Dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy riverbed.

[Tcg]

.
The Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas has dried to the point of revealing dinosaur tracks, again. This time apparently to the point that previously undiscovered tracks have been found. This caught my attention because in the 1930s, some creationists claimed that human tracks were found there in the same rock level as dinosaur tracks. It was later determined that they weren't human tracks and there was some evidence that the tracks may have been modified to more closely resemble human tracks.

This article provides some of the issues:

Paluxy Man -- The Creationist Piltdown

Creationists, by citing examples of fossils that are supposed to be in the wrong order for evolution, often try to prove that the geological time scale is in error. In particular, they claim that human footprints have been found in rocks containing traces of dinosaurs and other animals that died out millions of years before humans actually appeared on the earth. As we shall see, however, these alleged footprints are either natural objects that have nothing to do with humans or are deliberate frauds. On the whole, the leading creationist authors are intelligent and sincere, but it seems that they have a very strong will to believe when it comes to defending their model.

https://ncse.ngo/paluxy-man-creationist-piltdown

The Piltdown Man is often presented as a reason to mistrust science, but are there any scientists today who don't accept that it was a fraud?

Are there any creationists today who still accept the human footprint claim and if so, what does that say about science's ability to correct and reject false claims compared to the creationist approach?


Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

...
I've studied this for decades, I studied theoretical physics a rather foundational branch of science, so let me ask you, anyone here who claim to know about reality - is spacetime really curved?

How bout you tell us what all them decades of theoretically studying the topic has you thinking on it.

[Inquirer]

.
The Piltdown Man is often presented as a reason to mistrust science, but are there any scientists today who don't accept that it was a fraud?

Are there any creationists today who still accept the human footprint claim and if so, what does that say about science's ability to correct and reject false claims compared to the creationist approach?

There's no reason to mistrust science but there may be reasons to mistrust scientists interpretations.

Right, we shouldn't trust the interpretations of the evidence related to Piltdown Man that led, and quite quickly by the way, to the understanding that Piltdown Man was a fake. On the other hand, we should trust the interpretations of the creationists who determined that what may not have been footprints at all, the same which may have been modified, prove that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Sure, that makes perfect since. Mistrust the interpretations that match reality.


Tcg

Coelacanth fossils were once interpreted as evidence of an extinction event 66 MYA in the cretaceous period. Then in the 1930s they caught some swimming in the ocean. Moral? what's interpreted as reality today by some might not be interpreted as reality tomorrow. For all we know there might be trilobites crawling around somewhere!

So, you expect that somewhere down the line, footprints that aren't human will be shown to be human and we'll know that Fred actually did drive a brontosaurus at his job at the quarry?

I thought you wanted to discuss science and evidence and the interpretation thereof, clearly you do not.

The query isn't about trilobites but rather footprints in the Paluxy riverbed. Well, that and some creationists claiming that some of them are human. Do you expect reality to change at some point?

Reality varies from individual to individual, all knowledge is subjective, we cannot experience objectivity only subjectivity, any claims about objective reality are based wholly on subjective opinions.

Whether you approve of me saying this or not doesn't really matter, I regard it as a truth, as axiomatic.

People often misunderstand, that these kinds of discussions about science and evidence and interpretation are based on these things.

Science does not encompass "reality" at all, those who claim otherwise are the ones who don't understand science.

I've studied this for decades, I studied theoretical physics a rather foundational branch of science, so let me ask you, anyone here who claim to know about reality - is spacetime really curved?

Yet another reply that mentions neither Paluxy nor Piltdown. Have you read the O.P?


Tcg

If you want to discuss only Paluxy and Piltdown then why did you even say "science's ability to correct and reject false claims compared to the creationist approach" - because it was this latter claim that I am adressing, if you dislike me pulling you up on this then I suggest you stick to Paluxy and Piltdown and the facts and evidence and avoid making general and disparaging claims about people.

