• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Human footprint on 500 million year old trilobite fossil

Audie

Veteran Member
Actually, many people were consigned to the wilderness over this "continental drift"
thingo. I recall an amazing article in a Readers Digest in the 1970's about it. This
became a generational thing - some did polls on beliefs amongst geologists, and
slowly the younger ones were coming around to it before the early 1960's when
"sea floor spreading" clinched it. The science here wasn't that geology was similar
on either sides of some continents - it was exactly the same.
I am aware of the geology, I did minor in the subject.

Nobody lost tenure, and memory of what you read in
a lowbrow and highly opinionated magazine 50 years ago
doesmt support your position at all.

Still less does it support anything contrary to what I said re the
opposite approach of science and religion to dealing with
evidence.
 
Last edited:

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
I am aware of the geology, I did minor in the subject.

Nobody lost tenure, and memory of what you read in
a lowbrow and highly opinionated magazine 50 years ago
doesmt support your position at all.

Still less does it support anything contrary to what I said re the
opposite approach of science and religion to dealing with
evidence.

If the Readers Digest did a story on the subject then I am fine with that.
Never heard of anyone finding the RD was creating fake news.
As a point of interest - the various claims made during the Vietnam War:
the American liberal Left held to certain positions and the RD held to the
opposite. A study was done after 1975 of the various claims and it was
shown the RD was more accurate, and more predictive, of what actually
happened, than the "peace movement" and the Left.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
If the Readers Digest did a story on the subject then I am fine with that.
Never heard of anyone finding the RD was creating fake news.
As a point of interest - the various claims made during the Vietnam War:
the American liberal Left held to certain positions and the RD held to the
opposite. A study was done after 1975 of the various claims and it was
shown the RD was more accurate, and more predictive, of what actually
happened, than the "peace movement" and the Left.

Let me know if you can detect one (1) loss
of tenure or similar over “continental drift”.

Short of that, I will consider your claim
fake news, however sincerely you think
you heard of it 60 years ago.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Mods, if this OP are in the wrong category feel free to move it.

500 Million-Year-Old Human Footprint Fossil Baffles Scientists

How do creationists and evolutionists see this in their own beliefs?
How come that science has not spoken about finding like this the same way they speak of other forms of science?
Are science afraid of saying they are wrong? or does it go deeper than that?
This story was unknown to me. There are a number of reasons I do not accept the explanation. One is that trilobites were marine organisms and any creature walking on them would need to be walking on the sea floor. Not something humans are known for.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Let me know if you can detect one (1) loss
of tenure or similar over “continental drift”.

Short of that, I will consider your claim
fake news, however sincerely you think
you heard of it 60 years ago.

Uh... do I have to go to a library which houses old Readers Digests?
I tried the on-line archive but couldnt' figure it out.

one small item (I am supposed to be working!)
When Continental Drift Was Considered Pseudoscience | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

Rollin T. Chamberlin, who was also a University of Chicago geologist, did his father’s dirty work:
The drift theory “takes considerable liberties with our globe,” he wrote. It ignores “awkward, ugly
facts” and “plays a game in which there are few restrictive rules.” Young Chamberlin also quoted
an unnamed geologist’s remark that inadvertently revealed the heart of the problem: “If we are to
believe Wegener’s hypothesis we must forget everything which has been learned in the last 70
years and start all over again.”
Instead, geologists largely chose to forget Alfred Wegener, except to launch another flurry of
attacks on his “fairy tale” theory in the middle of World War II. For decades afterward, older
geologists warned newcomers that any hint of an interest in continental drift would doom
their careers.
 

Astrophile

Active Member
In "theory" at least, or in an ideal world.
I grew up with the raging controversy surrounding "continental drift"
people lost tenure, their jobs, their reputation etc for believing in it.

Did you really? According to your own account, you were born on 1st January 1980. According to my recollection, the plate tectonic revolution took place during the late 1960s, when I was in my early 20s, and the theory was generally accepted by the early 1970s, nearly ten years before you were born. Plate tectonics is described, under that name, in Seiya Uyeda's book The New View of the Earth (a translation in 1977 of a book published in Japanese in 1972), and in A Pan Dictionary of Earth Sciences (edited by Stella E. Stiegler), which was published in 1976. Even the creationist Henry Morris, on page 128 of Scientific Creationism (first published in 1974) said, 'most geologists have become committed to the concepts of plate tectonics, sea-floor spreading and continental drift.' Where were you living that people were losing their tenure and their jobs for believing in "continental drift" in the 1980s?
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Did you really? According to your own account, you were born on 1st January 1980. According to my recollection, the plate tectonic revolution took place during the late 1960s, when I was in my early 20s, and the theory was generally accepted by the early 1970s, nearly ten years before you were born. Plate tectonics is described, under that name, in Seiya Uyeda's book The New View of the Earth (a translation in 1977 of a book published in Japanese in 1972), and in A Pan Dictionary of Earth Sciences (edited by Stella E. Stiegler), which was published in 1976. Even the creationist Henry Morris, on page 128 of Scientific Creationism (first published in 1974) said, 'most geologists have become committed to the concepts of plate tectonics, sea-floor spreading and continental drift.' Where were you living that people were losing their tenure and their jobs for believing in "continental drift" in the 1980s?

