Talk:Carl Baugh

Mr Carl Baugh has a talk page
Mr Carl Baugh has a talk page! Dunc|&#9786; 21:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC) I would like to know a lot more about his proclamations and why they are considered false in the scientific world. Just knowing that someone said he's wrong doesn't give me satisfaction, evidence makes all the difference.

Duncharris, Baugh's claims are clearly pseudoscience, just like alchemy and astrology. skiddum 12:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)skiddum


 * No alchemy and astrology are real pseudosciences. Baugh's claims shouldn't even rise up to the realm of pseudoscience. Tat (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed reference
I removed a reference to my website for privacy reasons. skiddum 12:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)skiddum

Question
Is there any available picture of these "tracks"? Finite 02:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

````http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm

NPoV
There's significant unremovable content in this article that violates the Neutral Point of View rules here.

RWAnderson72 03:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia! Yoda921 14:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Yoda

The human footprints are verifiable. I have been to the dig site and seen them myself. To claim that they are known to be false is obviously someone stating his/her opinion. That opinion is based upon a world view which believes that evolution is true and that creation is not. This article is not treating the subject fairly.

````Kathy1510

To Kathy1510: LMAO! sincerely, skiddum 12:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)skiddum


 * To claim the "foot prints" are not legitimate is to cite an established scientific fact. To claim they are a hoax is to cite what the family who originally "found them" (actually, created them) said. While you have "seen them yourself," I truly doubt you have the credentials to actually know what you were looking at. It takes years of rigorous training at a university to know that. And people like Baugh and Kent Hovind do not have that. That is why even Answers in Genesis considers Baugh's claims to be false and its even listed under their "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use".


 * Thus, its not POV. It's reality. We66er (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Even the opening paragraph is worded in such a way that it was obviously written by someone who despises Carl Baugh. This adds to the feel that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.213.7 (talk) 4:08 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)

Slanted Article
Apart from the fact that many aspects of this article are ad hominem attacks against Baugh (referring to him as a pseudo-scientist, and disparaging his credentials, etc.), the article is misleading regarding fossil tracks found around the Paluxy River in a number of ways. Further, though the article contains a lot of citations, these citations are frequently used in a disingenuous manner. For example, the article mentions the fossil Baugh obtained from Avlis Delk in 2008, disparages the idea that it is genuine and includes a citation. But the citation links to an article from the Mineral Wells Index that in fact supports the claim that the fossil is genuine –the news article is about how Baugh had a CT scan conducted on the fossil which debunked the claims of skeptics who had said the fossil was carved. The Mineral Wells Index article also illuminates the fact that many critics made unfounded claims that the fossil was not genuine after doing nothing more than looking at a photograph on the internet. I have personally been to the Paluxy and seen many of the fossils described in the article first-hand, and have spoken with Baugh on several occasions. Though he is a bit “kooky”, he is a genuinely nice guy and clearly believes the claims he makes; that is to say, whether his claims are true or not, I do not believe him to be deliberately perpetuating a hoax or hoaxes. Moreover, the evidence supporting the idea that many of the human footprint fossils are genuine is in fact much more compelling than the article suggests. It has been my observation over the years that establishment scientists and skeptics tend to follow a predictable course whenever new footprints are found around the Paluxy: First, they dismiss the fossil out of hand, calling it “obviously carved” and/or “a hoax”. Then, when the fossil is cross-sectioned or scanned and compression lines are found, they either fall silent or augment their critique so that it somehow acknowledges that the fossil is genuine but not from a human. As a final note, much of the vitriol aimed at Baugh over the years has come from one source, a man named Glen Kuban (note that Kuban is cited several times in this article). Baugh and some of his friends believed that Kuban and his assistant were responsible for vandalizing one of the fossil prints in the “Taylor Trail” in 1989 and made the mistake of making their suspicions public. Since then, Kuban, who himself appears to hold only a BA in Biology and operates an online store pedaling dinosaur-related paraphernalia, has made it a life-long goal to slander Baugh and other creationists by questioning their credentials and ridiculing their claims. I emailed Kuban when I was a kid and asked him about the allegations that he had vandalized one of the “man tracks”, and he wrote me back a rambling, three-page email that left me convinced that he was crazy enough to have probably done it. You can read Kuban’s rebuttal the allegations on talkorigins.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.110.237 (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience cat
Category:Christian creationists is a subcategory of (among other things) Category:Creationism, which is itself a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience. This may inform the current edit war. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is a good point. I had thought that Category:Pseudoscience might be a suitable compromise category, since the word is mentioned in the article, but I see that it's redundant. In any case, per WP:BLP, we would need a reliable sourced specifically stating that Baugh was a pseudoscientist, rather than someone who makes claims that "have been debunked as pseudoscience", which is what the article says. StAnselm (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. Carl Baugh is clearly a pseudoscientist and we have sources to that effect. I'm not sure what more we can say. The sources are already in the article. In fact, every reputable source written about him points to this as true. Color me confused, what's the issue here? jps (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, he's not "clearly a pseudoscientist". We need a reliable source explicitly identifying him as a pseudoscientist. The article says his claims "have been debunked as pseudoscience", but that doesn't mean either (a) that they are pseudoscience for purposes of BLP categories; or (b) that he is a pseuodscientist. StAnselm (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an absurd WP:POVPUSH split of hairs. Nothing more. jps (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * StAnselm - I have to agree with jps' point that Baugh is viewed at the very least as less than credible. When AiC - one of the leading propenents of YEC science - says his findings are nonsense, then you are in trouble. This reference is reliably sourced. Ckruschke (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Carl Baugh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060104132500/http://www.auqa.edu.au:80/auqf/2004/program/papers/Brown.pdf to http://www.auqa.edu.au/auqf/2004/program/papers/Brown.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080121164057/http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp to http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Layman Baugh's claimed tracks
The introduction stated that Baugh found human tracks with dinosaur tracks. I have added the words "claimed to have" to this section because to state that he simply "discovered human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints" is clearly misleading. Whether his claims were truthful or not is debatable, but the statement alone was misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murphyryan1 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. An ip changed the article in January and the changes weren't noticed. You spotted it, well done. I've reverted it to a tweaked earlier version as some material was deleted. Doug Weller  talk 12:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carl Baugh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://swap.stanford.edu/20100417032541/http://www.mineralwellsindex.com/homepage/local_story_210093256.html to http://www.mineralwellsindex.com/homepage/local_story_210093256.html
 * Added tag to http://www.mineralwellsindex.com/local/local_story_224120721.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carl Baugh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080729154828/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/transparent_fakery.php to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/transparent_fakery.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carl Baugh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.star-telegram.com/news/columnists/bud_kennedy//story/820344.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070428100452/http://www.answersincreation.org/cem.htm to http://www.answersincreation.org/cem.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081016095846/http://www.creationevidence.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48 to http://www.creationevidence.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Footnote 13
I've fixed footnote n° 13 which gave some problems with the ISSN parameter. But it is s problematic because we have: volume 5, issue 15, number 1. Concerning the latter parameter, it isn't unclear how it can be fixed or where it can be destinated.Hope someone helps.Theologian81sp (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)