nope - not a fake at all...
I hang out online sometimes with a bunch of like-minded fossil-enthusiasts (The Fossil Forum).
Tonight somebody posted this:
Just watched the new this evening and they were talking about a dig going on right now outside of Glen Rose, on the McFall ranch. The news showed the footprints of the therapod and the human prints together. It was interesting. For report go to cbs11tv.com
So I mosied over to the Dallas, TX CBS news site and found the article "Local City Known As Dinosaur Capital Of Texas, by Arezow Doost."
Sounds innocuous enough for a title, right? Then I read the first three sentences:
"Did you ever think that there were dinosaurs in North Texas?
As it turns out, this is one of the most prolific areas for dinosaur tracks in the state. One group of scientists have even found tracks dating back millions of years."
Read that last sentence again:
"One group of scientists have even found tracks dating back millions of years."
Cause, you know, all those other groups found tracks that weren't millions of years old...
(for those of you who missed out on elementary school, dinosaurs went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous sixty-five million years ago.)
Absolutely hilarious...and mind-numbingly maddening.
After reading a bit more, then you learn what it is really about:
"Scientists believe that one of the most unique findings is human prints dating back to the same period as the dinosaur prints. "We are looking for the truth," said Baugh. "We don't want anything else but the truth.""
I rolled my eyes. Obviously, I had a feeling what I would find out with a little search, but I decided to check out the scientist quoted in the piece, because I thought it was a bit odd that he said "We are looking for the truth. We don't want anything else but the truth."
You see, that is a very non-scientist thing to say in a media piece, and it instantly threw up a red flag to me. I say this because when one is actually in the practice of being a good scientist, a statement like that is like a commercial fisherman saying "no really, we're just out here to catch fish." What else would a fisherman be fishing in the ocean for? If you're a scientist, a statement like that is less than unnecessary.
Yeah this guy, Carl Baugh, is a young earth creationist discredited in the scientific community and with a questionable education. He is obviously seeking to prove his own wrong beliefs - not actually do what good scientists do, which is let the data speak for themselves. Check this out for some rather hilarious reading on Baugh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Baugh
Sigh...it is Texas after all (I was born and raised in east Texas, FYI)
As an added moronic bonus, if you look at the url of the story you'll see that it's filed under "pets."
(http://cbs11tv.com/pets/Texas.Dinosaur.Capital.2.1069336.html).
What kind of of idiots are running that station?
One thing about the fossil record - it's insanely consistent across both time and continental space, if fragmentary. And it has consistently shown us that human and therapod existence is quite a few tens of millions of years apart.
Hell, mammals were barely existent back then, compared to today. But primates? LOL - no.
***
Side note: I'm going fossil hunting in Aurora, NC tomorrow and at Greens Mill Run in Greenville, NC on Saturday!! Shark teeth here I come. Please just let me find a megalodon.
Onward Battle Cat...to Castle Grayskull!!
This has probably been around a while. I've had this sitting on my hard drive for ages. But given my earlier post on Sarah Palin's utter ignorance of Science and this quote about Sarah Palin from Philip Munger on Salon.com...
"I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."
...enjoy the glory of Jesus on a T. rex. I have no idea where this came from - if you know the source, let me know.
"Trust me - there is a good scientific reason for being racist"
In an incoherent leap of bad logic, John Derbyshire over at the National Review (I know – why did I even bother reading it?) has come to the conclusion that an Obama Administration will kill science (his article title: “Will Obama Kill Science?”).
However, upon reading his incredibly ridiculous argument, it becomes clear that he only thinks Obama will kill one aspect of science: the science that he believes will eventually, inevitably prove that some races are better and smarter than others.
Why does he think this? It’s not clear. His only real argument is that Obama once wrote a piece for NPR in which he criticized someone for wanting to package racism in science.
Basically, his argument is: “Barack Obama is black. So Obama is anti-racist. Therefore, any science dealing with the nature of human variation will be outlawed by an Obama administration.”
He also does some rambling on Barack’s “cultural Marxist” upbringings, and some anecdotes about researchers not being funded when they want to study differences between races. One of the funny aspects of the article is that the initial paragraphs only hint at the actual subject of the article. He hints at future biological discoveries with
“metaphysical implications more disturbing than were those of quantum mechanics... “The conceptual revolution among human-sciences researchers has in fact already taken place. This is not widely understood because (a) news outlets are very reluctant to report it, (b) powerful political forces have an interest in suppressing it, and (c) researchers prefer getting on quietly with their work to having their windows broken by mobs of angry protestors.”
One can only think, “Wait. What is he talking about?” He certainly dares not explicitly state what his entire article is about. Then he says,
“Most people still think of human-science controversies in terms of nature/nurture. As a matter of real scientific dispute, that is all long gone…The dust of battle has pretty much settled now, in science departments if not in the popular press, and nature is the clear victor. Name any universal characteristic of human nature, including cognitive and personality characteristics. Of all the observed variation in that characteristic, about half is caused by genetic differences. You may say that is only a half victory; but it is a complete shattering of the nurturist absolutism that ruled in the human sciences 40 years ago, and that is still the approved dogma in polite society, including polite political society, today.”
Oh, I see. I think he’s hinting that race is real and determined by genetics and that genetic differences in race will show that some are “better” than others.
“That dam now has more cracks than the surface of Europa and water is spraying out all over. The only thing that could stop a complete collapse would be the power of government …”
In other words, “Oh, we’re so close…our racism is almost supported by science! Only the government can stop it now!” I particularly like his use of the phrase "human-science enthusiasts" which seems to be a euphemism for "people with a vested interest in proving physical and mental inequalities between races." He rambles some more and then ends with,
“We are about to find out whether our traditional devotion to free speech and free enquiry can survive real, incontrovertible results from the human sciences; and in particular, in the event of an Obama victory, whether that devotion can survive under a left-liberal administration headed by a cultural Marxist — an administration much more interested in shoring up the soft totalitarianism of “diversity” and “multiculturalism” than in permitting the discovery of true facts about human nature.”
He finishes still without ever having acknowledged the actual subject the entire article alludes to. However, he clearly means to state that the “human-sciences” will soon show real differences in race at the genetic level and he strongly hints that this will show differences in actual equality and intelligence.
What a douchebag! It is also quite clear that he knows next to nothing about molecular biology, population genetics, or genomics.
Read it for a laugh.
Update (10/8, 2PM): Welcome Pharyngulites (or whatever the correct term for Pharyngula lovers is). PZ Myers over at Pharyngula has now linked to my post and he has his own, much more eloquent take on this piece, and a good batch of comments following it.
Update 2 (10/8, 6PM): Michael White at Adaptive Complexity has picked up on this issue and has some very good comments as well, linking the issue back to James Watson's infamous remarks on race and intelligence. Go check it out.
When you work in a building with lots of blind corners, where people routinely carry noxious chemicals, toxins, carcinogens, animals, and microorganisms through the hallways, it is probably best not to run full speed while watching the geese outside the window.
I'm not talking about myself.