRINT.
THE UNDERLINED TEXT BEING LINKS TO HIS GRAPHICS AND PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE.
- IMPORTANT NOTE -
(to return to this page, after viewing their links, click on the BACK icon on your web browser)
1996-99, Glen J. Kuban
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/paluxy.htm Last Updated: 18 October 1999
Evidently brother Kuban has never asked to see any of the evidence his fellow creationists have documented regarding these "giant man tracks." This empirical evidence clearly verifies the fact that giant man tracks do occur "alongside dinosaur tracks" in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River. These are in no way mere "claims by strict creationists."
If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and have been abandoned even by most creationists. The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate "(metatarsal)" dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and some doctored and carved specimens "(most of the latter on loose blocks of rock)." This Web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links on dinosaur tracks in general.
As for the first sentence of this paragraph, brother Kuban, I believe, reveals the real motivation for trying to falsify the Paluxy man tracks. If this "conventional geologic timetable" is falsified, a major doctrine of his "Great Age" faith will be invalidated. The real problem for anyone of like faith is, these man tracks are not the only evidence that "contradicts" the metaphysical "geologic column."
I believe the second sentence would more accurately read as follows, ...the "man track" claims have not stood up to biased scientific scrutiny, and have been abandoned even by most creationists who have not investigated, as they should, the complete history of these tracks as well as the tracks for themselves.
As for his "..elongate "(metatarsal)" dinosaur tracks,.." theory, he does not "photographically" address the detailed, "secondary human features within them, nor the man tracks found alongside the dinosaur tracks."
Regaurding the "..doctored and carved specimens "(most of the latter on loose blocks of rock)", brother Kuban only shows "one" man track! The reason? There are no others! I would love to see them if there were any. Why? Because we could "scientifically scrutinize them" as was done to the "one" man track he refers to. This "man track" has been sectioned, as suggested by sceptics and truth seekers, and empirically verified to be a 14.5"-right human footprint known as the "Burdick Track." The only example of a "fake or carved man track" comes from Oklahoma and is obviously nothing like the "Burdick Track."
Joe Taylor, director of the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum in Crosbyton, Texas, states in his book "Fossil Facts & Fantasies" that this track came to light in the 1930s and "Originally there were two tracks; in fact there was said to be a whole trail of them at one time. It is unquestionably human in shape,..".
In 1992 Joe was asked by Dr. Carl Baugh to put the Burdick back together and mold it. He states regarding his evaluation; "While at the museum, "I studied each section of the track under black light," which clarifies the laminations. At that time, I was convinced that I was looking at a genuine track." NOTE: He still is convinced.
Regarding brother Kubans' reference to his web site, I must say, since he is a professional computer programmer, he has laid it out very well and I commend him for that. He is also a prolific writer and it is obvious to me that GOD has given him these gifts.
As for the content of his web site, I found it to be mostly filled with "un-substantiated hyperbole."
Now before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, I'm not saying that using hyperbole is a bad thing at all. I use it here myself. What I am saying is, that when it is used in a debate format like this, it is imperative that you "show" the reader or audience "all the empirical evidence" you investigated to reach the conclusions that you have come to believe are true. After doing that, the subject of your address can decide for themselves whether you made your case or not.
Copyright © 1989 by Glen J. Kuban
[This article is being mirrored from http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/retrack.htm.] Originally published in NCSE Reports, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1989, Special Section
In the December 1988 issue of ICR's Acts and Facts, John Morris explained that he had returned to the Paluxy this past September to investigate "new evidence" gathered by Carl Baugh and Don Patton. Although Baugh and Patton acknowledge that the Taylor Trail is dinosaurian, they now are proposing that a human being followed the same trail, leaving a human print inside each dinosaur track. Although Morris stated that the "over printing" model "may sound bizarre," and that ICR does not advocate it, he proceeded to do just that, maintaining that the new model was "supported by the existence of somewhat human-like impressions, each rather consistent in length..." and "in several cases, toe-like impressions are seen in the proper location. Some are best denoted by an accentuated discoloration."
