Lines suggests there is a "wall of silence" about the find from the academic community, and that they "can't argue against it, so they just hope it will go away" (Kennedy, 2008). However, his criticism rings hollow for a number of reasons. First, the find had only been made public days earlier, and was done so with only sketchy information. Second, most scientists can readily see the severe problems with the print, and are familiar with the massive evidence for an old earth, so they are probably not inclined to spend valuable time critiquing an obvious fake. This is not evidence of bias, but prudence and common sense. Third, besides me, a number of mainstream workers have addressed the print, including Hurd (2008), Darrell (2008), and Phillip Murray, a paleontologist at Tarelton State University in Stephenville (May, 2008). Finally, when extraordinary claims are made, the onus is on the claimants to properly support their assertions in a thoroughly documented and detailed scientific report. Neither Lines nor Baugh have come close to doing this with the Delk print, nor any of the "over 80" human prints Baugh claims to have documented in Cretaceous rock. Even major creationist groups such as "Answers in Genesis" agree, and ascknowledge that there has never been a compelling case of human remains or footprints in Mesozoic rock (Snelling, 1991).
Ironically, Baugh was quoted by May (2008) as stating that he is "so confident in the authenticity of the specimen that he is ready to put his reputation entirely on the line." Not to worry. Considering that he has a reputation for promoting sensational and unsupported claims, it appears that his reputation will remain intact with this latest find.
