Creationists stumped by new hominid fossils

[Greg Jennings]

Oh yes, you've certainly proven that with your sharp wit here :rotfl:

You make me smile

Oops, my bad... I misread this and I apologize for that.


Once again, I stand by this statement. You claim to KNOW things that you cannot possibly KNOW.

Unless you have an agnostic version of KNOW.

The origin of the universe is NOT KNOWN based on OBSERVATION. This is part of your chosen WORLD-VIEW.

Your materialist view makes you believe that you can discover everything that there is to know but looking at the material.

You say that your view is agnostic, but you certainly sound like an atheist. You seem to consistently say that "God did it" is not an option. That is atheistic.

Thanks for your apology.

I never said "goddidit" isn't an option. I said that there's no reason to assume "goddidit" if there are other more plausible and evident options. In the case of animals evolving, we have more plausible and evident options.

Now to prove to you that I'm agnostic, I'll tell you that the origin of life on Earth is a mystery. Science has possible explanations, but unlike evolution there isn't much evidence in favor of any one of them. "Goddidit" is, unless a breakthrough comes along, a reasonable hypothesis for the origin of life. Would an atheist say that?

 

[6days]

It's pretty clear you just made up those "evolutionist frauds" of yours now. I'm disappointed. I thought you actually had something to examine

What is clear is that you jump from one failed argument to the next. It was you who brought up the topic of evolutionary frauds. Is that what you now want to discuss? Will you stay on that topic? Which fraud did you want to discuss?

 

[Greg Jennings]

What is clear is that you jump from one failed argument to the next. It was you who brought up the topic of evolutionary frauds. Is that what you now want to discuss? Will you stay on that topic? Which fraud did you want to discuss?

For the third or fourth time (I'm losing count), give me citations about the "evolutionist frauds" that you listed several pages ago. Any one of them. Any. One.

And I don't mean from creationist sources. I mean actual scientists who said that these finds were frauds.

 

[Hedshaker]

Now to prove to you that I'm agnostic, I'll tell you that the origin of life on Earth is a mystery. Science has possible explanations, but unlike evolution there isn't much evidence in favor of any one of them. "Goddidit" is, unless a breakthrough comes along, a reasonable hypothesis for the origin of life. Would an atheist say that?

Even if one could disengage ones brain long enough to see "Goddidit" has a reasonable hypothesis for the origin of life, one would still be left with the ultimate question of the origin of God, no?

Seems to me you either leave it there or leave it here

 

[Greg Jennings]

Even if one could disengage ones brain long enough to see "Goddidit" has a reasonable hypothesis for the origin of life, one would still be left with the ultimate question of the origin of God, no?

Seems to me you either leave it there or leave it here

I've tried going down the origin of God road before. It only leads to creationists saying "God is eternal" as if that's a good explanation, then demanding proof that the universe was created without a creator. Ironic, no?

 

[6days]

For the third or fourth time (I'm losing count), give me citations about the "evolutionist frauds" that you listed several pages ago. Any one of them. Any. One.

And for at least the fifth time ( I'm losing count)... you are creating straw man arguments. I think I know which post you are referring to but I did not say it was evolutionist fraud, that is your strawman wording.

If you wish to me to defend what I actually said then perhaps you should keep what I actually said.

 

[Greg Jennings]

What is clear is that you jump from one failed argument to the next. It was you who brought up the topic of evolutionary frauds. Is that what you now want to discuss? Will you stay on that topic? Which fraud did you want to discuss?

I said, "For the third or fourth time (I'm losing count), give me citations about the "evolutionist frauds" that you listed several pages ago. Any one of them. Any. One."

Then 6days responded:

And for at least the fifth time ( I'm losing count)... you are creating straw man arguments. I think I know which post you are referring to but I did not say it was evolutionist fraud, that is your strawman wording.

If you wish to me to defend what I actually said then perhaps you should keep what I actually said.

6, I don't care what you call them. Just give me a source that shows any of your examples to be what you say they are. Or keep dodging. Your choice

 

[6days]

Just give me a source that shows any of your examples to be what you say they are. Or keep dodging. Your choice

Ok... now that you seem willing to stop with your strawman...let's proceed

REVIEW OF WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID

"there is a long history of evolutionists trying to make ape fossils appear more human like; and make human fossils appear more ape like."


Greg then suggested there was only 4 examples


6days replied "I'm not going to bother but I'm quite sure I could list several times the amount you suggest. For starters I will double you...

1. Aegyptopitithecus zeuxis

2. Dryopitithecus Africanus

3. Ramapitecus Brevirostis

4. Orrorin Tugenensis

5. Ardipithecus*

6. Australopithecus Anemensis

7. Ardipithecus Ramidus Kadabba

8. Kenyan Through Platyops

6days also said "Lets look at the first one (I) mentioned. Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin in 'Origins' called Aegyptopitithecus zeuxis the ancestor that humans share with all living apes. That's simply is a statement of faith and nothing to do with science. This 6Kg creature is simply an extinct ape. Evolutionists acknowledge that this creature is simply an ape."

In the above book mentioned start reading page 52 ...they are trying to show a progression if ape to human and they call 'zeuxis' the first ape to emerge from the old world monkey stock" . They placed this 100% tiny extinct ape in human lineage.

6days also said "Like Richard Leakey said "much of what we can say about them (homonid fossils) is pure inference, guess work."
(People of the Lake, p178)

6days also said "Also... without giving you citations, you already KNOW of numerous examples where evolutionists tried to make human fossils more apelike.....or ape fossils appear more human like.*
Example... Neandertals were portrayed as stooped over hairy beasts. Evolutionists claimed these 'beasts' were inarticulate. ..no culture...didn't bury dead with ceremony...couldn't breed with humans....unintelligent...etc.
Science has proven all of those evolutionary claims to be false. Science has proven the humanity of Neandertals and is one more evidence for the truth of God's Word. We are all one blood...one race...all descendants of the original created humans, Adam and Eve."

Lets look at another of the few examples I listed...Ardipithecus Ramidus Kadabba. *Time magazine featured this ape on the cover of its July23,2001 issue with the headline "how apes became human". *This ape was actually just a few bones collected over the course of 5 years from 5 different locations .
Funny how from a fossilized toe, a piece of a jaw, few arm bones, clavicle, a finger and a few teeth from 5 locations...evolutionists call it a "ape-man".*
Laughable how an evolutionist can look at a toe bone ( 1 of 26 bones in a human foot) and then proclaim that the creature walked upright. (P-59)...Yet with Neandertals who are human and do walk upright, they were originally portrayed as stooped over similar posture to a knuckle dragger.

Evolutionists have a history of trying to project human like characteristics on Apes... and down playing the humanity of humans trying to make them appear more ape-like.*

 

[Dialogos]

A few questions for those who are so very excited about this find.

1. What was the conclusion of the radiometric dating? How old are these fossils?

2. How confident are you, speaking from the standpoint of evolution, that these bones represent a newly discovered species?

 

[iouae]

A few questions for those who are so very excited about this find.

1. What was the conclusion of the radiometric dating? How old are these fossils?

2. How confident are you, speaking from the standpoint of evolution, that these bones represent a newly discovered species?

Why they are struggling to date them, see...
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/...of-the-new-human-ancestor-homo-naledi/405148/

 

[Dialogos]

Why they are struggling to date them, see...
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/...of-the-new-human-ancestor-homo-naledi/405148/

Ok. So common sense would dictate that if we don't know how old they are, then we can't have any level of certainty that these fossils are of a species that is in any way connected to so called human evolution.

Isn't that right?

 

[iouae]

Ok. So common sense would dictate that if we don't know how old they are, then we can't have any level of certainty that these fossils are of a species that is in any way connected to so called human evolution.

Isn't that right?

The discoverers of H. naledi are being hyper-cautious unlike most of their predecessors who make exaggerated claims at first, such as this is the oldest ancestor of mankind.

Their hyper-caution just tells me how hard it REALLY is to accurately date fossils. They don't seem to have much faith in their own dating methods.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Ok. So common sense would dictate that if we don't know how old they are, then we can't have any level of certainty that these fossils are of a species that is in any way connected to so called human evolution.

Isn't that right?

Especially when coupled with the fact a fossil can form in a matter of days. :luigi:

 

[Dialogos]

Especially when coupled with the fact a fossil can form in a matter of days. :luigi:

And more than that, the title of the thread is "creationists stumped by a new hominid fossil.

So clearly one would expect that the evolutionists are not equally stumped.

And yet there appear to be more questions than answers here.

:think:

 

[Greg Jennings]

Ok... now that you seem willing to stop with your strawman...let's proceed

REVIEW OF WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID

"there is a long history of evolutionists trying to make ape fossils appear more human like; and make human fossils appear more ape like."

Explain to me how "fraud by scientists" is a misrepresentation of that? Because it's not

Greg then suggested there was only 4 examples


6days replied "I'm not going to bother but I'm quite sure I could list several times the amount you suggest. For starters I will double you...

1. Aegyptopitithecus zeuxis

2. Dryopitithecus Africanus

3. Ramapitecus Brevirostis

4. Orrorin Tugenensis

5. Ardipithecus*

6. Australopithecus Anemensis

7. Ardipithecus Ramidus Kadabba

8. Kenyan Through Platyops

6days also said "Lets look at the first one (I) mentioned. Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin in 'Origins' called Aegyptopitithecus zeuxis the ancestor that humans share with all living apes. That's simply is a statement of faith and nothing to do with science. This 6Kg creature is simply an extinct ape. Evolutionists acknowledge that this creature is simply an ape."

In the above book mentioned start reading page 52 ...they are trying to show a progression if ape to human and they call 'zeuxis' the first ape to emerge from the old world monkey stock" . They placed this 100% tiny extinct ape in human lineage.

6days also said "Like Richard Leakey said "much of what we can say about them (homonid fossils) is pure inference, guess work."
(People of the Lake, p178)

6days also said "Also... without giving you citations, you already KNOW of numerous examples where evolutionists tried to make human fossils more apelike.....or ape fossils appear more human like.*
Example... Neandertals were portrayed as stooped over hairy beasts. Evolutionists claimed these 'beasts' were inarticulate. ..no culture...didn't bury dead with ceremony...couldn't breed with humans....unintelligent...etc.
Science has proven all of those evolutionary claims to be false. Science has proven the humanity of Neandertals and is one more evidence for the truth of God's Word. We are all one blood...one race...all descendants of the original created humans, Adam and Eve."

Lets look at another of the few examples I listed...Ardipithecus Ramidus Kadabba. *Time magazine featured this ape on the cover of its July23,2001 issue with the headline "how apes became human". *This ape was actually just a few bones collected over the course of 5 years from 5 different locations .
Funny how from a fossilized toe, a piece of a jaw, few arm bones, clavicle, a finger and a few teeth from 5 locations...evolutionists call it a "ape-man".*

Laughable how an evolutionist can look at a toe bone ( 1 of 26 bones in a human foot) and then proclaim that the creature walked upright. (P-59)...Yet with Neandertals who are human and do walk upright, they were originally portrayed as stooped over similar posture to a knuckle dragger.

You just still don't get it. Science is a process of learning. We know that Neanderthals walked upright now thanks to the gathering of real world, tangible evidence. And you don't seem to realize that the structure of the toe absolutely tells you if an animal was an upright walker or not.

Evolutionists have a history of trying to project human like characteristics on Apes... and down playing the humanity of humans trying to make them appear more ape-like.*

No 6, I know of a few mistakes made by scientists in identification and of 2 purposeful doctoring of evidence.

You still have not found ANYTHING that contradicts any of the finds above. You just listed them and told me why you didn't like them. Scientists don't seem to have the same concerns over their authenticity as you, however. Funny thing is: they know better than you.

I see now that you don't actually have any sources that say these finds are mistakes made by scientists. Instead it's just you whining about them. I'm actually extremely disappointed. I would LOVE for you to give me something that actually seems to be a mark against evolution because that'd be incredibly interesting, but you just continually say a bunch of garbage and can never back it up with anything but your own opinion. That's not science 6, and it's crazy to me that you somehow think you and only you have noticed that these hominids are all just normal people, yet the scientific community (which is made up of competing scientists trying to tear each others' finds and studies down) hasn't. Give me a break

 

[Greg Jennings]

A few questions for those who are so very excited about this find.

1. What was the conclusion of the radiometric dating? How old are these fossils?

Not sure if the dating has been performed as of yet.

2. How confident are you, speaking from the standpoint of evolution, that these bones represent a newly discovered species?

I'm no expert on human or ape skeletal anatomy, so I leave that determination up to the experts who have spent their whole lives studying this very subject. Just like I'd trust a qualified surgeon to perform brain surgery on me more than an amateur, I'm taking the scientists' word here over amateurs

 

[Greg Jennings]

Especially when coupled with the fact a fossil can form in a matter of days. :luigi:

A fossil can only firm in days if the object is kept wet and an electric current is constantly run through it for days. Funny thing is, electrical wires weren't around until about 100 years ago, so that doesn't cover very many fossils, does it?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Ok. So common sense would dictate that if we don't know how old they are, then we can't have any level of certainty that these fossils are of a species that is in any way connected to so called human evolution.

Isn't that right?

I think that's fair. It could be a species that evolved alongside man, but from bone structure it's clear it's a new species

 

[Greg Jennings]

The discoverers of H. naledi are being hyper-cautious unlike most of their predecessors who make exaggerated claims at first, such as this is the oldest ancestor of mankind.

Their hyper-caution just tells me how hard it REALLY is to accurately date fossils. They don't seem to have much faith in their own dating methods.

The Atlantic article lays it pretty clearly. You can carbon date anything, but it's only accurate within the last 50,000 years. Therefore, if H. Naledi is older than that, carbon-dating can't tell us anything.

There is a way to verify the age of the fossil for certain, but that requires at least one other form of radiometric dating to be performed, as these methods are able to date things far older than 50,000 years. But you need certain isotopes present in order to perform these dating methods. For example, one other method is Argon-Argon dating. If there is no argon in the sample, then you can't date the fossil with that method. Apparently this fossil doesn't have much in the way of radiometric isotopes in it

 

[6days]

You still have not found ANYTHING that contradicts any of the finds above.

The finds were real.

The interpretations were silly.

Keep in mind what I actually said "there is a long history of evolutionists trying to make ape fossils appear more human like; and make human fossils appear more ape like." And that is what I have shown. Even many, if not most evolutionists now acknowledge many of the original claims were false.
Ex....
Evolutionists now admit Neandertals are our ancestors.

Evolutionists now admit Neandertals walked upright.

Evolutionists now admit Neandertals had culture and were intelligent.
Etc etc etc.
These are all things evolutionists Originally were wrong on because they tried to make a human fossils appear more ape like.

Science helps confirm the truth of God's Word. We are all related...we are all one blood. Evolutionists could have saved themselves a lot of egg on their face if they would stop believing in ape men.