That's just my profile - it's not exactly accurate (!) I was in school when they
discovered sea-floor spreading. Continental drift wasn't on any curriculum
that I know of. Only lunatics believed the continents drifted around the planet.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Mods, if this OP are in the wrong category feel free to move it.

500 Million-Year-Old Human Footprint Fossil Baffles Scientists

How do creationists and evolutionists see this in their own beliefs?
How come that science has not spoken about finding like this the same way they speak of other forms of science?
Are science afraid of saying they are wrong? or does it go deeper than that?

The thing here is that science has no reason to believe it is a foot print.

The "Meister Print"
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Uh... do I have to go to a library which houses old Readers Digests?
I tried the on-line archive but couldnt' figure it out.

one small item (I am supposed to be working!)
When Continental Drift Was Considered Pseudoscience | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

Rollin T. Chamberlin, who was also a University of Chicago geologist, did his father’s dirty work:
The drift theory “takes considerable liberties with our globe,” he wrote. It ignores “awkward, ugly
facts” and “plays a game in which there are few restrictive rules.” Young Chamberlin also quoted
an unnamed geologist’s remark that inadvertently revealed the heart of the problem: “If we are to
believe Wegener’s hypothesis we must forget everything which has been learned in the last 70
years and start all over again.”
Instead, geologists largely chose to forget Alfred Wegener, except to launch another flurry of
attacks on his “fairy tale” theory in the middle of World War II. For decades afterward, older
geologists warned newcomers that any hint of an interest in continental drift would doom
their careers.

You have brought it way down from the
"rageing" and ruined careers nonsense, which is
good. Bring it down a some more and your feet may
reach the ground.

The hyperbolic assertions you made are in
lockstep with the attack on science made by
creationists who occasionally mention that
or the Spokane flood, to prove that science
only does accepts what proves their dogma.
Any who dare say "God" are, you know, expelled
by Chick Track style evil- evo-faculty committees.

The "older geologists" story is of dubious authenticity,
unless heavily discounted for hyperbole such as yours.

A hint here about my pov, my mom was a prof of
English lit, my step dad, geology.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
That's just my profile - it's not exactly accurate (!) I was in school when they
discovered sea-floor spreading. Continental drift wasn't on any curriculum
that I know of. Only lunatics believed the continents drifted around the planet.

Lunatics. Such silly exsggeration does
you no credit.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Lunatics. Such silly exsggeration does
you no credit.

Yes, if you go back to the 1920's and believe that continents just drifted across the
earth you were a lunatic. How could an entire continent just rip through the crust,
and even, why?
And as it is, a lot of novel science IS just lunatic stuff. Only every now and then one
lunatic is onto something. Velikovsky had such lunatic ideas, only they stayed lunatic
ideas. Wegener was considered a lunatic, but his ideas stood the test of time - and
it shows truth is stranger than fiction.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
You have brought it way down from the
"rageing" and ruined careers nonsense, which is
good. Bring it down a some more and your feet may
reach the ground.

The hyperbolic assertions you made are in
lockstep with the attack on science made by
creationists who occasionally mention that
or the Spokane flood, to prove that science
only does accepts what proves their dogma.
Any who dare say "God" are, you know, expelled
by Chick Track style evil- evo-faculty committees.

The "older geologists" story is of dubious authenticity,
unless heavily discounted for hyperbole such as yours.

A hint here about my pov, my mom was a prof of
English lit, my step dad, geology.

Sorry, no hyperbole. I recall how shocking the article was. People
DID lose tenure if they taught continental drift. It shouldn't be an
issue because you see often in science, though rarely to the extent
of Wegener's theory. I think the evolution of birds was a case to
point - it got quite personal. But you can imagine what older
geologists thought of continents sailing through the earth's crust.
A more recent but much milder issue was quasi crystals.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Sorry, no hyperbole. I recall how shocking the article was. People
DID lose tenure if they taught continental drift. It shouldn't be an
issue because you see often in science, though rarely to the extent
of Wegener's theory. I think the evolution of birds was a case to
point - it got quite personal. But you can imagine what older
geologists thought of continents sailing through the earth's crust.
A more recent but much milder issue was quasi crystals.

Get ONE eample of a scientist losing tenure
for a controversial idea.

A pop mag article, clearly sensationalized with
heavy editorial slanr, dimly recalled from
decades ago -is there some point here besides
your tenuous grasp of your topuc?
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Get ONE eample of a scientist losing tenure
for a controversial idea.

A pop mag article, clearly sensationalized with
heavy editorial slanr, dimly recalled from
decades ago -is there some point here besides
your tenuous grasp of your topuc?