Although Morris tempered these assertions by stating that "certain identification is lacking," what actually is lacking is any legitimate evidence for the new claims. Having intensively studied the Taylor Site since 1980 (and as recently as January 1989, I can testify that none of the Taylor Trail tracks (or other trails on the site) contain clear human features, and most do not even closely resemble human prints. In fact, the new "man track" claims are not really new, but are simply variations on the old, thoroughly refuted claims. What Baugh and Patton a re now claiming as human prints are merely portions of the largely infilled metatarsal segment (sole and heel) of the dinosaur prints--essentially the same depressions previously misinterpreted by various creationists as human prints.
As for this third paragraph, brother Kuban makes statements that deeply trouble me as an Omniologist and Christian. His assertion (due to his intensive study of the Taylor and other Trail sites since 1980) that there is no "legitimate evidence for the new.." and "..thoroughly refuted claims", that none of these tracks "contain clear human features, and most do not even closely resemble human prints" "is patently not true!" No one has "intensively studied the Taylor site" more than Dr. Baugh and Dr. Patton! I can personally vouch for their integrity and professional academic pursuit for the truth concerning these tracks.
Neither brother Kuban nor myself have any academic degrees in Ichnology, Paleontology, Anthropology, Archaeology or Geology. Doctors Baugh, Patton and Morris have all earned academic degrees, much to the chagrin of their detracting colleagues.
For brother Kuban to emphatically state that he has "thoroughly refuted" the claims and evidence of Dr. Baugh and Dr. Patton suggests to me an attitude of closed-minded arrogance, which is a "mortal sin" as regards the spirit of Academic Freedom.
Speaking brother to Christian brother, using the phrase "I believe I have thoroughly refuted.." is more conducive to future penance and reconciliation, something I have had to learn myself.
Morris' claim that the "human-like" depressions are "fairly consistent in length" is unfounded, since 1. none of the depres sions are very human-like, and 2. The same depressions have been interpreted in vastly different ways by different creationist authors--some claiming they were "giant human prints" from 16 to 19 inches long,[3,4] and others, such as Morris and Stan Taylor, indicating that the "best" prints in the trail represented normal sized feet about 10 inches long. Baugh and Patton recently attempted to show that the "new" human prints (in the same dinosaur tracks) are each 11 1/2 inches long. This they did by partially filling each track with muddy water until a puddle about 11 1/2 inches long was achieved!
Dr. Morris' claims are founded on empirical scientific data, since 1. "many of the depressions are very human-like", and 2. Apparently brother Kuban has confused his facts with the documented "giant human prints" found in the same limestone layer as the dinosaur and Taylor tracks which measure 19, 21.5 and 25.5 inches long.
As for the past generalizations on the length of the Taylor prints, Dr. Patton has applied a more meticulous study method to these prints and produced this "data record" of his findings. They range in length from 11" to 11.75" with the average length being 11.53 inches. To correct brother Kubans' "puddle claims," Dr. Patton measured the tracks "dry" and, as ichnologists frequently do, filled the tracks with water for photographic and diagnostic purposes.
The ambiguity of the supposed "man tracks" within the dino saur tracks is further exemplified by the fact that neither Morris nor other creationists who reexamined the Taylor Site on several occasions between 1985 and 1988 reported any new human- like features there--until they were "found" by Baugh and Patton this summer--even though the tracks have changed very little since 1985. Ironically, Baugh stated to me while standing on the Taylor Site in 1985, "No one would call these prints human."
There is no ambiguity about the "man tracks" within the dinosaur tracks at all. Again, They are clearly there within the Taylor Trail and Upper Taylor Platform. The reason for some "new human features" is due to the ongoing erosion of the mud infill in the Taylor Trail.
Dr. Patton and Dr. Baugh have documented this erosion since the trail was first uncovered. What they have found is that the tracks, made by the dinosaurs, were continually being infilled by calcareous mud. Soon after, the human stepped in the mud infilled dinosaur track. This left a second impression, which in turn became infilled with more calcareous mud.
The erosion is simply reversing this process revealing the "original human features" that were always there.
