Carl Baugh TBN program Next Tuesday 9-12-06

Hi all.I dont know if somebody can direct me to a place where this is discussed but there is an artifact of a very human looking footprint(this is not the Texas "man-tracks", which I also need more info on) in which he just had anaylsis done by a geology lab and was found to be a genuine imprint in (forget the name of the period) rock from 225 million to 256 million years ago.His program first airs at 12:30 AM EST Fridat morning on TBN and re-airs Tuesday 7 PM EST.I saw the first run.He has had a genuine piece of cut out rock from a layer dated 225-256 million years ago till recently.It has a footprint that has endless features(which he has discussed)that clearly seem to indicate a human footprint.He has had it displayed on his set every episode.Now the owner just took it back but allowed 1 cast to be made.The authentic rock was sent to a geology lab and found that the print was clearly made when the rock was soft and not chistled in.Baugh covers it in the last 5-10 minutes of his current (about to re-air on Tuesday) program.And shows details of the lab report.I would appreciate it if somebody could watch the program and then LMK what the responce is.Or please direct me to relevent links discussing the lab result.I THINK it is a recent development so maybe this hasnt been covered.Im not sure though ebcause this wasnt the main subject of his program but the significant part of the last 1/3rd of it.THX

MightyPlaceNimrod writes: Here are a couple of Bible & Science sites with more of the information you are looking for. You're talking about the 'Coffee print' on a slab of rock alleged by Carl Baugh to be of 'Permian' origin.http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm
IBSS - The Bible and Science - Dinosaur and Human FootprintsExpect reality to fall far short of Baugh's claims, as usual.
Baugh has a reputation as a charlatan even among creationists.Answers in Genesis posted this repudiation of Baugh on their web site:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/whatbau.htmHere's an examination of his alleged academic credentials:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/degrees.htm_ADDED BY EDIT: Here's a direct link to the 'Coffee print' article I supplied in a later post.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/coffee.htmEdited by Archer Opterix, : Added link.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Added link.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I did ask for that on the side, and DO appreciate it.But this print he has shown (and now has a perfect replica)looks much more human than those tracks.He has MANY times showed why it cant be a chistle.Now he had a detailed Geological examination in a lab with X-rays and such.I quickly skimmed over the links you gave, and will read more later when I have more time.I DONT think they covered what I was mainly refering to though.I almost with people here could watch every episode(they go very fast)then respond each and every week to what was said.EDIT: You are correct in that I was refering to the "Cofee print".While reading your links, on Paluxy issues, they linked to Baughs site.I can tell by the picture,description, and other details that this is the print from T.V.Ill search your links later,with a specific goal related to the Coffee Prints, but I do think that his lab scan IS NEWS.I have seen endless geologists and others on his T.V. program explain why the prints couldnt have been carving, but I hope people here can help iron out ALL the details including the latest developments.Here is what Baughs site says about the issue (snip)in relating to the scientific lab result."The discoverer's grandson, Mr. Fred Coffee, a member of the Stinnett City Council, is the current owner of the artifact. With his gracious cooperation the track was submitted to a nondestructive Spiral CT Scan analysis at a laboratory. While the information was being processed through the computer, the technical staff immediately pointed to the screen and emphasized the compression areas under the track and between the toes. The staff also emphasized the clearly discernible five toes, the three arches (medial, lateral, and metatarsal), and the overall distinctive shape of the human foot.Attention was drawn to the depressions made by the dominant “great toe,” the unique “second toe” that makes a slightly deeper depression, and the distinctive “ball”of the foot. When the analysis was complete the CT Scan had recorded the compression around the complete footprint, clearly indicating that the print was not carved or fabricated. In CT Scan X-rays the lighter areas are more dense, since the X-rays have more difficulty traveling through that medium.As it reaches the ground in forward locomotion the human foot first places pressure in the heel area, gently transfers the weight to the lateral longitudinal arch (creating a slight bulge in the upper outer section of the foot in the process), transfers the weight to the ball and the medial longitudinal arch, then transfers the weight to the metatarsal arch and the toes in a lifting motion. The enclosed documentation verifies this distinctive placement.Of significant importance is the fact that a thin crustal layer of sediment formed over the bulk rock as both layers lithofied. The crustal layer followed the contour of the contour of the depression. This thin layer is clearly seen, since a section of it peeled off as Mr. Coffee was removing the artifact. Any carving activity would have cut through the outer layer, clearly leaving its evidence of fabrication."http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.htmlThere is a large image of the scan results and X-rays.Also, to make it clear.I dont mind hearing people talk about anything and everything about Baugh, but lets stick to the issue(as much as possible, or at least be aware that the lab result is my main point of inquiry even if posts dont cover it)I mainly want to cover.In addition,maybe we could have a weekley topic here where people respond to Baughs T.V. program?Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