The RD article was in the 1970's. It dealt with
what was going on in the 1940-1950's and not
just in English speaking countries.
Nothing sensationalized, no heavy editing, no
dim recollections.
I often get asked to "provide links" for stuff I read
before the Internet even existed. This particular
article stayed with me because when I had an issue
with something in science I was told I was just
imagining things - though my issue was with some
thing I found.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
The RD article was in the 1970's. It dealt with
what was going on in the 1940-1950's and not
just in English speaking countries.
Nothing sensationalized, no heavy editing, no
dim recollections.
I often get asked to "provide links" for stuff I read
before the Internet even existed. This particular
article stayed with me because when I had an issue
with something in science I was told I was just
imagining things - though my issue was with some
thing I found.


What, among other things you do not underdtand is that
the very purpose of tenure is to empower professors to
chalkenge the status quo with new and controversial
ideas.

That there is betimes spirited-or heated- debate
about such ideas (see meaning of "controversial")
is not in question. Disagreements in the marketplace
of ideas is key to science, not the fatal flaw
of creationist beliefs about science.

AND, it has less than nothing to do with profs
losing tenure, a rare event, and nonexistent for
your claimed reason.

Of course you are asked for evidence or at
least a vaguely plausible explanation, if it is your habit
to make outlandish claims like your "raging
controversy / tenure" story, for which you've
provided nothing but an unreliable source.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
What, among other things you do not underdtand is that
the very purpose of tenure is to empower professors to
chalkenge the status quo with new and controversial
ideas.

That there is betimes spirited-or heated- debate
about such ideas (see meaning of "controversial")
is not in question. Disagreements in the marketplace
of ideas is key to science, not the fatal flaw
of creationist beliefs about science.

AND, it has less than nothing to do with profs
losing tenure, a rare event, and nonexistent for
your claimed reason.

Of course you are asked for evidence or at
least a vaguely plausible explanation, if it is your habit
to make outlandish claims like your "raging
controversy / tenure" story, for which you've
provided nothing but an unreliable source.

If you want to see what tenure means to anyone in America, just
look at the controversies surrounding political correctness on the
campuses. Recall the Lindsay Shepherd case where she showed
a video of Jordan Peterson to "demonstrate" what the enemies of
PC speak were saying. She was reprimanded and ultimately lost
her job, if I recall. She didn't agree with Peterson, just showed
a video of him. That's the caliber of university professors.
I was told the subject to my anthropologist professor when I said
she herself could not have failed to see the huge stone carvings
at an aboriginal site - as if the stonemasons had created a large
building.

Anyhow, it's of interest to me personally so I will check up. I just
emailed Readers Digest:

Hello, I am not sure if this is the correct email address for this.
It's about archived articles.
In the 1970's (?) I read an article about Continental Drift
and its reception at universities in the 1940's and 1950's.
Where would I even begin looking for such an article?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
If you want to see what tenure means to anyone in America, just
look at the controversies surrounding political correctness on the
campuses. Recall the Lindsay Shepherd case where she showed
a video of Jordan Peterson to "demonstrate" what the enemies of
PC speak were saying. She was reprimanded and ultimately lost
her job, if I recall. She didn't agree with Peterson, just showed
a video of him. That's the caliber of university professors.
I was told the subject to my anthropologist professor when I said
she herself could not have failed to see the huge stone carvings
at an aboriginal site - as if the stonemasons had created a large
building.

Anyhow, it's of interest to me personally so I will check up. I just
emailed Readers Digest:

Hello, I am not sure if this is the correct email address for this.
It's about archived articles.
In the 1970's (?) I read an article about Continental Drift
and its reception at universities in the 1940's and 1950's.
Where would I even begin looking for such an article?

Ms Shepherd was not exactly a tenured professor.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Ms Shepherd was not exactly a tenured professor.

True. But others were/are. We have one guy who questioned the impact
of climate change on the great barrier reef and lost his teaching position
at a Queensland Uni. He didn't (God forbid) question climate change, he
just challenged its impact on the reef. He sued and won his case.
There's a fair bit of that going on, even here in Australia.
The bottom line is that scientists are human.

Another amazing article I read (no link) just last year pointed out the rate
of scientific progress when young maverick scientists win tenure and have
a say in scientific papers as they get older - the rate of progress slows till
this generation is gone. The example given was Einstein who fought quantum
theory till he died.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
True. But others were/are. We have one guy who questioned the impact
of climate change on the great barrier reef and lost his teaching position
at a Queensland Uni. He didn't (God forbid) question climate change, he
just challenged its impact on the reef. He sued and won his case.
There's a fair bit of that going on, even here in Australia.
The bottom line is that scientists are human.

Another amazing article I read (no link) just last year pointed out the rate
of scientific progress when young maverick scientists win tenure and have
a say in scientific papers as they get older - the rate of progress slows till
this generation is gone. The example given was Einstein who fought quantum
theory till he died.
If true, it is one of a meager number of incidents and hardly amounts to the cleansing portrayed by creationists. If one were to buy into that nonsense, you would think they were being chucked out windows and it was raining professors. It isnt. Not even a tiny blip on the radar.
 
Top