Also unfounded is Morris' assertion that several prints contain properly configured "toe-like impressions" or that they are "accentuated by colorations." None of the depressions contain anything approaching clear human toe marks, and the few markings that Baugh and Patton are claiming as toes are merely vague or irregular features representing broken and or partially eroded portions of the infilling material, or (in one case) a mudcrack pattern. Any "discolorations" associated with these supposed "toes" are ill-defined and superficial features within the infilled regions. These are quite different from the more distinct and significant color contrasts occurring at the boundary of the infilling material and the surrounding substrate, which, along with texture and relief features, define the dinosaur digits. Further, in no case are the supposed human toes accompanied by a complete or clear set of other human features (ball, arch, heel), and often the contours of the track contradict those of genuine human prints.
There he goes again! Brother Kuban obviously has not done his homework.
Not only is Dr. Morris correct in his observations but Dr. Patton and Dr. Baugh have empirically verified clear toe impressions as well as "ball, arch and heel impressions." The most recent excavation of clear human features was in July, 1997. I call it the "Dino & Beverly Track."
The primary method for determining whether foot impressions are human or not was applied to these tracks. In my opinion, the results are unequivocal, the Paluxy man tracks are in fact "human."
The fact is, these features are so well defined as being human that three of the best documented tracks were found destroyed only two days after Dr. Don Patton presented their photographic evidence at a creation conference, on August 12, 1989 in Dayton, TN.
The questions I have, are 1. why were only these tracks destroyed within less than 48 hours of their public disclosure? and 2. Why haven't any other tracks in the Paluxy been destroyed in this manner? Some have been cut out by local people and sold in the past but before August 1989, no one has ever destroyed any tracks in this manner!
As an Omniologist and Creationist, I have investigated a lot of empirical evidence that clearly falsifies several major doctrines of the macro-evolutionary faith. The reaction of the evolutionary faithful to this evidence has ranged from indifference to Ph.D. rattling to verbal intimidation to attempted and successful physical destruction of the evidence.
If a single, well verified mammal skull were to turn up in 500 million year old rocks, our whole modern theory of evolution would be utterly destroyed." (The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p.225).
This is also true of a single, well verified human footprint among dinosaur tracks!
At this point I want to remind brother Kuban of Dr. Morris' excellent research in the past regarding the Paluxy man tracks. In his [presently out of print] 1980 book, Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs, And The People Who Knew Them, Dr. Morris personally photographed and documented many of these obvious man tracks which are not eroded dinosaur tracks! One of these tracks was the 21.5" long Dougherty Track, while another he discovered was named after him, and is the Morris Track.This being true, It appears obvious to me that someone who was at that creation conference in August of 1989 realized the devastating impact that Dr. Pattons' evidence would have on the entire metaphysical theory of evolution, not to mention brother Kubans' "man track" analysis, if it were to be independently verified. They had to be destroyed before that could happen.
I believe either that person, or someone they called, who knew exactly where these tracks were located, were the one/s that went to the Taylor site and did the dirty deed.
Dr. Patton gave no information on how to find these tracks at the conference.
If you don't believe the importance these man tracks have on falsifying the theory of evolution, consider this quote by Richard Dawkins, Oxford "…there are certain things about the fossil record that any evolutionist should expect to be true. We should be very surprised, for example, to find fossil humans appearing in the record before mammals are supposed to have evolved!
Curiously, Morris evidently does not question ill-defined colorations misapplied to dubious "man track" claims, but previously sug gested that distinct color and texture features indicating dinosaurian digits might be fraudulent stains (despite much evidence to the contrary), and that his core samples of the tracks were "inconclusive." Whether Morris still believes them "inconclusive" he did not clarify. Core samples taken by Ron Hastings and me in recent years has well-established the genuineness of the cores, and, along with other evidences, thoroughly confirm the dinosaurian origin of the tracks.
As for Dr. Morris questioning dinosaurian digit stains, brother Kuban questions human digit stains. These statements are moot because both stain features are genuine.