MightyPlaceNimrod, in a post about 'covering tracks', writes: So even though Harold Hill didn't tell the truth about his degrees from the Gary Conservatory, and didn't tell the truth about being able to play the cymbals, saxophone, trumpet, piccolo, xylophone, euphonium, clarinet, horn, tympani, flute, trombone, oboe and bass drum, maybe he really means it this time when he says he can play the bassoon. For someone who claims to be curious about this you don't seem very curious. Could it be you're just (gasp!) spamming for the TV show?The site is thorough. The material addresses much more than just the Paluxy tracks. That's why I mentioned the name 'Coffee print'--so you can find the article in the list. But you did say you wanted more information about Paluxy as well.Here's a direct link to that 'Coffee print' article:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/coffee.htmThis saves you the trouble of all that scrolling and enables you to bypass all that other information you don't want to know.For those who are interested, here's the main link:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Brevity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Added link.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

You really need to be more careful about the analogies you use, friend. In every production of The Music Man that I've ever been to, as well as in the movie, the show ends with the band playing wonderfully. ;-)

---

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

Gee, and I always thought the ending was merely symbolic, an example of one of the play's major themes, that we see what we want to see. I do like the analogy with Carl Baugh.--Percy

subbie says: Just like every Carl Baugh footprint claim ends with his band of believers making tracks.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Not the least bit surprised to see someone with the moniker "Archer Opterix" is a master punster as well.It is nice to see that someone out there is making sure The Baugh Band has to face the music.

---

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

"For someone who claims to be curious about this you don't seem very curious."I am VERY busy right now,YET I still took the time to go to EACH link twice(!).Once to skim.2nd time to try and read some stuff.I didnt know the artifact was called the "Coffee Print".I dint even know what you meant.I didnt see it mentioned in any of my 2 readings of the sites,though I admitted I was busy and couldnt check closely.I Edited JUST to say that you did infact have the exact print I was thinking of."The site is thorough. The material addresses much more than just the Paluxy tracks. That's why I mentioned the name 'Coffee print'--so you can find the article in the list. But you did say you wanted more information about Paluxy as well."Incase you missed it,I thanked you and SPECIFICALLY mentioned that I appreciated th Paluxy info.I just wanted to be clear what the priority of my post was on.I also said that i didnt mind if people wnt 100% off topic just as long as we kept the MAIN point of the thread (at least) in the back of their mind."This saves you the trouble of all that scrolling and enables you to bypass all that other information you don't want to know."You dont know me pal.If you did, then you would find that to be about the most absurd insult the world has ever seen."For someone who claims to be curious about this you don't seem very curious. Could it be you're just (gasp!) spamming for the TV show?"Spamming for what? Discussion on artifacts and by extension Creationism( not that these artifacts EXACTLY have to do with creationism alone IMO)? I thought people liked discussing Baugh and Hovind. I thought his show would be a quick non-invasive way for some here to catch a view of current claims/discoveries he is covering, then they could be discussed (negatively I was sure).Anyway,this will be my last post on the creation/evolution issue.I have a thick skin but I dont appreciate my motives being questioned. I dont care THAT much about these particular issues to have to defend my character just for making a simple post.I will still post on this site, but it will be on other issues aside from ANYTHING related to Geology , Creationism, Evolution, and the like.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

My sincere apologies for hurting your feelings. It was not my purpose to insult you.I raised the question about spamming because the title you gave this thread is practically a TV Guide listing in itself. This, coupled with the fact that you showed little familiarity with the material you requested, or even with the text of the response, raised the question of how curious you really were. It is a relief to hear I may have been mistaken. That means the information I provided may still be of service.Before speading the word about extravagant claims, one should know the territory.May I now suggest directing more of your indignation at those who lie to you than at those who don't?

