To : RAY SPEAKMON Subj: THE ARK OF NOAH RS Explain why a RStrilobite was found compressed

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

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 RS>the two. 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 weep: 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> > 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 trilobite). 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 the "print:" 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 neighbors. 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 textbook sales. 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. Peace, Larry ___ * WR # 398 * And god said: E = mv - Ze/r, and there was light! --- FMail/386 0.98 * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212)

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank