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

[Difflugia]

Are there any creationists today who still accept the human footprint claim

With pretty much any creationist claim, there's invariably somebody somewhere that believes it. Since every creationist claim is demonstrably false, it's not like any of them are reasonable and the question is whether the lack of relevant expertise and Morton's demon can combine in at least one creationist somewhere to make any given claim sound plausible to them. This is almost certainly "yes" for all but the most outrageous claims, but I'm not even sure I could define where "most outrageous" begins.

Without completely disavowing the whole thing, Answers in Genesis follows John Morris when writing that "it would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution." On the other hand, at what is certainly an extreme by most any definition, the Time Cube-esque Evolution Handbook (formerly The Evolution Cruncher) by Vance Ferrel credulously and unironically repeats the claim.

Somewhere in the middle is Kent Hovind's official set of "Creation Science Seminar" videos that repeats the claim, even if perhaps a bit hesitantly. Here's a link to the relevant moment in Hovind's monologue from "Seminar 2: The Garden of Eden:"

and if so, what does that say about science's ability to correct and reject false claims compared to the creationist approach?

Nothing. As far as I can tell, the similarity between creationism and any scientific ability (living or dead) is purely coincidental.

[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.

[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

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

Here's a video for those who are interested in seeing the tracks in question:




Tcg

[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!

[JoeyKnothead]

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!

It wasn't the creationists who corrected the errant coelacanth notion.

Science is the continued seeking to correct our errors.

Creationism is the continued promulgation of em.

[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? 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?


Tcg

[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?

Critiquing some creationists for claiming there were human footprints is all well and good, but it does not serve as a general claim that all creationists do not trust science. You are attempting to use specific claims to support a general claim, this is a classic error of reasoning on philosophy.

You could have focused on the claim itself and the evidence for/against it but you did not, you intentionally expanded to scope to discredit creationists and creationism, if you want to discuss that broader subject I'm happy to go there with you.

You say "it isn't about trilobites but rather footprints in the Pauly riverbed" but that's not true, your posts are also about creationism and science.

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?

[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