[Tcg]

.
The Piltdown Man is often presented as a reason to mistrust science, but are there any scientists today who don't accept that it was a fraud?

Are there any creationists today who still accept the human footprint claim and if so, what does that say about science's ability to correct and reject false claims compared to the creationist approach?

There's no reason to mistrust science but there may be reasons to mistrust scientists interpretations.

Right, we shouldn't trust the interpretations of the evidence related to Piltdown Man that led, and quite quickly by the way, to the understanding that Piltdown Man was a fake. On the other hand, we should trust the interpretations of the creationists who determined that what may not have been footprints at all, the same which may have been modified, prove that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Sure, that makes perfect since. Mistrust the interpretations that match reality.


Tcg

Coelacanth fossils were once interpreted as evidence of an extinction event 66 MYA in the cretaceous period. Then in the 1930s they caught some swimming in the ocean. Moral? what's interpreted as reality today by some might not be interpreted as reality tomorrow. For all we know there might be trilobites crawling around somewhere!

So, you expect that somewhere down the line, footprints that aren't human will be shown to be human and we'll know that Fred actually did drive a brontosaurus at his job at the quarry?

I thought you wanted to discuss science and evidence and the interpretation thereof, clearly you do not.

The query isn't about trilobites but rather footprints in the Paluxy riverbed. Well, that and some creationists claiming that some of them are human. Do you expect reality to change at some point?

Reality varies from individual to individual, all knowledge is subjective, we cannot experience objectivity only subjectivity, any claims about objective reality are based wholly on subjective opinions.

Whether you approve of me saying this or not doesn't really matter, I regard it as a truth, as axiomatic.

People often misunderstand, that these kinds of discussions about science and evidence and interpretation are based on these things.

Science does not encompass "reality" at all, those who claim otherwise are the ones who don't understand science.

I've studied this for decades, I studied theoretical physics a rather foundational branch of science, so let me ask you, anyone here who claim to know about reality - is spacetime really curved?

Yet another reply that mentions neither Paluxy nor Piltdown. Have you read the O.P?


Tcg

If you want to discuss only Paluxy and Piltdown then why did you even say "science's ability to correct and reject false claims compared to the creationist approach" - because it was this latter claim that I am adressing, if you dislike me pulling you up on this then I suggest you stick to Paluxy and Piltdown and the facts and evidence and avoid making general and disparaging claims about people.

This doesn't answer my question. Do I need to repeat it? Apparently, I do, "Have you read the O.P?"



Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

Yet another reply that mentions neither Paluxy nor Piltdown. Have you read the O.P?


Tcg

Reading the OP might be the cause of it.

[Inquirer]

.
The Piltdown Man is often presented as a reason to mistrust science, but are there any scientists today who don't accept that it was a fraud?

Are there any creationists today who still accept the human footprint claim and if so, what does that say about science's ability to correct and reject false claims compared to the creationist approach?

There's no reason to mistrust science but there may be reasons to mistrust scientists interpretations.

Right, we shouldn't trust the interpretations of the evidence related to Piltdown Man that led, and quite quickly by the way, to the understanding that Piltdown Man was a fake. On the other hand, we should trust the interpretations of the creationists who determined that what may not have been footprints at all, the same which may have been modified, prove that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Sure, that makes perfect since. Mistrust the interpretations that match reality.


Tcg

Coelacanth fossils were once interpreted as evidence of an extinction event 66 MYA in the cretaceous period. Then in the 1930s they caught some swimming in the ocean. Moral? what's interpreted as reality today by some might not be interpreted as reality tomorrow. For all we know there might be trilobites crawling around somewhere!

So, you expect that somewhere down the line, footprints that aren't human will be shown to be human and we'll know that Fred actually did drive a brontosaurus at his job at the quarry?

I thought you wanted to discuss science and evidence and the interpretation thereof, clearly you do not.

The query isn't about trilobites but rather footprints in the Paluxy riverbed. Well, that and some creationists claiming that some of them are human. Do you expect reality to change at some point?

