Click here to view CMI's position on climate change.
Also Available in:
This article is from
Creation 34(3):24–27, July 2012

Browse our latest digital issue Subscribe

The ‘knockout punch’ syndrome

Why creationists are sometimes too quick to embrace the latest apparent ‘evidence’ for biblical creation.


Knock-out punch
Photo: istockPhoto

People often tell us excitedly how ‘the lights came on’ for them after being exposed to a creation message for the first time. Many become passionate ‘creation evangelists’ in their fervour to share the very same type of information that changed their own lives.

But sometimes they find it tough going. It often means answering question after question to remove the stumbling blocks that have built up in people’s minds over the years. Thus, many Christians mistakenly presume there must be a better way to reach larger numbers of people in one fell swoop.

This leads to a phenomenon I call ‘Looking for the knockout punch’. In boxing parlance, it refers to a single ‘winning blow’ that will take down the opposition in one attempt. Similarly, many Bible-believers are eager to find some startling piece of evidence as ‘ultimate proof’ of biblical creation. Of course, we’d love nothing more than to be able to reach millions with such a ‘knockout blow’. For one thing, it would certainly make our job a lot easier. But, in terms of evangelism, this is not really likely. People rarely get converted on the very first occasion they are witnessed to anyway. Moreover, I don’t recall an example where a single brilliant evidence has led to mass conversions.

Sometimes such well-meaning individuals ask why we don’t use (or why we even recommend against) a particular exciting-sounding argument or creation evidence. Some even get angry and tell us, “Stop it! At this rate, we’ll have nothing left. The evolutionists have all the evidence.” It’s an understandable reaction if someone has been using a favourite argument for many years. However, wisdom is needed, particularly if the argument is not sustainable. It might simply not be the knockout punch we expect it to be.

Let’s have a brief look at some ‘knockout’ evidences still doing the rounds. (See references at the end for more information, also our major article, ‘Arguments we think creationists should NOT use’, at creation.com/dontuse—regularly updated as new information comes to light.)

After these examples, I will then fully explain why any ‘evidence’ on its own does not have the potency we think it does.

Human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock layers in the Paluxy River at Glen Rose, Texas.1 No major creationist organisation accepts the validity of these claims. That should cause one to stop and think, because many of these organizations, like us, have multiple scientists peer-reviewing such claims as per the scriptural admonition of seeking safety in a multitude of counsellors (Proverbs 11:14; 24:6). But why hang your hat on this one, when there is already substantiated evidence of a recent existence for dinosaurs, such as soft tissue found in T. rex fossils that are supposed to be millions of years old (see creation.com/schweit2)? And what about the depictions of dinosaurs (see p. 14, this issue) on Bishop Bell’s tomb in the UK? He was buried in AD 1496 long before books showing their reconstruction from fossils existed.

In 1977 a Japanese fishing trawler netted a carcass of a supposedly extinct aquatic ‘dinosaur’ known as a plesiosaur. This was a claim that CMI once used, but a research article in our Journal of Creation definitively showed that this was the rotting remains of a basking shark.2 The original Japanese descriptions of the skeletal remains were cartilage, like sharks have, not bone like plesiosaurs. There have been several other plesiosaur-like carcasses washed ashore that have been identified as decomposed sharks, including by DNA. Why use an easily discredited claim when there are lots of ‘living fossils’ that are not in dispute? For example, coelacanth fish were thought to have died out along with dinosaurs millions of years ago, because their fossils have been found in dinosaur-bearing strata. Until its discovery in modern times, this fish was thought to be a ‘transitional form’ (see box p. 26). But we now have film of them alive and well, swimming in today’s oceans!3 We can use something like this to demonstrate to people why they need to be very sceptical of what they are being taught about other alleged ‘transitional fossils’.

Fight over same evidencee

That Charles Darwin recanted on his deathbed. This one comes up frequently and was based on a claim by a Lady Hope. It even appeared in the American Baptist Journal. This is almost certainly not true.4 But even it if was, what would be the value in such an argument? If a leading creationist became an evolutionist, would that be proof of evolution?

Thin moon dust layers prove a young age for the moon. The story goes that NASA was concerned about the Apollo lunar landing vehicles sinking into the dust. Like all dating methods, the argument was based on assumptions, i.e. measuring how much dust is coming into the moon and extrapolating backwards in time. Because they believed in a moon that was billions of years old, they were expecting several feet (about a metre) of dust. Of course they encountered only a thin layer of dust. But this cannot be used as evidence for a young moon. It has been established from actually measuring the dust influx to the moon that the original assumptions (based on estimates of meteoritic dust coming to the earth) were wrong.5 Thin dust layers as an argument for a young moon can be easily refuted by knowledgeable opponents.6

Noah’s Ark was found by Chinese evangelists. This recent spectacular claim gained a lot of media attention. Of course, we would be as excited as anyone if the real Ark were found. A senior CMI representative visited Hong Kong to undertake detailed discussions with those who had been involved in making the discovery to ascertain whether the find warranted further investigation. Unfortunately, the evidence is overwhelming that this claim is a hoax. As a brief example of just one of the problems—verified by other experts also—there are repetitive marks on the wood which have clearly been made with a modern high-speed rotary planing machine. Also, carbon-14 dating, which often gives results older than the true age, showed that most wood samples from the site were far too young—only tens or hundreds of years old. One sample of wood contained radiation that showed that the trees must have been alive during post-1955 atomic bomb testing (see reference for details).7

Do evolutionists really have the most evidence?

If asked, most Christians would probably believe that evolutionists have the most evidences on their side. Believing this is intimidating, and is a factor in them looking for the ‘knockout punch’.

As we try to explain, though, it’s not a matter of ‘creation facts’ vs ‘evolution facts’ because—and this is a key point—both creationists and evolutionists actually have the same facts. We all observe the same fossils, the same DNA and have exactly the same universe to discover. But we all interpret these facts according to our pre-existing worldview presuppositions. That worldview, in turn, then enables us to interpret these facts and they become ‘evidence’ for our cause. For example, when an evolutionary geologist looks at the many sedimentary layers in the walls of the Grand Canyon, he ‘sees’ it as evidence for millions of years of Earth history. This is due to his pre-existing belief (from what he’s been taught in the classroom) that these layers built up from slow, gradual deposition of sediments, year after year. However, a creationist geologist can interpret the exact same facts (i.e. layers in the canyon walls) and see these as evidence for Noah’s catastrophic, globe-covering Flood. Neither one was there to see those layers form in the past.

One’s ‘pre’-belief about history is the key filter

The Grand Canyon—Photo: Gary Bates The Grand Canyon— Photo Gary Bates

In short, there are no facts which can force a conclusion one way or the other when it comes to trying to determine what happened in the unobservable, unrepeatable past. When making a judgment on which set of facts/evidences makes more sense, both sides bring their own worldviews, experiences and biases to the table.

So, what you believe about where we all came from (our history) is a key to your interpretation of the facts. Science is changeable anyway. No scientist can presume to know everything there is to know. The best ‘evidence’ today (or rather one’s interpretation of it), can quickly be relegated to the trash can in the light of a new discovery tomorrow that we didn’t know about today! That is how even observable, testable and repeatable science works.8 And even if there was some ‘knockout’ evidence to be discovered, let’s remember what Jesus told us in Luke 16:31: “If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.” There is plenty of evidence to believe the Resurrection actually happened, but most remained unconvinced (see creation.com/res).

The best strategy—a change of glasses!

So the real issue is helping everyone, even evolutionists, to understand that we all wear biased ‘glasses’ or filters that cause us to see the facts in certain ways. This especially applies to Christians, and it’s why this is a key component of CMI’s ministry to the church.

At the beginning of this article I mentioned how the lights came on for many hearing about creation. It was because we’d helped them change glasses (although they don’t always realize that at first). They no longer see a proverbial mountain of evidence that evolutionists supposedly have, because they can now see the same facts as a mountain of evidence for biblical creation. Simply, if more Christians understood how the facts do not speak for themselves, and how evolutionists interpret them according to pre-existing assumptions, they would (biblically):

  1. Be less troubled and intimidated by the seeming weight of claims of evolutionists when they parade their latest and greatest ‘evidences’ (John 14:27).
  2. Be able to break down the arguments that evolutionists use as a foundation to support their theory, by identifying, even demolishing, the worldview (with its presuppositions) that their own theory rests on (2 Corinthians 10:3–5). After all, that is what they seek to do to Christians, by trying to point out that somehow the Bible is scientifically wrong.
  3. Be more discerning about the evidence and therefore less inclined to try and compromise to ‘fit’ those evolutionary ideas into Scripture somewhere, mistakenly thinking that the ‘science’ is on their side (Romans 12:12).
  4. Be better able to give a defence for what we believe as Christians (1 Peter 3:15).

