Creationists stumped by new hominid fossils

[6days]

. The artist made the reconstruction have black hair with brown eyes, exactly like a modern chimpanzee or gorilla does.

Like chimps have red blood vessels in the whites of their eyes? Ha... As said before, 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 Jennings]

Uh... there were no intact skulls found that I heard of. The "ARTIST" spent 700 hours reconstructing the head

It says "reconstructed the head from bone scans." You don't need an intact skull for that. Just enough pieces of it to get the shape. Do you know what a bone scan is? This is very easy to understand, but you insist on making it a chore

 

[Greg Jennings]

Like chimps have red blood vessels in the whites of their eyes? Ha...

Has been seen in apes: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150808-gorillas-with-human-eyes

Anything else you want me to do for you?

As said before, there is a long history of evolutionists trying to make ape fossils appear more human like; and make human fossils appear more ape like.

No not really, there are like four examples. Juxtapose that with the countless attempts at fraud put forward by creationists, plus the tens of hominid species found that have been proven anything but fraudulent, and your statement seems ridiculous

 

[oatmeal]

Great apes (outside of Homo sapiens, of course) only have three basic fur colors: black, brown, and orange. All apes have brown eyes with very very rare exception. The artist made the reconstruction have black hair with brown eyes, exactly like a modern chimpanzee or gorilla does. Tell me what problem there is with that?

Do you want to comment on the fossils themselves? Did you read the article even a little?

here is a letter, "a" tell me what species that represents!

Here is a another letter, "x", tell me what one word in the English language that contains that letter.

Someone found a bone or a part of a bone and with it a portrait done of the animal looked like based on a portion of a bone?

I saw the portrait and therefore dismissed the article as high intensity extrapolation.

Did you get the name and surname of the animal whose portrait it was as well?

 

[Greg Jennings]

here is a letter, "a" tell me what species that represents!

Here is a another letter, "x", tell me what one word in the English language that contains that letter.

Someone found a bone or a part of a bone and with it a portrait done of the animal looked like based on a portion of a bone?

I saw the portrait and therefore dismissed the article as high intensity extrapolation.

Did you get the name and surname of the animal whose portrait it was as well?

So I'll take that as a no, you didn't read the article. If you had then you would know how dumb your comments above about it seem to be

 

[6days]

Uh... there were no intact skulls found that I heard of. The "ARTIST" spent 700 hours reconstructing the head

It says "reconstructed the head from bone scans." You don't need an intact skull for that. Just enough pieces of it to get the shape.

I think we are getting somewhere now

The skull was not reconstructed from bone scans. The "1550 pieces of bits of fossil" bones and teeth seem to have belonged to 15 or more creatures. Some of these creatures according to some of the scientists may not even be same species. The "bits" were described as part of a face here and jawbone there'.

IOW.... Your claim "take a closer look at the actual skull shown to the right of the artist's rendering. The shape is identical..." is simply evolutionary zeal... not factual...not truthful....not science."

The paleoartist rendering is not built on any "actual skull", but instead assortment of pieces that may or may not belong to the same individual....or even the same species. It is small wonder that even many secular scientists are very skeptical of the claims.

As said before, there is a long history of evolutionists trying to make ape fossils appear more human like; and make human fossils appear more ape like.

No not really, there are like four examples.

Haaa sometimes a evolutionist makes a claim so bogus that you have to wonder if they just fell off the turnip truck.*

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

*Juxtapose that with the countless attempts at fraud put forward by creationists, plus the tens of hominid species found that have been proven anything but fraudulent, and your statement seems ridiculous

Your statement is nonsense, besides that fraud by evolutionists had not even been mentioned....yet.*

 

[Greg Jennings]

I think we are getting somewhere now

The skull was not reconstructed from bone scans. The "1550 pieces of bits of fossil" bones and teeth seem to have belonged to 15 or more creatures. Some of these creatures according to some of the scientists may not even be same species. The "bits" were described as part of a face here and jawbone there'.