In regards to Dr. Morris' core samples being inconclusive, I believe brother Kuban and Mr. Hastings core samples do establish the genuineness of the dinosaur tracks, but that's all they do. They neither verify or falsify the secondary man tracks because no core samples were taken of them. Even if there had been, there would not be the same blue-gray/ivory contrasting color differential that brother Kuban found at the edge of the dinosaur tracks to reach any conclusions.
In my opinion, nothing short of an MRI of these tracks, which would require their removal from the river bed, could produce the detailed lamination features necessary to be of any value.
Speaking of track removal, brother Kuban attempts, later in this article, to suggest that Dr. Baugh "possibly violated state law" by removing a dinosaur track from private property. His reference number  states the following, "Texas law forbids removal of dinosaur tracks from the public lands, which according to local authorities includes the Paluxy Riverbed, but there is some question as to whether the ledge along the riverbank from which the dinosaur track was removed is considered part of the riverbed."
Core sampling "is in fact" an incremental removal of dinosaur tracks from the riverbed and therefore a direct violation of brother Kubans definition of Texas state law.
I would humbly remind brother Kuban of The Scriptures instruction to us all, "..you are without excuse, every man who passes judgement, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."
One might wonder why Baugh has resorted to hunting "man tracks" among previously refuted evidences on the Taylor Site, when Baugh himself claims to have found over 50 human tracks along the McFall property during his previous excava tions. The probable reason is that even most creationists have realized that Baugh's claims did not match the evidence, and possibly Baugh and Patton are now desperate to salvage something "man trackish" from the Paluxy, especially since their much lauded "human tooth" is looking more and more "fishy."
If there is any "wonder" left as to why Dr. Baugh, Dr. Patton or Dr. Morris are continuing their research after reviewing the empirical evidence presented here, it could only be due to the unwillingness of dogmatic evolutionists or incredulous creationists to accept the fact that man, at some time in the past, walked and coexisted with dinosaurs!
For additional information checkout Dr. Don Pattons evidence and Dr. Carl Baughs excavations.
Morris suggested in his article that if the alleged human tooth (found by Baugh along the Paluxy in 1987) could be shown to be human, then a better case could be made for the human tracks. Actually, the quality of the "man track" evidence really has nothing to do with the tooth (each evidence should stand on its own), but the point may be moot, since the evidence is overwhelming that the tooth is a fish tooth. Morris' acknowledged that the tooth resembles a certain kind of fish tooth, but stated (without documentation) that "objective chemical tests" have supported the human interpretation. Morris neglected to mention that biologist (and fellow creationist) David Menton had studied the tooth with a scanning electron microscope and concluded that it was not human and probably was a fish tooth. The same conclusion was reached by Ron Hastings and other mainstream scientists who have studied similar teeth from the Paluxy. These and other evidences relating to the tooth will be discussed further in a future article by Hastings.
Brother Kuban is right when he says "each evidence should stand on its own" as regards the "tooth & man tracks", but he is not correct in saying "..the evidence is overwhelming that the tooth is a fish tooth." The fact is there are actually 3 teeth that have been found and they all fit several criteria that defines them as human, with the exception of their unique enamel structure. Even though this structure is different than modern human enamel, it was not conclusively identified as a fish tooth either. It would be best for you to review the documented evidence for yourself and come to your own conclusions. Dr. Baugh has termed the tooth "an ongoing research project."
At this time I am not aware of any "qualitative empirical report", showing a tooth with the exact same morphological structure, by Mr. Hastings, which should include photographs, several independent chemical and electron microscopic analysis, and review by several dental experts. A web page article simply stating "this is what I found and believe, therefore it is a fact", isn't going to cut it!
Of perhaps greater concern than the new, unfounded claims of Baugh and others is physical damage done to some tracks this summer by Baugh's improper field methods. At least one Taylor Site track was partially damaged when Baugh and associates poured plaster into it (even though itit had undercuts), and then had to use hammers and chisels to break out the hardened plaster (rubber casting material should have been used). A glob of plaster they poured into one of the Ryals Trail tracks is still stuck there. Earlier in 1988 Baugh and associates attem pted to physically remove a dinosaur track from the McFall ledge. Not only is this a possible violation of state law (and a bad example at best), but the track evidently was destroyed in the process (the hole was not cut deep enough to allow the track to be removed intact). Curiously, no creationist leaders have said anything about these serious problems.
