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

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #9]

... so let me ask you, anyone here who claim to know about reality - is spacetime really curved?

It is curved by definition ... in the vicinity of massive bodies. What do you mean by "really" in this context? Is brown hair really brown? What's the point?

The point is some here claim to discuss reality yet as you argue, there is no such thing is there?

[Inquirer]

I asked you what the source of the news was not what the news was.

I'd love to answer your question, but abiding by the rule you established in post #24, I can't answer your questions until you answer mine. And the two I asked appear in the O.P. so until you address them, we are at a standstill. Bummer huh?


Tcg

Very well, so be it, you refuse to disclose your sources.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #41]

The point is some here claim to discuss reality yet as you argue, there is no such thing is there?

As I argue? I've made no such argument. How does asking what you meant by the word "really" (a question you ignored BTW) translate into me arguing that there is no such thing as reality? That is some twisted logic (or yet another intentional misrepresentation). There is such a thing as reality ... we live in it ... and I've made no arguments to the contrary.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #41]

The point is some here claim to discuss reality yet as you argue, there is no such thing is there?

As I argue? I've made no such argument. How does asking what you meant by the word "really" (a question you ignored BTW) translate into me arguing that there is no such thing as reality? That is some twisted logic (or yet another intentional misrepresentation). There is such a thing as reality ... we live in it ... and I've made no arguments to the contrary.

Is spacetime really curved? is curved spacetime reality or fantasy? if you knew you'd say, surely? Tell me what reality is please!

Tcg spoke of "interpretations that match reality" which I regard as a specious position, it should be written "interpretations that match one's interpretation of reality" which as you can see is specious when written in full.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #41]

The point is some here claim to discuss reality yet as you argue, there is no such thing is there?

As I argue? I've made no such argument. How does asking what you meant by the word "really" (a question you ignored BTW) translate into me arguing that there is no such thing as reality? That is some twisted logic (or yet another intentional misrepresentation). There is such a thing as reality ... we live in it ... and I've made no arguments to the contrary.

Is spacetime really curved? is curved spacetime reality or fantasy? if you knew you'd say, surely? Tell me what reality is please!

Tcg spoke of "interpretations that match reality" which I regard as a specious position, it should be written "interpretations that match our interpretations of reality" which as you can see is specious when written in full.

From the OP: "Are there any creationists today who still accept the human footprint"
Clearly there are and clearly there are those that would like to discuss anything else as we see here.

From the OP: "what does that say about science's ability to correct and reject false claims compared to the creationist approach?"
That some Christians will do whatever they can to avoid this coming to light.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #41]

The point is some here claim to discuss reality yet as you argue, there is no such thing is there?

As I argue? I've made no such argument. How does asking what you meant by the word "really" (a question you ignored BTW) translate into me arguing that there is no such thing as reality? That is some twisted logic (or yet another intentional misrepresentation). There is such a thing as reality ... we live in it ... and I've made no arguments to the contrary.

Is spacetime really curved? is curved spacetime reality or fantasy? if you knew you'd say, surely? Tell me what reality is please!

Tcg spoke of "interpretations that match reality" which I regard as a specious position, it should be written "interpretations that match our interpretations of reality" which as you can see is specious when written in full.

From the OP: "Are there any creationists today who still accept the human footprint"
Clearly there are and clearly there are those that would like to discuss anything else as we see here.

From the OP: "what does that say about science's ability to correct and reject false claims compared to the creationist approach?"
That some Christians will do whatever they can to avoid this coming to light.

Best I can tell, and I study such things, Inquirer's trying to figure out what species of human left that footprint, cause they bent reality when they did, so he's gonna tell God on em. And Jesus saves.

[Tcg]

Tcg spoke of "interpretations that match reality" which I regard as a specious position, it should be written "interpretations that match one's interpretation of reality"...

Yeah, ain't word games fun.


Tcg

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #44]

Is spacetime really curved? is curved spacetime reality or fantasy? if you knew you'd say, surely? Tell me what reality is please!

See post 39. I'm surprised you don't have access to a document containing definitions of words (a dictionary). I consulted such a document (Oxford Languages) and obtained the following:

Reality: The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Spacetime: The concepts of time and three-dimensional space regarded as fused in a four-dimensional continuum.

Curved spacetime, in the vicinity of massive bodies, falls out of General Relativity and Einstein's formulation for gravity within that theory:

https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time
(Google is a wonderful thing)

Tcg spoke of "interpretations that match reality" which I regard as a specious position, it should be written "interpretations that match our interpretations of reality" which as you can see is specious when written in full.

Specious: Superficially plausible, but actually wrong.

Most people would have no trouble understanding what "interpretations that match reality" means ... no need for a philosophical redefinition that changes nothing about the point in the OP.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

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?

A reasonable question. I'm not aware of any scientists studying human evolution who currently hold the view that Piltdown Man is evidence against evolution. Of course, absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence: there could be some out there.

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

Yes.

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

Well, it provides at least some evidence that the former 'follows all the evidence', while the latter fits as much as it can into a preferred theory, and ignores any contrary evidence.

Thanks very much for the NSCE link, by the way. The Calavaras hoax (mentioned in the article) was another instructive example of science following the evidence.

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.

Here's where this thread was derailed. We could continue a sensible debate on the relative merits of scientific or creationist approaches to examining hoaxes, or we could suddenly switch to defining reality and asking about space-time.

As a result of this post, pages 2 and 3 of this thread really don't add anything at all to the debate, which is a pity. Maybe a creationist could post some evidence of where evidence previously supporting a flood theory turned out to be wrong after diligent Creationist study? Surely there must be something like that out there?

Anyone?

[Jose Fly]

Here's where this thread was derailed. We could continue a sensible debate on the relative merits of scientific or creationist approaches to examining hoaxes, or we could suddenly switch to defining reality and asking about space-time.

Well yeah, that was the point....divert the thread.

Maybe a creationist could post some evidence of where evidence previously supporting a flood theory turned out to be wrong after diligent Creationist study? Surely there must be something like that out there?

To be fair, AiG has a "Arguments to Avoid" page, and Creation.com has a similar page.

Of course that doesn't mean that either organization doesn't still make false and/or misleading arguments. But at least there are some arguments that are so obviously flawed, even they won't make them.