Creationists stumped by new hominid fossils

[Interplanner]

Three responses so far, and none of them make a bit of sense. Amazing.

That assumes that the news makes sense. Are these the same people who wrote the op ed for NYT this week about the oceans in 1000 years?

 

[Jose Fly]

That assumes that the news makes sense. Are these the same people who wrote the op ed for NYT this week about the oceans in 1000 years?

Um......no. :duh:

 

[jeffblue101]

Bones of Contention: How Will Creationists Respond To A Huge New Hominid Fossil Find?[/URL]

Answers in Genesis sez: Fully ape

Institute for Creation Research sez: Doesn't matter, but maybe human

Kurt Wise sez: Fully human

Reasons to Believe sez: Fully ape

Todd Wood sez: I dunno

And creationists wonder why they're laughed at? Hilarious. :chuckle:

I read the article you cited and the numerous early impressions by Old and Young Earth creationists and I find you summary of the positions cited to be misleading. Todd Wood has written a much more honest analysis of what creationist have written so far.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/

Now if you're a young-age creationist, you might be wondering what to make of all this. The best I can tell you right now is to think of this as something that lived after the Flood, in the wreckage of a world struggling to recover from the worst disaster in history. Life was not easy for these creatures that God made, whatever they were.

Creationists also might like to read about other creationist reactions. AIG's Elizabeth Mitchell downplays the evidence of burial and argues that the fossils are not human. Paleontologist Kurt Wise thinks otherwise, as he shares in this World magazine article. In the same article, old earth creationist Fuz Rana of Reasons to Believe sides with Mitchell and claims H. naledi is not human (no surprise there). ICR's Frank Sherwin cautiously suggests it might be human. Ken Ham wisely notes that creationists will likely disagree on Homo naledi because of the fragmentary nature of the fossils and our limited ability to examine the fossils firsthand.

I also want to add that the icr.org article by Frank Sherwin has an update to it.

Update: Upon closer examination, the skeletal remains given the name Homo naledi show a host of primate characteristics, and evolutionists have pointed out shortcomings with the ritualistic burial interpretation.

 

[PureX]

There will never be enough evidence to change a mind that does not want to be changed.

 

[Jose Fly]

I read the article you cited and the numerous early impressions by Old and Young Earth creationists and I find you summary of the positions cited to be misleading. Todd Wood has written a much more honest analysis of what creationist have written so far.

Let's take a look then.

Todd Wood: "AIG's Elizabeth Mitchell downplays the evidence of burial and argues that the fossils are not human."

In the same article he links to, Mitchell says H. naledi is an ape, just as I described.

Todd Wood: "Paleontologist Kurt Wise thinks otherwise"

In the article Wood links to, Wise says H. naledi is fully human, exactly as I described.

Todd Wood: "Fuz Rana of Reasons to Believe sides with Mitchell and claims H. naledi is not human"

That's as I described.

Todd Wood: "ICR's Frank Sherwin cautiously suggests it might be human"

That's as I described.

So your accusations are directly contradicted by the record. And your post further demonstrates my point, i.e., that creationists really don't know what to do with these specimens. But then, since creationism isn't at all scientific and is merely a religious belief, that's hardly surprising.

 

[Jose Fly]

There will never be enough evidence to change a mind that does not want to be changed.

Anyone expecting any young-earth creationist to change their mind based on the data is only guaranteeing their own frustration.

 

[Stuu]

... The best I can tell you right now is to think of this as something that lived after the Flood...

So, presumably, Homo naledi was on the ark.

Stuart

 

[Granite]

This is what biblical literalism leads to.

 

[jeffblue101]

Let's take a look then.

Todd Wood: "AIG's Elizabeth Mitchell downplays the evidence of burial and argues that the fossils are not human."

In the same article he links to, Mitchell says H. naledi is an ape, just as I described.

Todd Wood: "Paleontologist Kurt Wise thinks otherwise"

In the article Wood links to, Wise says H. naledi is fully human, exactly as I described.

Todd Wood: "Fuz Rana of Reasons to Believe sides with Mitchell and claims H. naledi is not human"

That's as I described.

Todd Wood: "ICR's Frank Sherwin cautiously suggests it might be human"

That's as I described.

So your accusations are directly contradicted by the record. And your post further demonstrates my point, i.e., that creationists really don't know what to do with these specimens. But then, since creationism isn't at all scientific and is merely a religious belief, that's hardly surprising.