Coelacanth surprise

The coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) was previously known only from fossils (notice the exquisite preservation in the top-left photo below). It was presumed by evolutionists to have first evolved some 400 million years ago and to have been extinct for 65 mya. But evolutionists were astonished when fishermen off the coast of Madagascar in 1938 hauled a live coelacanth to the surface in their nets.

Other coelacanths have since been caught, e.g. in Indonesian waters. The lower photo shows a preserved specimen caught in 1974 off the Comoro Islands, Africa. One might ask, ‘Why no evolution in all this supposed time?’ Evolutionists proffer that they were so well adapted to their environment that there was no ‘selection pressure’. This is obviously deficient when one realizes that the ‘environment’ also includes the food/prey they eat and the predators that eat them, which by their own beliefs are constantly evolving. Thus, to suggest that everything around them evolved while these fish experienced no change in hundreds of millions of years, is ridiculous (see creation.com/stasis). Rapid burial in a global Flood, rather than the long-age evolutionary paradigm, best explains the coelacanth fossils and the many hundreds of other such ‘living fossils’. For a tremendous resource with brilliant photography, see Dr Carl Werner’s book, Living Fossils (creation.com/store).


latimeria chalumnae

Fossil coelacanth specimens (Latimeria chalumnae).

References and notes

  1. Silvestru, E., Human and dinosaur fossil footprints in the Upper Cretaceous of North America? J. Creation, 18(2):114–120, 2004; creation.com/paluxy. Return to text.
  2. Jerlstrom, P., and Elliot, B., A tail of many monsters, J. Creation, 19(2):74–75, 2005; creation.com/monsters. Return to text.
  3. Catchpoole, D., Correcting the headline: Coelacanth yes; Ancient no, 13 July 2007; creation.com/coelacanth. Return to text.
  4. Grigg, R., Did Darwin recant? Creation 18(1):36–37, 1995; creation.com/did-charles-darwin-recant. Return to text.
  5. It is not just that the moon measurements contradicted the Earth rates, it is also that the influx to Earth had been miscalculated, and the cause of this error is known. Return to text.
  6. Snelling, A., and Rush, D.E., Moon dust and the age of the solar system, J. Creation, 7(1):2–42, 1993; creation.com/moondust. Note that even if the original measurements had been right, the evolutionists could have claimed that the assumption of constant rate of dust influx was clearly wrong. Return to text.
  7. See creation.com/noahs-ark-or-what; creation.com/c14-dates-hk-ark; and creation.com/hkark-position-statement. Return to text.
  8. See creation.com/its-not-science. Return to text.

Helpful Resources

Readers’ comments

Jeremy S.
1. What about all of the examples that people have supposedly found of human artifacts in coal?
2. All of the "dragon" or dinosaur drawing in ancient art work?
3. What about the fact that Noah's flood like stories are present in almost every ancient culture (even the meso-Americas)?
4. Is there any truth to the photographs of an ark like structure on Mt. Ararat in Turkey?
Gary Bates
Dear Jeremy,
Welcome to CMI, I presume. I'm not sure what you exactly mean by asking the questions or that they might be 'knockout punches, for example. But anyhow, the search engine on our website is your friend and it is very easy to find numerous articles on this subject. As follows in numerical order to your questions.
1 - Type in 'human artefacts in coal' and you would have seen Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.
2 - 'Dinosaur or dragon drawings' reveals articles like Bishop Bell’s brass behemoths!. Also don't forget to look at the links to the other articles at the bottom of the pages with all these (I have only provided examples--there are lots more).
3- 'Flood legends' reveals Flood!.
4 - 'Ark', 'Mt Ararat' or 'boat shaped rock' gives a lot of articles like Special report: Amazing ‘Ark’ exposé, or That boat-shaped rock … is it Noah’s Ark?, or The ‘Hong Kong ark’ fiasco.
I hope this all helps.
Robert T.
I think you were a little hard on Jeannette. Her comment that many don't want the truth was exceedingly perceptive. (They want what their itching ears want to hear of course).
And I disagree with Gary Bates' comment re Christ and debates. He seemed to deliver knockout punches time and again in his debates with the Pharisees
Gary Bates
thanks for your email Robert. I think you may have misunderstood my comments to Jeanette. I referred her to an earlier reply in the comments simply to avoid repetition. There was nothing in that that disagreed with what she said, so I am not sure how you gleaned that. My only negative comment was due to the amount of comments that have been posted on our site. Because of the amount of comments we are trying to be selective in posting--mainly those that contribute something to the article rather than comments just for comments sake. What we are finding is that people are not reading all the comments due to their length (also a reason why we have a word limit) and often making the same comments as previous commenters also.

