Reply: Thanks for your post. One thing that we have to be careful about is whether we are talking about the same specific prints. The images of alleged human prints in KY shown by Ingalls and reproduced by Henry Morris in The Genesis Flood were quite crude, showing oddly shaped tracks not consistent with normal human prints nor any known amphibian tracks. Nor were they demonstrated to be in striding sequences. My article explains how the grain concentration argument is not necessarily proof of authenticity. If Burroughs found new tracks under fresh sediment, it would be very interesting to know if these were at the same site, or in striding trails, and and how similar (if at all) they were to the images shown by Morris. Do you know if he ever published a paper on the prints reportedly found under newly peeled strata, or if he took any photos of them? Thanks.

GK

Reply to Brad:

As I explained in my article on whether physical death existed before the Fall, there are strong scientific as well as Biblical reasons for concluding that the death spoken of there was spiritual, not physical. The Bible often speaks of life and death in spiritual terms. Since God told Adam he would die the day he ate of the forbidden fruit, and he did not physically die that literal day, then either the day or death or both were not literal; otherwise the Bible would contradict itself. I don't understand your ending comment about the speed of light in deep space. If you have some specific scientific evidence to offer, please do so. GK

Reply to Dave:

If you check my main menu carefully, you'll find an essay dealing with the Forbidden Archaeology claims (the one referring to the NBC program), as well as separate articles on the alleged human finger fossil, and various alleged human footprints. The one focused on in the footage you refer to is called the Burdick Print. My article on that subject shows that it is an anatomically incorrect print whose subsurface features show it to be a definite carving, and which is acknowledged to be a carving even by most creationist workers. Thank you. GK

Reply to Keith:

Thanks for your comments. I agree with many of them. Your comment "the inability (not refusal) of a claimant to provide conclusive proof beyond the scientific evidence at hand should not irrefutably be evidence that the claims are invalid." is fine as far as it goes. However, the important point is that poorly supported claims are not worth much, especially in science. If I claimed that a pink elephant was sitting next to me as I type this, the fact that I have not demonstrated it conclusively would not prove it false, but by the same token, there would be no reason to assume it was true, or even plausible. In regards to many of the Paluxy related claims, we not only find an absence of compelling evidence for the claims, but in many cases we have strong contrary evidence, based on extensive research by both creationist and noncreationist workers. as well as admissions from former "man track" supporters that their early work and conclusions were questionable or incorrect. Thanks! GK

Reply to anonymous quest:

Its interesting that you are bold enough to encourage an unfounded rumor, but don't have the courage to leave your name. Please read the essay entitled "Reply to Unfounded Rumor" on my Paluxy menu demonstrating that this rumor was false and malicious. It is unfortuately that someone would start such a rumor, but sadder still that others with little or no firsthand knowlegge of the evidence would assume it is true and help spread it. I don't think this is very charitable or Christian behavior. By the way, in case you are interested in the evidence and not just rumors, the allegation that a human track in the infilling of a Taylor Trail track was destroyed was not only unfounded, but geologically impossible. Core samples of the Taylor Trail tracks showed that the track infillings associated with them lack bedding planes, and real tracks always occur on bedding planes. For more information please see my article on Color Distinctions. Best wishes, GK

Reply to Kay:

I am sure you are well intentioned, but human memories are notoriously fallible. In a number of cases individuals have made comments like this to me, but then when they locate their own photos, are surprised to see that the "tracks" are not nearly as clear as their memories indicated. You call my photos "sorry" but refer to only one of my articles, whreas I have numerous articles addressing many aspects of the controversy, with many more photos and diagrams, produced during more than 25 years of on sited research, not just a single brief visit.

At any rate, if you and others believed you saw clear human tracks, certainly you (or someone with you) would also have realized the importance of such a find, and thought to take some photos. Could you please post some of the photos so that we may all examine them? If you have none, and don't know of any by others, then your comments about my "sorry pictures" seem pretty inconsistent. Thanks, GK