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

It did infact look like I was "correcting" you for giving me Paluxy info.I wasnt very articulate in the way I said it.Also(upon checking a 3rd time,quickly yet again as my time isnt exactly my own right now),it is only 1 site that you linked that covered the Coffee Tracks, and it was in a section that had a link page.The Coffee Track was just 1 link among nearly 100 covering other issues.And I only found 1 review (the one you later specifically linked to).Does it really seem unreasonable to you that I would miss the link? Especially when I admitted I was short of time."I raised the question about spamming because the title you gave this thread is practically a TV Guide listing in itself. This, coupled with the fact that you showed little familiarity with the material you requested, or even with the text of the response, raised the question of how curious you really were. It is a relief to hear I may have been mistaken. That means the information I provided may still be of service.Before speading the word about extravagant claims, one should know the territory."Honestly, I never claimed to know much about the subject.I do know that Baugh is considered damaged goods around here, even by the relative standards of already low regard & repute any Creationist gets from the get go.I KNEW that my general repeating (more or less reporting) of his claims would be met with the utmost skepticism.I didnt think I needed a disclaimer to warn people about Baugh's sometimes sloppy conclusions around here.It just seemed to me that most posts about Baugh around here are either general insults (about 80%) or on older issues like Paluxy and the like(about 19.5%).I thought I was covering a new or semi-new issue.Infact your link does seem to indicate to me that this issue is a new one.And they dont 100% dismiss it with regards to its claimed(by Baugh) geologic context.Infact, they seem to be cautious at worst in concluding that it wasnt carved.There is some question whether there isnt another layer of more recent stratum on top of the accepted 250 million year stratum layer it was found in.They do seem more critical of its human origin,though Im not sure there couldnt be a variety of human feet with features like they describe.Im not saying there could or couldnt be.Im not saying "is" or "isnt".But I do know that human feet have many different features that we KNOW about, from webbed feet to flat feet, that havnt been erased from the gene pool completely.Just like there are some pigmented varieties of natural "grey" hair in some Jews and Syrians of today that no other peoples seem to have.See Bill Kristol or Robert Wexler for examples(though they are loosing pigment with age,plus camera lighting effects make it difficult to notice)."May I now suggest directing more of your indignation at those who lie to you than at those who don't?"Lets wait and get some more reviews.I only found 1 review so far (the one you linked me to).While it was a fair review, it was afterall just one review.I know all to well (since 98% of my research in other areas is done with those who generally disagree with me, though I dont look at issues from the perspective of "he agrees with my general work-in-progress conslusions..he doesnt", and may times some works clearly have people with an agenda who select what they want to "respond" to in an almost strawman fashion) that people have a way of only highlighting the words of others,who they fundamentally disagree with, that often are most easy to shoot down.Too many inconvinent details are often swept under the rug.I respect the rock-solid ideological Evolutionists (just as I respect those who lean towards creation beliefs), but they tend to be a little too selective in what they respond to and it is all too often.Same with Creationists.I prefer detailed debate and counter debate.Free of "fat" and "lard" in the form of insults, strawmen, and conclusion jumping. (Notice I didnt knock selective "responces" , those are fine but they only work when people stay 100% on topic and dont lard the discussion,otherwise on-topic responces get lost and further areas of discussion never get explored,much less read by lurkers like me)Ah.In a perfect world.......Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

I referred MightyPlaceNimrod to an article (still a draft at the time of this writing) by Glen J Kuban. Kuban is familiar with Carl Baugh's exploits and hosts a thorough site documenting them. The site gathers materials by a number of authors, many of them creationists.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm

The article under discussion:

'Coffee print'
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/coffee.htm

Other articles cited in this thread:

Baugh's questionable claims to college degrees
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/degrees.htm

​

Repudiation of Baugh by Answers in Genesis
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/whatbau.htm

_ The author has not examined the slab personally. So the author offers no conjectures about how the footprint image was made and sticks to the known facts.Why you find this a cause for optimism is beyond me. The known facts are devastating. How can you say that stratum date is 'accepted'? Here is what the article actually says (emphases mine):

a major problem for this alleged human print is that only anecdotal evidence has been presented for the source locality and geologic context. [...] in order for this print to be taken seriously by scientists, we would need verifiable documentation that it came from a Permian or other pre-Quaternary formation. Evidence for this might be provided by detailed study of the lithology and any fossil evidence (especially microfossils) in the rock itself, but evidently so far this has not been done.