With regard to debates, again, I think there is some misunderstanding. I've never undertaken a single public debate. Of course, we aim to undermine the teaching of evolution via our articles. But we have time and the opportunity to do so at length, but that is not really a debate. In debates (as in verbal, moderated ones), each side has very little time to cover the subject matter, and evolutionists can make sweeping statements with no basis in fact or even science that are very hard to dismantle in a few minutes. We'd always prefer a church to hold a creation presentation rather than a debate. Why give the opposition any of our time to present their case? They have the public ear 24/7 and most people have never heard a creationist presentation.

I hope this clarifies things a little more. I do appreciate your concern and interest. Thanks again.
Robert W.
Unfortunately, I think that our society has conditioned us to look for and desire the "knockout punch". We always seem to be looking to "trump" the other person in our comments, to have the best "zinger" or to have "our speaker, best their speaker" etc. I have seen "Creationist" debates where large numbers of evangelicals attend, (so many that the evolutionist debater is surprised by the attendance) and it seems that most of those present are looking for "our guy" to deliver that "knockout punch". (I.E. what we believe is better than what you believe, We're right and you're wrong".) Usually there is little accomplished, as both sides only become more entrenched in their positions. For Christians, I believe that we should seek to change our attitudes and expectations as we approach such encounters. (which is what I think your article is seeking to do) Rom 13:14 ESV "But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires" (to be best, to be right?) Col 4:5 ESV. "Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time". We would do well to ask ourselves the question "Are we trying to 'Knock them out', or are we trying to present the truth of the Gospel?.
Gary Bates
Robert, I think there is a lot of truth in what you say regarding debates. Christians seem to be so keen on them mainly I think due to the adversarial nature of them but often very little useful information is proffered. I think it is a human trait to 'win' or 'beat' the opponent, but that certainly wasn't the way Christ went about presenting information.
Stephen S.
Very thought provoking article. Personally, I have found creation science demonstrates the best interpretation of available data, if not necessarily overwhelming and indisputable proof of God's handiwork. (While you can't absolutely prove God created us and the world around us, you also can't absolutely "prove" San Francisco short of actually being there and experiencing it.) Evolutionary science also can't provide absolute proof of its claims, some of them more outrageous than what you'd read in a fantasy novel. I have to smile when evolutionists shout out that "it's been proven that . . ." when the reality is only "it's been accepted that . . ." Even with the lack of a "knockout punch," I will accept the conclusions of creationism every time.
Justin C.
It is important to note, following the boxing analogy, that a KO punch is generally the last punch delivered in a long string of successive blows. At any rate, it is God who delivers "the final blow," not man, no matter how earnest our efforts may be. Thank you for your ministry.
glen H.
A "knockout punch" will NEVER be found. There is already powerful evidence that those willing to accept the truth would consider to be a knockout. It is sadly evident, however, that no matter how compelling the evidence there are those that will find some excuse to reject it, so committed are they to their self-centered naturalistic worldview. In such cases a knockout simply cannot possibly ever exist in this world.
Chris C.
I was wondering what CMIs opinion is of the papers trying to show that the coelacanth wasn't a living fossil, because its body shape is much more diverse than is generally thought. Wikipedia talks about this and references some papers on this in their second paragraph.
Gary Bates
typing 'coelacanth' into our search engine will reveal a number of articles on the subject. One would expect evolutionists to attempt to explain why fish found in dinosaur bearing strata are still alive today. The diversity argument solves nothing for them. Diversity is allowable within the evolutionary model (as it is in the creation model). The big question for evolutionists is why haven't they diversified more than they have in c.200 millions years.
Jeannette P.
Another good article, thank you, and a reminder that we don't NEED to find a "knockout punch" because there's so much good evidence without using doubtful claims. Although I think the complexity of the genome, and the impossibility of masses of new, fully integrated and functional genetic information arising by chance is one very convincing argument.
However, as you said, only God can save anyone, and casting doubt on evolution may be only one small link in the chain leading up to coming to Christ. Speaking from personal experience, it is so easy to feel that if we explain things clearly and convincingly enough people will accept what we say. But it doesn't work that way because of the strength of evolutionary brainwashing, and the fact that many folk don't actually want the Truth. Yet scientific arguments are still useful because they can sometimes remove intellectual barriers to faith. I became a Christian half way through reading a book that showed the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. It didn't bring me to faith but removed the thought that maybe I believed it only because of being brought up that way. It was wonderful to find that the belief was intellectually "respectable"! Same with evolution, once the Lord helped me to get over the initial resistance by realising I had been brainwashed and started thinking for myself!
Gary Bates
Jeanette, please revist the article and seem my response to Lucas which will answer some of this. Also, a reminder that you you have posted a great many comments in the last 12 months and have exceed the limit of 20 per year. We have this limit to avoid the site becoming overloaded with names of a just a few indviduals. Also, when the comments become really long at the bottom of the articles they tend to be less read. Thanks for your understanding.
Peter H.
Re: the coelacanth

