From: LARRY SITES 11 Jun 94 09:51
To : RAY SPEAKMON
Subj: THE ARK OF NOAH
RS> Explain why a
RS>trilobite was found compressed in a child's footprint (Dr. Clifford
RS>Burdick) as there should be approximately 50 - 100 million years betwee
OK, but first explain why at one time during the middle ages there were a
dozen churchs all claiming to have a physical artifact of Jesus time on
earth, his severed foreskin! Perhaps by now, you realize that the
explaination for both claims is that they are BUNK! Read the following and
Message # 6636 Area : 53 BIOGENESIS
From : Scott Faust 07-11-93 03:48
To : George Rudzinski
Subj : Re: Biodiversity & F
GEORGE RUDZINSKI to JACK BRANNAN, 07-08-93, re: "Re: Biodiversity & Flood"
> GR> Here you go again with the most scenario. Show me one
> GR> fossilized modern mammal in a layer with an ammonite.
> JB> I dont know of any, as a fact I dont even know of one ammonite
> JB> fossil. Would you settle for a trillobite that was squashed by a
> JB> human foot?
> Sure, if the fossilized bones of the foot were present. Give me a break!
George, Jack has in mind the Meister "footprint". This is one of
the more pathetic examples (relatively speaking!) of supposed "out
of order" fossils. Some creationists claim that the "print" is
that of the sole of a shoe or sandal. There is a small trilobite
in the "heel" of the "print". In fact, there is no diagnostic
evidence that the feature is a print at all. It appears on the
joint suface of a split block from the Wheeler Shale of Middle
Cambrian age from Millard County, Utah. There is no mud push up,
no deformed laminae, no differential infilling versus matrix, or
any of the other features usually found in association with genuine
tracks. If you will look up "spall" or "spalling" in a geological
dictionary, that is the phenomena that we are dealing with here.
For more information on the Meister "Prints" see:
Conrad, Ernest C. 1981. "Tripping Over a Trilobite: A study of
the Meister tracks." _Creation/Evolution [Journal]_. Issue VI
(v2, n4). pp. 30-33.
Strahler, Arthur N. 1987. _Science and Earth History_.
Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. pp. 459-60.
Stokes, William L. 1986. "Alleged Human Footprint from Middle
Cambrian Strata, Millard County, Utah." _Journal of Geological
Education_. v34. pp.187-90.
The later two sources, and especially Stokes' article, specifically
explain the phenomena of spalling the produced the Meister
"prints" (there are four of them altogether, but only one with the
And from another archive:
RC> In Swasey Mountain (west central Utah), the footprints of a
RC> barefooted CHILD were discovered in a Wheeler formation. In the
RC> middle of the track's arch lay the compressed remains of a
RC> TRILOBITE. It was obviously not fossilized when the child stepped
RC> on it, for it was squashed by the child. (The track was discovered
RC> by geologist Clifford Burdick and mentioned in "Basis for a New
RC> Biology," 1975)
Ah, yes. The "Meister print." If you will bother to check the
literature, you will find that the print was adequately and completely
explained in the _Journal of Geological Education_ 34:187-190. William
Meister, a local in Millard County, Utah, had split open a joint slab
(common in that area -- I've been there) and found this "print." Meister
took the specimen to William Stokes, Professor of Geology at the University
of Utah in Salt Lake City. By this time, the story had already leaked to
the newspapers and pseudoscientists were already jumping on it as a
repudiation of standard geology.
What did Meister find? Well, it appeared to be a single "print," but
not of a "barefooted CHILD" as Burdick states and as you represent.
Stokes, the professional in this case, provided the following analysis of
My judgement was that since the specimen does not display
an elevated rim, and that it seemed impossible to check any
additional criteria [as in additional "prints"], in the
field, that the finders should not publish their find as a
proven footprint but should at least leave open the possibi-
lity that it might be something else, a natural break or
spall, for example.
Stokes was already receiving resistance to naturalistic explanations
for the find, however. In the same article, he continues:
This was not what Meister and his follwers wanted to hear;
they already had opinions favorable to their "theory" from
a variety of media people, cobblers, ministers, and interested
Clearly, Meister "and his followers," including Burdick, already had
their minds made up as to the find and it's a wonder they even bothered
Stokes with it. Stokes' article does go into a perfectly reasonable and
rational naturalistic explanation as to the cause of the "print" and it
contains phenomena known to anyone with a knowledge of elementary geology.
Because he could not disprove that, Burdick resorted to personal attack in
his article about the Meister print (_Bible-Science Newsletter_
18(2):3-5.), accusing Stokes of cover-up in an attempt to protect his
No trail of tracks have been found _in situ_, even though the site has
been investigated. What we have is an anomaly that isn't all that
anomalous to those with an understanding of geology. And so, what we have
is another PCM.
* WR # 398 * And god said: E = «mvý - Zeý/r, and there was light!
--- FMail/386 0.98
* Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212)