Carl Baugh TBN program Next Tuesday 9-12-06

By that logic,we shouldnt accept his amazing Ammonite find.Has nothing to do with the Creation issue either.Anyway, I doubt I will fit your example of a pseudo-scientist since I openly claim to know little about geology and such. And general strawmen and smears dont interest me much. I a more meat and bones kind of person than just about anybody else who I have seen post here (certainely in this thread). If its an issue, then I want it investigated.PERIOD.Also.(switching gears)I am not a person who would be too crazy about Ron Wyatt.I havnt looked too closely at all 5 of his claimed discoveries but here is my take on a few of them.His claimed Sodom and Gomorrah findings were way out of the area where the real Sodom and Gomorroh "would be" and ARE found.The real (5)cities of the plain are east of the Dead Sea area.Wyatt has his cities located way west of the Dead Sea.Also,Wyatt never provided any pottery dating to provide context.I dont even know what his cities are even called.They were neat cities, with some impressive ruins (Step pyramids, Sphynx's , pure sulfar balls, etc.)but I dont think he gave either their modern names or any possible pottery or archaeology to I.D. their ancient (?) names. They could be from 500AD for all I know.On the other hand (the REAL cities,which Myatt and everybody ignores)....The cities of Bab EDH DHRA (Sodom), Numeira (Gomorrah), Safi (Zoar), Feifa (Adamah) ,Khanazir (Zeboaim) (forgive spelling errors) all have details that fit perfectly the location and dates of the destruction of the cities.There sadely are modern cities over Bab EDH DHRA (very limited excavation opportunities) , which is sadder considering they weret there till the last 30-40 years or so.Albright ,searched them in around 1930 but felt that they were cities without a large population.It has now been found that there is a large cemetary with 50,000 dead.The term of this city ended at the end of the Early Bronze age (c2100 BCE or around there), which is the "exact" date of the destructions given in the Bible.3 of the 5 cities (except Zoar which the Bible states was spared)have been found to have been destroyed at the same time with ash layers across the surface terminating the cities by fire.Not all the cities have been fully excavated and there are limiting factors (such as modern cities)preventing such from happening.A map from 600AD,in on a church floor in what is today Madama,Jordan, confirms the location of Zoar (Safi), the only surviving city from the destructions.It located Zoar as modern Safi.If true, and most archaeologists assume Byzantium onomasticons, and Arabic cities place names, to have alot of credibility though they are often wrong (infact I think they are wrong perhaps more than archaeologists do), then the other cities are true also.So I disagree with wyatt on the 5 "Cities of the Plain".I disagree with his Ark site.0 for 2.I also dont agree with his 18th dynasty chariot wheels being from the Exodus.Plus I disgree with other issues there.I am positive the Exodus was either at the end of the 13th Dynasty or during the 17th.Most of my posts here were in 1 thread, and it was on the Conquest issue.Though I didnt cover the Exodus (much) , the Conquest archaeological details I presented clearly show that I feel it was no late than 1550 BCE which means the Exodus (happened no later than 1590) would be BEFORE the 18th dynast which started in 1539 BCE.Wyatt and me are 0 for 3.He claimed to have found the Ark of the Covenant but claims Israeli's made his swear to secrecy.Consider us 0 for 4 but who knows.I cant even remember the 5th claim he made.But considering there is very little archaeological context (though pottery dating) in any of his discoveries , the chances of his claims being rue are slim plus I simply disagree with much of his picked locations for certain events to start with.So, I seem to disagree with Wyatt as much as anybody could.Infact I would bet that I have done my homework on certain archaeological issues more so than anybody else here in this thread.I still want to buy his DVDs because I am interested in seeing video (an will buy his DVDs)of these "Sodom" and "Gomorrah" cities he claims to have found, not because I think they are the cities but because they sound like some of the most fascinating cities I have ever heard of.I wonder what they are dated to.The stspped pyramids and Spynx's do seem to indicate they could be old but who knows.

For anyone unfamiliar with Baugh or Wyatt, here is what Answers in Genesis has to say.From Arguments we think creationists should NOT use at Arguments to Avoid Topic | Answers in Genesis

quote:

---

Some of Carl Baugh’s “evidences” for creation.

​

We are sorry to say that, while AiG thinks he’s well meaning, Baugh unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any “evidence” he provides unless supported by creationist organizations with reputations for biblical and scientific rigor. Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh “evidences” despite being approached on the matter.

---

I have a bad feeling you may never see any critical examination of these footprints by any organization, be they YEC or scientific.

My emphasis.[Insert your own joke here.]