IOW.... Your claim "take a closer look at the actual skull shown to the right of the artist's rendering. The shape is identical..." is simply evolutionary zeal... not factual...not truthful....not science."

The paleoartist rendering is not built on any "actual skull", but instead assortment of pieces that may or may not belong to the same individual....or even the same species. It is small wonder that even many secular scientists are very skeptical of the claims.

So let me get this straight: you think that scientists just make up the shapes of fossil skeletons? What world do you live in? That's now how science operates. If the pieces don't go together, someone will figure that out fairly quickly. As you pointed out, scientists are chomping at the bit to tear this new discovery to shreds. Because that's how science works and it's the main reason why evolution isn't just a belief: any time a new discovery is made everyone out there scrutinizes it until it either falls under the weight of peer review or it stands up to that, like many tens of hominid skeletons have before. Evolution, unlike creationism, relies on this scrutiny to verify its evidence.

Haa sometimes a evolutionist makes a claim so bogus that you have to wonder if they just fell off the turnip truck.*

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


Your statement is nonsense, besides that fraud by evolutionists had not even been mentioned....yet.*

I looked up a few of the names on that list. None of them returned any results like you were claiming. If you can provide a non-creationist source that discredits the examples you provided above, then you have something. Otherwise you're just blowing more hot air while stamping your feet like a child because the evidence doesn't go your way.

 

[Interplanner]

Even though there haven't been any threads on it here at ToL, I'm sure most everyone has at least heard about the hominid fossils discovered deep in a South African cave. If not, National Geographic has a very good article...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150910-human-evolution-change/

In sum, these specimens show a fascinating mixture of modern and primitive traits, which is what we would expect if humans shared an evolutionary common ancestry with other primates.

But one of the more entertaining aspects of finds like these is to watch the creationists try and figure out how to force them into their religious belief that such organisms must either be "fully human" or "fully ape". So what are we seeing?

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

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'm not concerned at all with something that just showed up this month or that has not been studied for at least 5 years. There are some 8700 great articles at the creationwiki. There are several archeological anomalies all around the world that get absolutely no discussion by modern science because they would conclude that mankind before the flood was more advanced than today, and larger, and longer-living. There is so much of this that there are secular books about how limited modern science is about honesty etc., for ex., like Graham Hancock, former writer for the London Economist.

I know of at least 20 questions I could ask half-asleep about Naszca, Peru, about which almost all Euro-American uniformitarians can't begin to answer and don't want to be involved with. So this badly done science is not just targeting the Bible, but anything that would cause an earthquake for their dear racists Lyell, Hutton, Darwin.

 

[6days]

So let me get this straight: you think that scientists just make up the shapes of fossil skeletons?

Strawman

This is what I said...
"The skull was not reconstructed from bone scans. The "1550 pieces of bits of fossil" bones and teeth seem to have belonged to 15 or more creatures. Some of these creatures according to some of the scientists may not even be same species. The "bits" were described as part of a face here and jawbone there'.

"IOW.... Your claim "take a closer look at the actual skull shown to the right of the artist's rendering. The shape is identical..." is simply evolutionary zeal... not factual...not truthful....not science."

"The paleoartist rendering is not built on any "actual skull", but instead assortment of pieces that may or may not belong to the same individual....or even the same species. It is small wonder that even many secular scientists are very skeptical of the claims."

Greg.... certainly you must be aware of fossils incorrectly assembled when there was a lot more "bits" than there were of the fossil bits we are discussing. The claim you made about "actual skull" was inaccurate. It makes you seem like a salesman trying to bluff your way through a sale. Like Richard Leakey said "much of what we can say about them (homonid fossils) is pure inference, guess work."
(People of the Lake, p178)

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. Kenyanthropus Platyops

I looked up a few of the names on that list. None of them returned any results like you were claiming.