The stratum date remains unknown. The author tells you that until some evidence is produced Baugh's claims cannot be taken seriously by scientists. As science Baugh's slab is dead on arrival.When all you have is Baugh's say-so, you are not in good hands. Aside from his track record (so to speak) this is demonstrated by the dubious statements he has made about this slab:

According to Baugh, the Coffee print, which he incorrectly calls an "artifact" (if real, it would be a trace fossil, not an artifact), "created an instant controversy among archaeologists, geologists and anthropologists, because the sedimentary rock system of the entire area is geologically assigned Permian (assumed to be 225 million years old)."

​

As is common in Baugh's writings, he has misreported the mainstream date. The Permian is dated at approximately 290-245 million years ago, not 225. One might wonder, if the print was such a topic of legitimate controversy as Baugh implies, why Baugh does not cite any scientific or even popular literature regarding it. Even more curious is the apparent lack of previous, detailed creationist work and writings on the specimens in question, especially if it has been known by creationists for as long as Baugh indicates.

It should raise a red flag for you that Baugh still gets confused about basic concepts in geology and paleontology. It should also bother you that he--yet again--is making sensational claims the record does not support. The author notes that, apart from the matter of stratum, '[the print] shows a number of unnatural features that warrant further skepticism about its authenticity.'You obviously agree, as your next comments indicate: You admit the 'print' looks unnatural to you. To invest any credence in it at all you are forced to go on a wool-gathering expedition about people with duck feet!You have no reason to take this slab seriously, Mr Nimrod. You know Baugh has produced no evidence to support his claims, you know his own statements cannot be trusted, and you admit that the 'footprint' does not look right. What's left to take seriously?Nothing..Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Brevity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I meant to say that that rock in the area was assigned a particular date,but the dispute was whether the Coffee Track was found in a newer local layer that isnt part of the larger region wide geologic situation.Here is what I found on google. (not much) Shortened long linkMy view on the issue is this...I want to know what the discovery means.I want to know what the creature is and what time period it is from.Thats my view.It seems that some people want to sweep discoveries under the rug.See Forbidden Archaeology by Cremo and Thompson(NOT creationist material!).I dont see this as a Creation/Evolution issue.Maybe if Evolutionists could see the big picture (instead of fearing the a possible "Coup" for creationists), then we could get to the next logical step.Step 1 is to email Baugh and ask him about where the EXACT location is that the tracks were found.Then we can logically "take it from there".Step 2 is to email Baugh and ask him,since he said there were 9 tracks total, if they can risk a destructive geological examanation on a few of them(assuming they are still in somebodies hands and not lost).Evolutionists (I use that as a description of the highly emotional and ideological ones, not people who simply believe in Evolution)have nothing to fear.Im sure the Geological context can be changed if the scientific conclusions dont fit the established paradigm.An evolution believer Lewin wrote in his book Bones Of Contention (not to be confused with an unrelated Creationist book of the same name)examples of geologic contexts being radically changed whenever undisputed "anomolies" became too severe a strain on the assigned dates of particular strata.The KBS Tuft (or something like that) comes to mind.Relax.(Also notice that Baugh isnt the issue here........... science is)Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

You were right, subbie. They hear the music they want to hear.And the band played on...

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Maybe Baugh isn't the issue, I don't know, but he's certainly the topic of this thread.What I see as the issue isn't science but lay people's inability, on average, to tell the difference between science and pseudo-science. The creationists, astrologers, ESPers, poltergeistists, UFO-ologists and so forth are all practicing pseudo-science.Recognizing pseudo-science is sometimes easy, sometimes difficult. Flat-earthers practice a brand of pseudo-science that is particularly easy to recognize, while the protagonist of the Revolutionary Science thread, Joao Magueijo, is clearly practicing science, despite that his ideas are, so far, roundly rejected.In the case of Baugh, and any associated ideas, you have latched onto an extreme practitioner of pseudo-science who's also a rather obvious example of promotion of fraudulent ideas to the lay public. Probably few here feel the need to put much, if any, effort into rebutting such ideas.By the way, if Baugh appeals to you then you might want to look into the ideas of Ron Wyatt. Websites promoting his ideas are easy to find.--Percy