Brother Kuban has tainted my trust in his honesty and integrity by these statements made here. The reason no creationist leaders have said anything is because these are slanderous and false accusations. The specific tracks he mentions were in fact destroyed within two days after the creation conference in 1989 and he knew that before he wrote this article! The question is, why would brother Kuban fabricate a story like this when he knows it's not true?
Dr. Baugh has removed dinosaur tracks from private land under the auspices' of the Creation Evidence Museum, but only at the request and with permission of the land owners. Before doing so Dr. Baugh contacted Texas authorities and confirmed that there was no violation of State law. Other people have failed in attempting to remove tracks in the past but Dr. Baugh and his associates have never destroyed any of the tracks they have removed.
Morris' article is an unfortunate sign for young earth creationism. It indicates an unwillingness to fully abandon past claims (no matter how well-refuted), and a return to the same kind of faulty research, deficient documentation, and inaccurate reporting that fostered the Paluxy mess in the first place. Instead of helping to set the record straight on the Paluxy issue, Morris' article undoubtedly will contribute to the spread of new misinformation among creationists and the public at large. Already some creationists are calling for the film Footprints in Stone  to be reinstated. Evidently little if anything was learned from past mistakes.
Brother Kubans' concern about creationists being unwilling to abandon their research of the Paluxy man tracks is understandable. He and his associates, along with creationists who have sided with him, have a lot to loose. For one, their reputations as thorough and un-biased researchers and second, the falsification of their metaphysical Macro-Evolutionary and Great-Age faith.
At this point I think it somewhat prophetic to consider what Ernst Mayr of Harvard has said about this subject. "Creationists have stated that humans and dinosaurs were contemporaries in time...Were this momentous statement true the names of its discoverers would thunder down the corridors of time as individuals who made one of the most outstanding discoveries of the twentieth century."
Since this "momentous statement" is obviously true, as demonstrated here by the objective and empirical scientific method, the California Institute of Omniology hereby nominates the following names deserving of this honor.
Mr. Stanley Taylor - Dr. John Morris - Dr. Carl Baugh and Dr. Don Patton.
THE WORK THESE MEN HAVE DONE IN THE PAST AND ARE CONTINUING TO DO TODAY, IN MY OPINION, IS ONE OF THE GREATEST THREATS TO THE MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY PARADIGM. ANOTHER IS THE C-14 DATING OF DINOSAUR BONES, HUMAN REMAINS AND ORGANIC MATERIAL THROUGHOUT THE FOSSIL RECORD.
I BELIEVE THE TIME HAS COME FOR HONEST EMPIRICAL SCIENTISTS AND RESEARCHERS TO JOIN TOGETHER AND SETTLE THIS ISSUE ONCE AND FOR ALL!
THERE NEEDS TO BE A CONSORTIUM OF PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS AND INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS WHO ARE WILLING TO COME TOGETHER AND PRODUCE A DEFINITIVE SCIENTIFIC PAPER, TO BE RELEASED TO THE WORLD, ON THIS SUBJECT.
MAN TRACKS AND HUMAN ARTIFACTS HAVE BEEN FOUND IN EVERY PERIOD OF THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN. OF ALL THE LOCATIONS WHERE MAN AND DINOSAUR TRACKS ARE FOUND, GLEN ROSE, TEXAS HAS THE LARGEST CONCENTRATION.
MAN AND DINOSAUR TRACKS HAVE BEEN FOUND TOGETHER IN THREE SEPARATE "CRETACEOUS" LIMESTONE LAYERS, JUST IN THE EXPOSED PALUXY RIVER BASIN ALONE.
THINK OF WHAT A LARGE EXCAVATION OF LAND COULD PRODUCE!
IT IS HIGHLY PROBABLE THAT THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF MAN TRACKS AMONG THOUSANDS OF DINOSAUR TRACKS, NOT TO MENTION POSSIBLE HUMAN REMAINS AND ARTIFACTS, UNDER THE ENTIRE SOMERVELL COUNTY AREA!