Reality varies from individual to individual, all knowledge is subjective, we cannot experience objectivity only subjectivity, any claims about objective reality are based wholly on subjective opinions.

Whether you approve of me saying this or not doesn't really matter, I regard it as a truth, as axiomatic.

People often misunderstand, that these kinds of discussions about science and evidence and interpretation are based on these things.

Science does not encompass "reality" at all, those who claim otherwise are the ones who don't understand science.

I've studied this for decades, I studied theoretical physics a rather foundational branch of science, so let me ask you, anyone here who claim to know about reality - is spacetime really curved?

Yet another reply that mentions neither Paluxy nor Piltdown. Have you read the O.P?


Tcg

If you want to discuss only Paluxy and Piltdown then why did you even say "science's ability to correct and reject false claims compared to the creationist approach" - because it was this latter claim that I am adressing, if you dislike me pulling you up on this then I suggest you stick to Paluxy and Piltdown and the facts and evidence and avoid making general and disparaging claims about people.

This doesn't answer my question. Do I need to repeat it? Apparently, I do, "Have you read the O.P?"



Tcg

Yes I have read the O.P. but do you even remember what you wrote? it is the post where you wrote "what does that say about science's ability to correct and reject false claims compared to the creationist approach" and "a reason to mistrust science", you aren't denying you said these things I hope?

[Tcg]

.
The Piltdown Man is often presented as a reason to mistrust science, but are there any scientists today who don't accept that it was a fraud?

Are there any creationists today who still accept the human footprint claim and if so, what does that say about science's ability to correct and reject false claims compared to the creationist approach?

There's no reason to mistrust science but there may be reasons to mistrust scientists interpretations.

Right, we shouldn't trust the interpretations of the evidence related to Piltdown Man that led, and quite quickly by the way, to the understanding that Piltdown Man was a fake. On the other hand, we should trust the interpretations of the creationists who determined that what may not have been footprints at all, the same which may have been modified, prove that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Sure, that makes perfect since. Mistrust the interpretations that match reality.


Tcg

Coelacanth fossils were once interpreted as evidence of an extinction event 66 MYA in the cretaceous period. Then in the 1930s they caught some swimming in the ocean. Moral? what's interpreted as reality today by some might not be interpreted as reality tomorrow. For all we know there might be trilobites crawling around somewhere!

So, you expect that somewhere down the line, footprints that aren't human will be shown to be human and we'll know that Fred actually did drive a brontosaurus at his job at the quarry?

I thought you wanted to discuss science and evidence and the interpretation thereof, clearly you do not.

The query isn't about trilobites but rather footprints in the Paluxy riverbed. Well, that and some creationists claiming that some of them are human. Do you expect reality to change at some point?

Reality varies from individual to individual, all knowledge is subjective, we cannot experience objectivity only subjectivity, any claims about objective reality are based wholly on subjective opinions.

Whether you approve of me saying this or not doesn't really matter, I regard it as a truth, as axiomatic.

People often misunderstand, that these kinds of discussions about science and evidence and interpretation are based on these things.

Science does not encompass "reality" at all, those who claim otherwise are the ones who don't understand science.

I've studied this for decades, I studied theoretical physics a rather foundational branch of science, so let me ask you, anyone here who claim to know about reality - is spacetime really curved?

Yet another reply that mentions neither Paluxy nor Piltdown. Have you read the O.P?


Tcg

If you want to discuss only Paluxy and Piltdown then why did you even say "science's ability to correct and reject false claims compared to the creationist approach" - because it was this latter claim that I am adressing, if you dislike me pulling you up on this then I suggest you stick to Paluxy and Piltdown and the facts and evidence and avoid making general and disparaging claims about people.

This doesn't answer my question. Do I need to repeat it? Apparently, I do, "Have you read the O.P?"



Tcg

Yes I have,

Great, now all we have to wonder about is why you haven't addressed it.


