|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5290 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Was Nebraska Man a fraud? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5290 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Percy writes:
I'm not sure what Creationists hope to achieve by pushing issues like Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man, nor what evolutionists hope to achieve by defending them. No human endeavor is free of human failties, and science is no exception. The issue isn't whether evolutionists have ever perpetrated scientific misdeeds, because they most certainly have. So have Creationists. Unless Creationists are trying to make the case for secret factories churning out fossils night and day that scientists surrepticiously slip into the ground so that they may "discover" them, focusing on the frauds has no point because there is overwhelming authentic evidence. Have a cigar. You are, of course, completely correct. I don't see myself as "defending" so much as clarifying the nature of the mistakes that were made and the impact it had. But as you say, it is a matter of small importance. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
teen15m6 Inactive Member |
quote: "overwhelming authentic evidence."
like what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: The overwhelming number of authentic homonid fossils that point to our evolution from a common ancestor with apes. Take away Nebraska man, Piltdown man, etc. and you are still left with numerous fossils that can't be ignored. Well, can't be ignored unless you are a creationist bent on ignoring evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
teen15m6 Inactive Member |
"numerous fossiles wich cannot be ignored" mind nameing some?
and no i am not bent on ignoring evidence, so far it seems to me most evolutionist r bent on ignoreing the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
Smarties are a sour, sugar-based candy. Much akin to Sweettarts, if you have those. American "smarties" = British "refreshers"... And its not "starburst" its "opal fruit".... And don't even get me started on "marathon" and "snickers" I mean WTF is "snickers" supposed to mean anyway?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Sahelanthropus tchadensisArdipithecus ramidus Australopithecus anamensis Australopithecus afarensis Kenyanthropus platyops Australopithecus africanus Australopithecus garhi Australopithecus aethiopicus Australopithecus robustus Australopithecus boisei Homo habilis Homo georgicus Homo erectus Homo ergaster Homo antecessor Homo heidelbergensis Homo neanderthalensis Homo sapiens You can find there descriptions and links to pictures of the actual fossils here. You can also look here some of the fossils within a timeline. Also, here is a diagram of the brain case size for some of the above listed species: {Rescaled graphic, to restore page width to normal. Right click on image to see larger version. - Adminnemooseus} As you can see, there is a steady rise in brain size among the hominid fossils. Some of the fossils, which some creationists insist are human, fall well outside the brain size of living human beings.
quote: Then you wouldn't mind going through the list of fossils above and tell me how they fit into the Genesis account? What am I missing, what evidence am I ignoring? I have a set of skulls that start out looking ape-like and progressively become more human like. The ages of the more human like fossils are younger than the ages of the more ape like skulls. Both the ages of the fossils and their composition are supported by solid science, unlike the hoaxes and misrepresentations associated with Nebraska man and other fossils that are not part of the collection that I have listed. The above collection are the fossils that creationists ignore, or try to explain away with pseudoscientific logic. [This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 04-02-2004] [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-03-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
If teeny is unable to provide a consistent creationist (spelling corrected) explanation for the existence of the nominated fossils, how about taking up a lesser challenge.
Identify which of the nominated fossils are of humans and which are non-humans, according to creationist thinking. [This message has been edited by wj, 04-03-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I mean WTF is "snickers" supposed to mean if you're a secret snicker snacker you have something to snicker about snacking secretly. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
There is no reason to start making fun(yet).