I suspect none returned any results simply because you are blind to results that contradicts your belief system. *Lets look at the first one air 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.*

 

[Greg Jennings]

Strawman

This is what I said...
"The skull was not reconstructed from bone scans. The "1550 pieces of bits of fossil" bones and teeth seem to have belonged to 15 or more creatures. Some of these creatures according to some of the scientists may not even be same species. The "bits" were described as part of a face here and jawbone there'.

"IOW.... Your claim "take a closer look at the actual skull shown to the right of the artist's rendering. The shape is identical..." is simply evolutionary zeal... not factual...not truthful....not science."

"The paleoartist rendering is not built on any "actual skull", but instead assortment of pieces that may or may not belong to the same individual....or even the same species. It is small wonder that even many secular scientists are very skeptical of the claims."

Greg.... certainly you must be aware of fossils incorrectly assembled when there was a lot more "bits" than there were of the fossil bits we are discussing. The claim you made about "actual skull" was inaccurate. It makes you seem like a salesman trying to bluff your way through a sale. Like Richard Leakey said "much of what we can say about them (homonid fossils) is pure inference, guess work."
(People of the Lake, p178)

I did not misrepresent you in the slightest. You are saying that these pieces they collect aren't part of a single skull, and somehow you know better than they even though they are actually looking at the pieces and are actually trained. Have mistakes been made in the past? Of course! But they're so few and far between so as to almost be negligible.

I suspect none returned any results simply because you are blind to results that contradicts your belief system. *

No, I mean there literally were not any links to any controversies around any species you mentioned that I searched for. You just made stuff up, and are at the same time accusing trained professionals of making stuff up. Well done

Lets look at the first one air 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.*

Clearly you don't understand this stuff, so allow me to explain: if humans and apes share a common ancestor, it has to be an ape because humans are more advanced. Why would the ancestor of humans and all living apes NOT be an ape? It HAS to be an ape. That would be the only option! And that's why evolutionary scientists say it was an ape! Not only that, but if it is the ancestor of all modern apes (that includes the small gibbon species) then it would be a very very primitive ape. Something that chimpanzees look advanced next to. That thing on your shoulders isn't an ornament. Use it to think.

Hope that clears that up for you. Do you have any citations for anything you're saying about these "frauds"? Or (as I suspect) are you throwing a temper tantrum about the superiority of the scientific method versus a creation story first formulated by goatherds over 4000 years ago?

 

[oatmeal]

So I'll take that as a no, you didn't read the article. If you had then you would know how dumb your comments above about it seem to be

Since you accept the portrait as realistic maybe even real, I choose to dismiss your entire article as science falsely so called.

Did you get any DNA from the bone to substantiate its species?

No, you did not, you guessed even as some "scientist" guessed what that animal looked like.

Still waiting for your "scientific" answer to my questions.

 

[iouae]

Here is a quote from the H. naledi article, concerning the age of the fossil...

How Old Is It?
The mysteries of what H. naledi is, and how its bones got into the cave, are inextricably knotted with the question of how old those bones are—and for the moment no one knows. In East Africa, fossils can be accurately dated when they are found above or below layers of volcanic ash, whose age can be measured from the clocklike decay of radioactive elements in the ash. At Malapa, Berger had gotten lucky: The A. sediba bones lay between two flowstones—thin layers of calcite deposited by running water—that could also be dated radiometrically. But the bones in the Rising Star chamber were just lying on the cave floor or buried in shallow, mixed sediments. When they got into the cave is an even more intractable problem to solve than how.

Most of the workshop scientists fretted over how their analysis would be received without a date attached. (As it turned out, the lack of a date would prove to be one impediment to a quick publication of the scientific papers describing the finds.) But Berger wasn’t bothered one bit. If H. naledi eventually proved to be as old as its morphology suggested, then he had quite possibly found the root of the Homo family tree. But if the new species turned out to be much younger, the repercussions could be equally profound.