Tcg

[Inquirer]

There's no reason to mistrust science but there may be reasons to mistrust scientists interpretations.

Right, we shouldn't trust the interpretations of the evidence related to Piltdown Man that led, and quite quickly by the way, to the understanding that Piltdown Man was a fake. On the other hand, we should trust the interpretations of the creationists who determined that what may not have been footprints at all, the same which may have been modified, prove that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Sure, that makes perfect since. Mistrust the interpretations that match reality.


Tcg

Coelacanth fossils were once interpreted as evidence of an extinction event 66 MYA in the cretaceous period. Then in the 1930s they caught some swimming in the ocean. Moral? what's interpreted as reality today by some might not be interpreted as reality tomorrow. For all we know there might be trilobites crawling around somewhere!

So, you expect that somewhere down the line, footprints that aren't human will be shown to be human and we'll know that Fred actually did drive a brontosaurus at his job at the quarry?

I thought you wanted to discuss science and evidence and the interpretation thereof, clearly you do not.

The query isn't about trilobites but rather footprints in the Paluxy riverbed. Well, that and some creationists claiming that some of them are human. Do you expect reality to change at some point?

Reality varies from individual to individual, all knowledge is subjective, we cannot experience objectivity only subjectivity, any claims about objective reality are based wholly on subjective opinions.

Whether you approve of me saying this or not doesn't really matter, I regard it as a truth, as axiomatic.

People often misunderstand, that these kinds of discussions about science and evidence and interpretation are based on these things.

Science does not encompass "reality" at all, those who claim otherwise are the ones who don't understand science.

I've studied this for decades, I studied theoretical physics a rather foundational branch of science, so let me ask you, anyone here who claim to know about reality - is spacetime really curved?

Yet another reply that mentions neither Paluxy nor Piltdown. Have you read the O.P?


Tcg

If you want to discuss only Paluxy and Piltdown then why did you even say "science's ability to correct and reject false claims compared to the creationist approach" - because it was this latter claim that I am adressing, if you dislike me pulling you up on this then I suggest you stick to Paluxy and Piltdown and the facts and evidence and avoid making general and disparaging claims about people.

This doesn't answer my question. Do I need to repeat it? Apparently, I do, "Have you read the O.P?"



Tcg

Yes I have,

Great, now all we have to wonder about is why you haven't addressed it.

Yes I have read the O.P. but do you even remember what you wrote? it is the post where you wrote "what does that say about science's ability to correct and reject false claims compared to the creationist approach" and "a reason to mistrust science", you aren't denying you said these things I hope? You must agree that I did address these things did I not?

[Tcg]

Right, we shouldn't trust the interpretations of the evidence related to Piltdown Man that led, and quite quickly by the way, to the understanding that Piltdown Man was a fake. On the other hand, we should trust the interpretations of the creationists who determined that what may not have been footprints at all, the same which may have been modified, prove that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Sure, that makes perfect since. Mistrust the interpretations that match reality.


Tcg

Coelacanth fossils were once interpreted as evidence of an extinction event 66 MYA in the cretaceous period. Then in the 1930s they caught some swimming in the ocean. Moral? what's interpreted as reality today by some might not be interpreted as reality tomorrow. For all we know there might be trilobites crawling around somewhere!

So, you expect that somewhere down the line, footprints that aren't human will be shown to be human and we'll know that Fred actually did drive a brontosaurus at his job at the quarry?

I thought you wanted to discuss science and evidence and the interpretation thereof, clearly you do not.

The query isn't about trilobites but rather footprints in the Paluxy riverbed. Well, that and some creationists claiming that some of them are human. Do you expect reality to change at some point?

Reality varies from individual to individual, all knowledge is subjective, we cannot experience objectivity only subjectivity, any claims about objective reality are based wholly on subjective opinions.

Whether you approve of me saying this or not doesn't really matter, I regard it as a truth, as axiomatic.

People often misunderstand, that these kinds of discussions about science and evidence and interpretation are based on these things.