Teen is a good enough short form for the nic. Don't you think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
"numerous fossiles wich cannot be ignored" mind nameing some? I like this Chart of Human Evolution, with white numbers in the bars that "indicate the approximate count of distinct individuals in each species from whom fossil remains survive. This is considerably smaller than the number of fossil 'specimens,' because a specimen can be a single tooth, bone or bone fragment.", and lihnks to discussions of each type. 500 Neandertals, 150 Homo Erectus, 50 Homo Hedelbergnesis, 20 Homo Ergaster, 5 Homo Rudolfensis, 15 Homo Habilis, 90 Australopithecus Robustus, 20 Australopithecus Bosel, 5 Australopithecus Aethlopicus, 130 Australopithecus Africanus, 120 Australopithecus Afarensis, 5 Australopithecus Anamansis, 5 Australopithecus Ramidus ... And that chart's five years old based on a book that's eight years old and was probably a little out of date when it came out; there have been others discovered since then
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
A similar chart is available at
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.htmlagain each species is hyperlinked to a description the Australopithicus afarensis (of Lucy fame - her knee joint is shown (I think - not identified)) also shows the Laetoli footprint with a link to that. it is always instructive to compare such trees from different sources. enjoy. {{edit in pink -- added}} [This message has been edited by AbbyLeever, 04-03-2004] we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
"numerous fossiles wich cannot be ignored" mind nameing some?
The clock is now ticking. Teen has been provided with a couple of substantive replies which identify the human and prehuman fossil material identified by scientists.and no i am not bent on ignoring evidence, so far it seems to me most evolutionist r bent on ignoreing the truth. How long do we wait before unresponsiveness becomes ignoring the evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
I've not done enough reading on this subject to get into intense debate on it, but doing a google search I see there are links to visit with arguments pro and con. I noted this creo con link, for example on page one. I searched "early human fossils modern man."
NOTE: To read the scrambled section of this link, highlight from above the section to read the top portion. Then highlight from the bottom up to read the bottom section. Or you can copy the top section and notepad it to read, doing the same for the bottom secion. I don't know what would cause the scrambling. [This message has been edited by buzsaw, 04-04-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
If you have your text size set large it can cause scrambling. I had no trouble with the site.
(I do note that the sites listing of what evolution predicts is wrong, and I would dispute the "sudden appearance of modern man" in the creation version ... and some other things struck me as not too consistent.) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tiny man Inactive Member |
"The overwhelming number of authentic homonid fossils that point to our evolution from a common ancestor with apes. Take away Nebraska man, Piltdown man, etc. and you are still left with numerous fossils that can't be ignored. Well, can't be ignored unless you are a creationist bent on ignoring evidence." Quote by Loudmouth.
Actually, there is no clear cut progression between the Australopithecines (Lucy type skeleton) and modern day Humans. It has been shown pretty much by many scientists that the Australopithecines are not "half ape, half Human". Dr Charles Oxnard (an evolutionary anatomist) believes that in reality the Australopithecines "differ more from both Humans and Africian apes than do these tow living groups from each other. The Australopithecines are unique". [Dr Charles E. Oxnard in "Fossils, Teeth and Sex - New Perspectives on Human Evolution", 1987, p. 227.] In fact, recent CAT scans of the bony labyrinth which once housed their organ of balance have shown conclusively that they did not habitually walk upright - as some evolutionists insist it did. The next main one in line is Homo Hablis. This is now regarded as a "waste bin" of two or more unrelated species and hence, is an "invalid category". CAT scans have shown that Homo Hablis (the head part of it any way) was even less able to habitually walk upright - which is not what we would expect. Dr Fred Spoor (an atomist) says that the organ of balace was more like that of baboons than of Humans. Interestingly enough, he got support from other findings in Africa to suggest that the limb bones are less adapted for bipedalism and more ape like than the Australopithecines. It was less evolved in the direction of Humans than the Australopithecines. The next and final one that we will deal with is called Homo Erectus. Well-defined Homo Erectus skeletal types were most probably true Humans living after teh Flood and expressing bony "racial" variation (if one accepts the Biblical model). Once again Fred Spoor's CAT scans have been done on Erectus and it has been discovered that they walked just like we do. They could run, jump, skip, etc. Even though Erectus is often displayed as a stooped ape man. Homo Erectus is truely Human. Dr Sigrid Hartwig Scherer (a paleoanthropologist from Munich Uni) believes that Homo Erectus was the "basic type of Human". So the question remains, where are the transitional forms between Human and apes? Dr Fred Spoor says that this question is "so far quite problematic". "Do not be afraid of anyone, and do not worry. But have reverence for Christ in your hearts, and honor him as Lord. Be ready at all times to answer anyone who asks you to explain the hope you have in you but do it with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024