Notice how bad anthropologists are at dating fossils, even by their own admission above. And look at how they place H. naledi all over the geological time scale in their chart "A place in time".

This proves right here how imprecise fossil dating methods are.

That is why I take with a big pinch of salt all dating of modern human fossils as being older than 6000 years.

H. naledi could be a pre-adamic proto-human, in which case I don't mind how old it was.

The Gen 1 account tells of the re-creation of earth after a mass extinction event rendered it "without form and void" 6000 years ago. Adam and Eve were created to replenish the earth, which had once been "plenished" by the likes of H. naledi.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The Gen 1 account tells of the re-creation of earth after a mass extinction event rendered it "without form and void" 6000 years ago. Adam and Eve were created to replenish the earth, which had once been "plenished" by the likes of H. naledi.

The Bible says that death did not come into the world until Adam, so there was no mass extinction event before Adam.

The Bible also describes a mass extinction event during the time of Noah.

So, what exactly makes you want to add an extra mass extinction event into the verses before God created the sun?

 

[iouae]

The Bible says that death did not come into the world until Adam, so there was no mass extinction event before Adam.

The Bible also describes a mass extinction event during the time of Noah.

So, what exactly makes you want to add an extra mass extinction event into the verses before God created the sun?

When one puts together the following verses...

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

... then one sees that we are talking about the wages of sin being death.

Animals and proto-humans do not sin. They lived and died since 4 million years ago. Sin began with Adam (actually it began with one woman). That is when the wages of sin or death began. That is what Rom 5:12 is getting at.

 

[bybee]

When one puts together the following verses...

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

... then one sees that we are talking about the wages of sin being death.

Animals and proto-humans do not sin. They lived and died since 4 million years ago. Sin began with Adam (actually it began with one woman). That is when the wages of sin or death began. That is what Rom 5:12 is getting at.

Actually sin began when Adam failed in his duty.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Animals and proto-humans do not sin. They lived and died since 4 million years ago.

Animals and proto-humans (whatever those are supposed to be) lived and died 4 million years ago, but light and the sun was only created 6000 years ago?
How does that work?

Sin began with Adam (actually it began with one woman).

Actually, sin began with Adam.
Eve was deceived but Adam was not deceived when he sinned.

 

[iouae]

Actually sin began when Adam failed in his duty.

I say this with all respect to Paul, but I think he was a bit of a misogenist by discounting what Eve did. That is when sin began - with Eve.

 

[iouae]

Animals and proto-humans (whatever those are supposed to be) lived and died 4 million years ago, but light and the sun was only created 6000 years ago?
How does that work?


Actually, sin began with Adam.
Eve was deceived but Adam was not deceived when he sinned.

Are you saying that when we KNOWINGLY disobey God, as Eve did, even though she was deceived - this is not sin?

Sure, Adam's sin was greater in that he KNOWINGLY and WILFULLY, eyes-wide-open disobeyed God.

But Paul ignores women, and tells them to keep silent. He even discounts their sins.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Are you saying that when we KNOWINGLY disobey God, as Eve did, even though she was deceived - this is not sin?

The Bible makes Adam responsible for the actions of his woman.

Sure, Adam's sin was greater in that he KNOWINGLY and WILFULLY, eyes-wide-open disobeyed God.

But Paul ignores women, and tells them to keep silent. He even discounts their sins.

Paul understands that the man is responsible for the actions of his woman.


(By the way, your username is mispelled. Vowels are supposed to be a-e-i-o-u not i-o-u-a-e.)

 

[iouae]

The Bible makes Adam responsible for the actions of his woman.


Paul understands that the man is responsible for the actions of his woman.


(By the way, your username is mispelled. Vowels are supposed to be a-e-i-o-u not i-o-u-a-e.)

If I am responsible for the sins of my wife and daughter, then I am toast.

I spell it that way because sometimes the vowels are taken as a name, and also because its easier for me to remember my own handle by the mnemonic "I owe you a e" whatever that means