I would like to share something that gave me a chuckle. This past spring I gave two presentations on Fatal Flaws in Evolutionary Thinking. As part of my background research beforehand I looked up the Wikipedia article on "Rhipidistia" (lobe-finned fishes) which includes the coelacanth. In the bottom right-hand corner of the article is a diagram purporting to show "lobe-finned fish and amphibious tetrapods". Below the diagram is an explanation including this concluding sentence: "Lobe-finned fish evolved into Coelacanth species which survive to this day."

Since the coelacanth was and still is a lobe-finned fish, the sentence seems to claim that lobe-finned fish such as coelacanth evolved into lobe-finned fish such as coelacanth. Hmmmm...

I looked it up again just now to make sure that they had not changed it, but it has not been changed as of the time of this writing.
Terence T.
I lost interest in Biology because of the first teaching on evolution I ever heard. I have no idea what glasses I had on except the thought that this was ridiculous. By the time I stumbled on Creation.com I was a child of God and had my biblical P.O.V. glasses on and also read enough to know I was not alone. One of the first areas I went to on your site was the 'Arguments Not to Use" section. It devastated me because I had read many arguments for Creation that were in that section. At the same time I grew immensely because this one section on your site taught me how important truth is and that I must examine everything before I just take it in and repeat it even if it sounds really good. I thank you all at Creation.com for teaching me this lesson and that it is okay to be mistaken as long as we confess that mistake when new evidence reveals deeper truth. Now days if something I read seems to have statements that will impact my life I run to the Holy Scriptures first and then other resources until I am sure I can accept that impact on my life and faith. It all started for me when I read about the arguments we shouldn't use. It hurt at first but almost immediately set me free to be more sure of the things I believe. Thank you for a ministry that re-enforces even the converted. And a ministry that tosses aside good sounding arguments when they are dubious. Amen!
René D.
Concerning the human and dinosaur footprints in the Paluxy River: I have watched Dr. Don Patton's reviews and lectures about this exciting discovery on YouTube and the facts he came up with were truly convincing to me. Dr. Patton is a highly qualified professional geologist/archeologist. He has been excavating the Paluxy site himself and has gone to great length in order to prove that both the dinosaur and the human footprint tracks are absolutely genuine. He has even shown photographs of imprints which clearly show a human footprint embedded in a dinosaur footprint. Besides that, he has been able to discover and reveal complete tracks of both dinosaur and human footprints, crossing one another in a very clear and distinctive left-right pattern. I strongly recommend you to check out his videos on YouTube.
Gary Bates
Rene, our own scientists have checked it out, as has every major creationist organization with multiple scientists and peer review in operation, and isn't it interesting that we all reached the same conclusion. It's also interesting how one-man ministries are the keenest advocates of these footprints--probably due to their spectacular nature. However, this was the very point of the article. Are you aware DNA has now been found in dinosaur bones? There are much better evidences than these footprints where this is not consensus. When there is not consensus then it is not wise to promote them.
Lucas P.
I'll have to say, that's always the one reason I love presuppositional apologetics. CMI was the first place I sorta heard about it, however AiG and Jason Lisle were the ones who really helped make my understanding of it concrete. If there is any one thing I would like CMI to do, it would be the concrete-ification of a Presup approach to all evidences. I recognize that they already do it in practice, I would just like it explained more often to the average reader.