Science does not encompass "reality" at all, those who claim otherwise are the ones who don't understand science.

I've studied this for decades, I studied theoretical physics a rather foundational branch of science, so let me ask you, anyone here who claim to know about reality - is spacetime really curved?

Yet another reply that mentions neither Paluxy nor Piltdown. Have you read the O.P?


Tcg

If you want to discuss only Paluxy and Piltdown then why did you even say "science's ability to correct and reject false claims compared to the creationist approach" - because it was this latter claim that I am adressing, if you dislike me pulling you up on this then I suggest you stick to Paluxy and Piltdown and the facts and evidence and avoid making general and disparaging claims about people.

This doesn't answer my question. Do I need to repeat it? Apparently, I do, "Have you read the O.P?"



Tcg

Yes I have,

Great, now all we have to wonder about is why you haven't addressed it.

Yes I have read the O.P. but do you even remember what you wrote? it is the post where you wrote "what does that say about science's ability to correct and reject false claims compared to the creationist approach" and "a reason to mistrust science", you aren't denying you said these things I hope? You must agree that I did address these things did I not?

I asked about Piltdown man and the Paluxy reverbed. Where did you address either?


Tcg

[Inquirer]

Coelacanth fossils were once interpreted as evidence of an extinction event 66 MYA in the cretaceous period. Then in the 1930s they caught some swimming in the ocean. Moral? what's interpreted as reality today by some might not be interpreted as reality tomorrow. For all we know there might be trilobites crawling around somewhere!

So, you expect that somewhere down the line, footprints that aren't human will be shown to be human and we'll know that Fred actually did drive a brontosaurus at his job at the quarry?

I thought you wanted to discuss science and evidence and the interpretation thereof, clearly you do not.

The query isn't about trilobites but rather footprints in the Paluxy riverbed. Well, that and some creationists claiming that some of them are human. Do you expect reality to change at some point?

Reality varies from individual to individual, all knowledge is subjective, we cannot experience objectivity only subjectivity, any claims about objective reality are based wholly on subjective opinions.

Whether you approve of me saying this or not doesn't really matter, I regard it as a truth, as axiomatic.

People often misunderstand, that these kinds of discussions about science and evidence and interpretation are based on these things.

Science does not encompass "reality" at all, those who claim otherwise are the ones who don't understand science.

I've studied this for decades, I studied theoretical physics a rather foundational branch of science, so let me ask you, anyone here who claim to know about reality - is spacetime really curved?

Yet another reply that mentions neither Paluxy nor Piltdown. Have you read the O.P?


Tcg

If you want to discuss only Paluxy and Piltdown then why did you even say "science's ability to correct and reject false claims compared to the creationist approach" - because it was this latter claim that I am adressing, if you dislike me pulling you up on this then I suggest you stick to Paluxy and Piltdown and the facts and evidence and avoid making general and disparaging claims about people.

This doesn't answer my question. Do I need to repeat it? Apparently, I do, "Have you read the O.P?"



Tcg

Yes I have,

Great, now all we have to wonder about is why you haven't addressed it.

Yes I have read the O.P. but do you even remember what you wrote? it is the post where you wrote "what does that say about science's ability to correct and reject false claims compared to the creationist approach" and "a reason to mistrust science", you aren't denying you said these things I hope? You must agree that I did address these things did I not?

I asked about Piltdown man and the Paluxy reverbed. Where did you address either?


Tcg

You raised several points including "a reason to mistrust science" and asked several questions, one of which was "what does that say about science's ability to correct and reject false claims compared to the creationist approach?".

If you did not want to be challenged on some of the things you say then I suggest you do not say them, then all of our lives will be easier here.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #19]

Not surprisingly, no mention of either the Paluxy riverbed or the Piltdown Man. Let me toss you a slow ball. Who determined that Piltdown man was a fraud? Who determined that the footprints in the Paluxy riverbed weren't human? Neither are terribly complex questions.


Tcg