Consequences of the a-priori commitment to materialism

Originally posted by npetreley
Put simply, "Don't bother showing me anything that contradicts my conclusion, because it can only be reliable evidence if it confirms my conclusion."

Sort of like, "It doesn't matter what these people say, or if these people have a PhD in Biology from Purdue or UC Berkeley. They are still clearly liars, uneducated and ignorant. Why? Because they don't agree with me."

Click to expand...

Originally posted by chickenman
no its more; "don't bother postulating a conclusion that contradicts other evidence that we have".

Click to expand...

Originally posted by npetreley
By the way, contrary to the claims of so-called debunkers, other footprints were found in the same area, so this was not likely to be a rock shape that just "looked like a footprint."

Click to expand...

Originally posted by randman
Nick, good job. It is obvious that any data which contradicts evolutionism will simply be thrown out.

Click to expand...

According to Dr. Melvin Cook (1970), a local rockhound named William J. Meister was hunting for trilobites along a hillside near Antelope Springs, Utah in 1986 when he broke open a slab and discovered something curious: an oblong shape that he took for a human sandal print. This was quite surprising, since the rock at this locality is identified as the middle Cambrian Wheeler Formation--over 500 million years old.

The supposed sandal print measured approximately 10 1/2 inches by 3 1/2 inches, and occurred on both sides of the slab (with opposite relief). The specimen included what Meister took as a heel demarcation, as well as several small trilobites.


The "Meister Print". Arrow points to one of the trilobites in the specimen


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shortly after Cook's report, other creationists (Kofahl and Segraves, 1975; Baker, 1976; Wysong, 1976; Huse, 1983; Petersen, 1987) cited the Meister find as evidence against evolution and the standard geologic timetable. However, the putative print does not stand up to close scrutiny.

The specimen does contain several real trilobites, but the "print" itself is questionable on several accounts. Upon closer inspection the overall shape is seen to consist of a spall pattern in a concretion-like slab, similar to others in the area. There is no evidence that it was ever part of a striding sequence, nor evidence that it was ever on an exposed bedding plane. The "print" is very shallow and shows no sign of pressure deformation nor foot movement at its margin. The supposed "heel" demarcation is actually a crack that runs across the entire slab, beyond the boundary of the supposed print. The slight relief difference at this point is due to slight movement along the crack line (Conrad, 1981; Stokes, 1986).

Similar spall patterns are abundant in the Wheeler formation, as are slabs showing concentric oval shapes of varying color, sometimes with stair-step like relief. Several other of these oblong features have also been interpreted as possible human prints (Cook, 1970), but are even less convincing than the Meister specimen (Conrad, 1981). None occur in striding trails or otherwise meet the scientific criteria by which genuine human prints are reliably identified. The geochemical processes such as solution penetrations, spalling, and weathering which form such features in fissile rocks of the Wheeler formation was discussed in considerable detail by Stokes (1986).

Several such "pseudo-prints" from Antelope Springs were sent to me in the early 1980's by creationist biologist Ernest Booth. One showed both an ovoid spall pattern similar to the Meister print, and another a color-distinct ovoid pattern without topographic relief. Booth expressed dismay that his fellow creationists had not explained that such superficially print-like features were abundant at the site, and were products of geological phenomena and not real prints (Booth, 1982).

Some creationists have noted that the find was "confirmed" by "Dr. Cook." However, Dr. Cook was a metallurgist with little paleontological experience or knowledge. In his own report on the find Cook states, "...I am by no means an authority on fossils and footprints." He adds that the print seems to "speak for itself". However, upon close inspection, what the evidence says does not support Cook's conclusions.

In short, the trilobites in the specimen are real enough, but the "print" itself is dubious. After mainstream rebuttals of this find were published in the 1980's (Conrad, 1981; Stokes, 1986; Strahler, 1987), most creationists quietly and wisely ceased promoting this specimen. However, a few individuals continue to advocate it as an out-of-order fossil.

Click to expand...

npetreley said:

I pointed out elsewhere that having an a-priori commitment to materialism forces you to look at evidence in a narrow-minded way.

Click to expand...

People with an a-priori commitment to material causes have no choice but to believe in evolution, because it's the only thing they can think of that would explain how we got here by material causes. So they cannot tolerate any evidence that contradicts their conclusions, and are required by their a-priori commitment to materialism to just toss out that contradictory evidence or explain it away -- even if they have no way to explain it away.

Click to expand...