Reply to Kay:

If this is true, why do none of the scientists nor creationist groups who studied this issue extensively (and when the riverbed was dry) not been able to demonstrate that such prints existed? If the print was under 6" of water, are you sure you had a good look at it, and that your memory is sound? I've had tourists tell me while I was working in the Paluxy that they had seen "perfect" human tracks during their visit--with stories similar to yours. However, when I ask them to please take me to the prints, they showed me an indistinct or ambiguous marking, or and were themselves surprised to see that their memories had not been reliable, even over the space of days or hours, let alone years or decades. Again, if you have any photos or other empirical evidence to show us, besides memories, please do so. Thanks. GK

Reply to Joel:

Its ironic that Patton would initiate a false rumor about me destroying a track, and then repeatedly use the word "slanderous" in regards to my clarification of the evidence. In my essay "Reply to Unfounded Rumor" I explain in detail that the rumor was not only unfounded, but demonstrably false. Indeed, it was changed multiple times in attempts to make it more plausible (and in response to my pointing out factual errors in the earlier versions). As far as a polygraph test goes, I am the one who first challenged Patton and Baugh to a public polygraph test, where we would all be asked questions by an objective third party. Patton has consistently refused to participate in this, and instead hired his own examiner, which, besides being a conflict of interest, featured selective, ambiguously worded questions that would allow him to answer positively but without getting to the crux of the issues. It was game playing at its worst. I do not feel I need to stoop to his tactics by playing tit for tat and hiring my own polygraph tester. However, I renew my invitation for a public polygraph test proctored by a neutral party, where the truth will be much more likely to come out.

I also should note, in regards to Patton's general credibility, that he has made many claims about human tracks and other anomalous fossils (like Moab/Malachite Man bones) which are not supported by the evidence or any mainstream scientists, and which have been rejected or questioned even by most creationist workers. Indeed, if there really were numerous clear human tracks in the Paluxy as he and Baugh claim, there would be no need to propagate rumors about a destroyed track; since there would be many other "man tracks" to confirm his claims. But as the papers by me and other researchers show, there is no evidence that a human track ever existed at that spot (which contains an infilled metatarsal dinosaur track), no compelling evidence of any other human tracks in the Paluxy. Indeed, it is geologically impossible for a real track to exist in the infilling material, since core samples showed that there are no bedding planes in the infilling, and real tracks require bedding planes. As a supposed geologist, Patton should know this.

However, evidently he feels that rumor mongering is more effective than dealing carefully and thoroughly with the evidence. Indeed, he has not published any scientific papers supporting his Paluxy claims, even in the creationist press. His tabloid level, sensationalist approach not only does not further the cause of creationism, it undermines creationist credibility, and makes a mockery of both science and religion.

Thanks, GK

Reply to Jeanne:

When you say "they" went under other layers, are suggesting "they" are clear human tracks? If so please post some photos.

You suggest the overlying layers could easily be dug up. Indeed, they were! Years ago creationists themselves did this, but upon reevaluation, acknowledged that the supposed giant human tracks uncovered were questionable at best. I myself studied their early work as well as conducted many years of on-site research, and concluded that the tracks at this site (the Taylor Site) were largely infilled forms of metatarsal dinosaur tracks, while other alleged human tracks were erosional markings and full or partial carvings. Again, the major creationist groups now agree.

The lack of promising "man track" evidence in the Paluxy is indicated by the fact that none of the none of the major creationist groups have sponsored any significant work there for many years. If they thought there was much chance of clear human tracks there, would they not be there trying to demonstrate this? Its not for lack of funds. They've spent millions recently on "creation" museums, but have not one clear and convincing human fossil or human track in any pre-Mesozoic strata.

If you know something I and they don't, or if you have photos to support your contentions, please post them.

Thanks, GK

----
The introduction to my site explains the essence of the controversy. The "noise" about the alleged human tracks has subsided in recent years, but the tracks were once claimed by many strict creationists indicate that humans and dinosaurs lived together only a few thousand years ago. Please read some of the articles at my site to learn more. Thanks. GK Thanks. GK

Reply:

I do have links on radiometric dating, and hope you find them credible. They are located near the bottom of the main page, under the heading "Evidence for an Old Earth." Dennis Swift's degree evidently is in theology. Like Kent Hovind, Carl Baugh, and Don Patton, he makes claims regarding living dinosaurs and living pterosaurs, and Peruvian pottery depicting humans and dinosaurs, but they are not considered credible by most researchers, including most creationist groups. For more discussion of the "living pterosaurs" and Peruvian pottery claims, see my essay "Living Pterosaurs?" on my main Paluxy page. Thanks. GK