God bless,
Gary Bates
thanks for your email. While we generally hold to a presuppositional approach and make the point that evolutionists do the same thing, I have concerns with the overly presuppositional approach held by some. I know many Christians are excited by it, but many of us in CMI feel it leaves a little to be desired in its approach. Quite simply, there is just good evidence that really cannot be explained any other way except to invoke a designer and a young earth, for example, due to what we do know about science and the laws of physics etc. In addition, things like unfossilized dinosaur soft tissue, blood cells and now DNA also falsifies the evolutionary pressupostion of such things. Carbon 14 in coal, and helium diffusion in zircon crystals. Type in the keywords on our site if you need more information on these.
Len H.
Good Morning
I am only writing this not for comment but for appreciation. I became a Christian in the early 70s but fell away, more like ran away. It was not until the mid 90s God in his mercy again touched me. What was the key to my, revival, was not an emotional response to preaching but instead was the clear and unconfused explanation of Creation. I have always been a student and reader and I came across your web site. I firmly believe that Genesis 1 and the young earth approach makes absolute sense. In a real way this focused my thoughts and beliefs that God is who he says he is and finally, even after all of those wasted years, gave me a foundation to worship and study His word.
I want to thank you for you ministry and what it has meant to me. Your site is the first site I view each morning. I view other creation sites as well but yours is the flagship. Young earth creationism is the singularity that cause my big bang. Thanks again
Len Holmes
peter H.
a recent issue of creation [as i recall] carried an interview with an archaeologist[now deceased?] who claimed verification of human and dino prints in same strata at paluxy.was that a mistake?
Carl Wieland
Peter, that interview in Creation magazine with Clifford Wilson was published in 1992, 20 years ago (you may have read it in our web archives more recently). It mentions Paluxy, but not the human-dino controversy. Rather, it refers to the finding of dino footprints in the 'wrong' layer, and a trilobite fossil from a 'dinosaur stratum'. See archaeologist-confirms-creation-and-the-bible. Our good friend the late Clifford Wilson did actually excavate a very human-looking print himself in that Paluxy region, of which we saw the cast. But in view of the disappointing way in which many other very human-looking prints found in that region later eroded into three-toed patterns, etc. it was not wise to get supporters excited about evidence that had this seeming propensity to mislead. Cliff always saw it as clearly human, and given its appearance, that is not surprising.
Anil G.
I find that the evidence for creation is overwhelming, to the point where I believe the existence of God is scientifically proven (hence 'pistis' (faith) = forensic evidence), and this lines up with Romans 1 (no excuse).

But it also seems clear that those that are dead in their sins cannot see. No matter how strong the arguments I see repeated refusal to accept and attempted rebuttals that prove nothing except the foolishness of the protagonist.

The ONLY answer is to PRAY for the mind of each and every one while we should not cease to destroy every high thing (argument) that exalts itself against the knowledge of God.

What bothers me is when I see Christian BELIEVERS, even ministers, desperately fighting to support evolution and deny the consummate power of God.
Henry C.
re: Human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock layers in the Paluxy River bed at Glen Rose Texas.
Gary Bates please check your facts, they are inaccurate.
ref: page 448-449 IN the Minds of Men, Darwin and the New World Order: by Ian T. Taylor:
37: Plauxy River. June 1982. More than 100 people representing the press and school teachers were invited as witnesses while TV cameras recorded the removal of tons of rock tons of rock from the Paluxy riverbed following a trail of existing dinosaur tracks. The excavation revealed 36 fresh dinosaur prints with 12 human-like footprints and one human-like handprint. Any possibility of fraud under these conditions was ruled out.
Gary Bates
Indeed, one should check facts before going to 'air' as it were with a response too. We have checked our facts before publishing on this as detailed in footnote reference no.1 (which it appears you may not have bothered to read before shooting off a response to us). It detailed an investigation of the site by own staff geologist Dr Emil Silvestru (along with many others), where they conducted first-hand research. We are familiar with the book by Ian Taylor as it used to be carried by CMI. You mentioned the removal of rock and TV cameras etc. This is not a strong argument for the veracity of the claims, respectfully. Yes, many thousands have, in fact, visited the site and have helped with excavations. But. please carefully reread the article. We are not saying there is nothing there, but what we are saying is that they are not human footprints along with dinosaurs. We realize this is still a very popular seeming evidence that people like to use. But that was the whole point of the article. In short, after more detailed investigation we shouldn't use it anymore (along with the others, cited). We also pointed out in the article that other credible creation organizations along with CMI have investigated the claims and found them untrustworthy (which you seemed to overlook). That would seem to negate the claims in the book you mentioned which stems way back to 1982. In short, it is now out of date due to further research. Of course, we would be delighted if evidence stacked up, but it doesn't. 'Safety in a multitude of counsellors' I think is the order of the day here to maintain creationist credibility. I also recommend reading our Arguments we think creationists should NOT use article.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.