No, your analysis was a joke of an assessment with a mere few words on each perspective that didn't even give a single mention on how they think that more research will be forthcoming and needed. And if creationists are allegedly as unscientific as you proclaimed them to be then there wouldn't even be any claims or counter claims for you to mock and ridicule.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, your analysis was a joke of an assessment with a mere few words on each perspective

Yep, creationists are a joke.

that didn't even give a single mention on how they think that more research will be forthcoming and needed.

Because what creationists think about these specimens is 100% scientifically irrelevant and is only valuable for entertainment purposes.

You do understand that no one outside their tent takes them at all seriously, and it's been that way for over a century, don't you?

And if creationists are allegedly as unscientific as you proclaimed them to be then there wouldn't even be any claims or counter claims for you to mock and ridicule.

?????????? So posting opinions on the internet constitutes science to you? :idunno:

 

[jeffblue101]

Yep, creationists are a joke.

Thank you for admitting that your worldview blinds you from accurately reporting on what a few creationists have said so far.

?????????? So posting opinions on the internet constitutes science to you? :idunno:

why are you so dense, it what universe is it possible to publish a peer review paper in any journal in a mere week. These writings and articles are obviously made for the public at large to get a general assessment from a biblical worldview of what was discovered.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thank you for admitting that your worldview blinds you from accurately reporting on what a few creationists have said so far.

As I said, the record clearly shows that I didn't misrepresent anyone. AiG says they're apes, Kurt Wise says they're fully human, ICR isn't sure, RtB says they're apes, and Todd Wood isn't sure.

it what universe is it possible to publish a peer review paper in any journal in a mere week.

When any of them get around to publishing a paper on H. naledi, let us know.

These writings and articles are obviously made for the public at large to get a general assessment from a biblical worldview of what was discovered.

And apparently this "Biblical worldview" isn't as clear as it's made out to be. Seems kinda jumbled.

But of course all this bumbling and contradiction from creationists is further evidence of the transitional nature of these specimens. They show a mix of primitive and modern traits, exactly as we expect under evolutionary shared ancestry between humans and other primates, which is why creationists can't figure out what they are. Conversely, if humans were specially created completely distinct from other primates with nothing at all between them, we'd expect everyone, creationists especially, to be able to easily put specimens like these into either the human or ape category.

Kinda makes you wonder why God is so generous to evolutionary scientists to provide such amazing intermediates, doesn't it? :think:

 

[Hawkins]

It's actually nothing new. Scientists also claim that they found Neanderthal genes in humans, as a result of interbreeding instead of evolution. On the other hand, if interbreeding between humans and other species existed, the theory of a common ancestor becomes a joke.

 

[everready]

Um.....what? This is "Ida" (Darwinius)...

And this is H. naledi...

So if H. naledi is "more ape" than Darwinius, I guess that means humans are "more ape" than Darwinius too. :chuckle:

i see an artist that serves Darwinism.

everready

 

[Granite]

It's actually nothing new. Scientists also claim that they found Neanderthal genes in humans, as a result of interbreeding instead of evolution. On the other hand, if interbreeding between humans and other species existed, the theory of a common ancestor becomes a joke.

Uh...that makes no sense. At all.

 

[Stuu]

Thank you for admitting that your worldview blinds you from accurately reporting on what a few creationists have said so far.

I laughed heartily at fumbling creationist attempts to reconcile their hilarious views of natural history with reality.

Humans are great apes. Human is a name we call our species, but how many other ancestor or branching species should we call human? That is the only (relatively trivial) question for a proper scientist.

The comedy of creationism comes from the parts of the creationists' conspiracy theory that tells them their sky friend has made them special. They want respectable-sounding sciency words to give that joke idea credibility.

Thanks for the laugh, and keep them coming!

Stuart

 

[musterion]

Stoo returns.

 

[6days]

I read the article you cited and the numerous early impressions by Old and Young Earth creationists and I find you summary of the positions cited to be misleading.

Yes... I only clicked on one of the links yesterday and it did not say what the OP claimed.

 

[6days]

Um.....what? This is "Ida" (Darwinius)...

Correct... that is Ida who evolutionists tried to promote as a missing link leading to humanity.

 

[CherubRam]

Looks a lot like they created another fiji mermaid, piltdown man, or lucy.

Well, it is the work of artist.