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Then your quarrel is with Carl Baugh.The slab is not an issue here until Baugh documents his claims and makes his slab available to scientists for investigation. Until that happens, there is no science to discuss.As this matters so much to you, why not write to Mr Baugh and inform him of this impasse? Tell him you want the slab investigated, PERIOD.Come back, by all means, after you have something..Edited by Archer Opterix, : Brevity.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I do not know alot about dating methods, first off.I thought this baugh guy had it scanned somehow and that revealed its age. Learn me and help me understand why this isn't reliable. Or is it that it would be reliable using multiple labs? Is the only way to determine its age to destory it? If so, why? Plenty of objects aren't destroyed that are carbon dated.

Baugh had a CT scan done. It's a medical imaging procedure.It doesn't date anything.The scans show a solid block of rock. Baugh claims the scans show compression features (such as you might find if a real footstep made the footprint). Problem is, he's the only one that can see them.The scans give him some sciencey-looking graphics to show on TV. They prove nothing except that he has friends with access to medical equipment.If Baugh was really serious about this thing as science, he would forego the TV hype and take his slab to the University of Texas or some place. He would walk into the geology center, set it on a table and describe the claims he's making. They will know the tests to run.He can do this any day he wants..Edited by Archer Opterix, : Brevity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Why the heck would the guy bother to scan it like that if he is presenting it on a show to claim it to be 250 million years old (give or take)? If he really wanted to see how old it was in the first place wouldn't the right thing to do involve having it tested correctly BEFORE running it around on TV? This is really starting to smell bad.I do not search for fossils for a living and if I did think I found something worth while, I sure as heck won't make claims unless I can back them up first.

Carl Baugh's feet do tend to do that.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

FWIW, there actually is some Permian rock at surface up near Stinnett, so there might actually be a hint of reality in what Baugh is claiming. Of course, this particular "footprint" doesn't have to be in Permian rock, and most of Hutchinson County looks to have Quaternary sediment on the surface. The Alibates Flint Quarry National Monument is only a few miles away, so we can be certain that people were there in the last few thousand years - they were making arrowheads nearby. With no geological data, the "track" could be authentic but recent - we just can't tell with no evidence.Alibates Flint Quarries and Ruins

xXGEARXx, creation science claims are not about proving anything, nor about discovering anything. They are only about convincing their audience. So if doing a "scientific test" would look convincing to the general public (which apparently is woefully ignorant of science), even if that test shows absolutely nothing that could support your position, they'll hold it up and claim it shows whatever they want it to show, whether it actually does or not.My understanding about dating rocks is that the radiodating methods only work for igneous rock. Sedimentary rock is made out of little pieces of much much older igneous rock, so radiodating methods won't work on it. What we do have is the pattern and order of which layers of rock are found above and below others, which gives up their relative ages (ie, which layers must be older than others). Part of identifying which layer a rock came from is from certain "index fossils", but that still doesn't give us an actual age. What does allow us to determine an actual age are many "tie points" (I think the term is) where igneous rocks have intruded through sedimentary rock and/or formed their own layers between sedimentary layers.So, the only way I know of to date a sedimentary rock fragment would be to determine which layer it came from. The only ways I know of to determine that would be to take careful note of the geology where it was found, or to find in it characteristic index fossils. Outside of looking for index fossils, I don't see what any lab could do to determine the age of a sedimentary rock.Neither has happened with this rock, so there is no way Baugh could claim to know its age.BTW, years ago I saw a photo of a known fake footprint from the Glen Rose area. It was common during the Depression for locals to carve fake footprints to sell or show to the tourists; it was part of the local tourist industry. This Coffee print looks an awful lot like that known fake carving, right down to the appearance of the toes and that absolutely flat sole.

Close to true. There are some structures/minerals which form when sedimentary rocks lithify (turn into rock) and in some cases these can be dated and give an accurate date for the formation of the sedimentary rock from older fragments. E.g. SHRIMP Uranium-Lead Dating of Diagenetic Xenotime in Siliciclastic Sedimentary Rocks (requires free registration, or see BugMeNot. But it's tricky, and not universally applicable. The vast, vast majority of dates are on igneous or metamorphic rock. True. But index fossils allow us to identify widely-separated rock formations as the same age. Say layer A contains index fossil 1 and is capped by a layer of lava that dates at 200 million years; layer A is more than 200 million years old. Say layer B also contains index fossil 1 and is on top of a layer of lava that dates at 230 million years; layer B is less than 230 million years old. Layers A and B are about the same age since they contain the same index fossil, so both layers are 215 +/- 15 million years old (ignoring the uncertainties in the igneous dates). Dikes (roughly vertical intrusions) and sills (roughly horizontal intrusions), or igneous layers above or below.