Lucy (Australopithecus)

And you didn't mention any of the other fossils, but instead mentioned the Laetoli footprints. The obvious inference is that you are not aware of the other fossils.

I heard Neil deGrasse Tyson say that 15% of top ToE scienctists in the highest academy or something are creos. (not sure how cos the adam and eve yarn goes up in flames). Even them?

I can't find any trace of this. But maybe some are. Based on my experience yes, even them.

I've been involved in this debate for 20-ish years and haven't come across any valid science that supports their claims. I've seen some doozies of frauds.

How about if a piece of data is found that may support one of their things.

When and if that happens we'll deal with the evidence as it stands. So far there haven't been any opportunities to test the question.

Are scientists also dismissing without prejudice?

Mostly they are ignoring. For good reason.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

which lead to hysteria, propaganda and painting a picture we are not 100% sure about

Examples, please. Especially hysteria.

But there is also a very good chance that particular species is not related directly related to humans as suggested in the doco.

If "not related directly" means "not our ancestors", nobody knowledgeable claims that particular species is our ancestors. In general we cannot identify direct descendents of any fossil.

It's pretty certain they are our n^th cousins, where n is a huge number.

It's worthwhile pointing out that there are some honest creationist writings, but they are about creationist claims rather than mainstream topics. Dr. Aardsma eviscerated Setterfield's "C-decay" nonsense (and parted ways with the ICR later for unspecified reasons). Dr. Vardeman wrote several papers about the impossible thermodynamics of a vapor canopy (but couldn't avoid adding some apologetics in the discussion). There are others I don't recall right now.

But I noticed some arguments questioning its accuracy. U may of heard of them.

Almost certainly I or others here have, and know why they are fraudulent.

One was of a lava flow that was 10 years old. The decay rate of 5 or 6 elements where measured. The results where in a range of 20,000ya to hundreds of millions of years ago.

Nitpicking: it isn't the decay rate that's measured.

Sounds like my personal favorite creationist fraud. Snelling wrote two articles on it, one for the sheeple and one "technical". In the latter, but not the former he gave away the gaff, and all you need to know is that "whole rock" means the entire rock, not any individual mineral from the rock, and "xenolith", literally foreign rock, means a piece of an older rock that didn't melt embedded in a younger rock.

ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR POTASSIUM-ARGON "DATING":

quote:

---

A second representative set (50-100 g from each sample) was sent progressively to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge (Boston), Massachusetts, for whole-rock potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating

...

The potassium and argon analyses were undertaken at Geochron Laboratories under the direction of Richard Reesman, the K-Ar laboratory manager. No specific location or expected age information was supplied to the laboratory. However, the samples were described as andesites that probably contained "low argon" and therefore could be young, so as to ensure the laboratory took extra care with the analytical work.

Because the sample pieces were submitted as whole rocks, the K-Ar laboratory undertook the crushing and pulverising preparatory work.

...

Steiner [90] stressed that xenoliths are a common constituent of the 1954 Ngauruhoe lava, but also noted that Battey [7] reported the 1949 Ngauruhoe lava was rich in xenoliths. All samples in this study contained xenoliths, including those from the 1975 avalanche material.

...

Xenoliths are present in the Ngauruhoe andesite flows (Table 3), but they are minor and less significant as the location of the excess 40Ar* residing in these flows than the plagioclase and pyroxene phenocrysts, and the much larger glomerocrysts of plagioclase, pyroxene, or plagioclase and pyroxene that predominate. The latter are probably the early-formed phenocrysts that accumulated together in the magma within its chamber prior to eruption of the lava flows. Nevertheless, any excess 40Ar* they might contain had to have been supplied to the magma from its source. The xenoliths that are in the andesite flows have been described by Steiner [90] as gneissic, and are therefore of crustal origin, presumably from the basement rocks through which the magma passed on its way to eruption.

---

TL : DR version:

Snelling dated a mixture of old and new material and expressed amazement that the date came out as older than the new material. Duh. He presented no data for his claim that the xenoliths were not important.

{Also he could have used the much more robust Ar-Ar method, and/or extracted samples of the new material if possible and likely gotten a valid result)

And others of living specimens that have dated back millions of years.

There's several frauds that could be described as that. Carbon dating works for samples that were in equilibrium with atmospheric 14C when they left this vale of tears. Marine animals are not in equilibrium with atmospheric 14C because at least some of their carbon comes from ancient deposits dissolved in the water, and essentially all of the 14C in such deposits has decayed. Again it's a mixture of old and new material. There are correction factors which one can apply.

A freshly killed seal was carbon-14 dated at 1300 years old.
Living snails were carbon-14 dated at 2,300 and 27,000 years old, showing that the dating method is invalid.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Surely u don't condone the frauds and hoaxes fabricated by these fanatics over the years.

Name some such frauds and hoaxes. There were a few relevant ones, but scientists are the ones who uncovered them.

Please stop conflating scientists and atheists.

Evolution has happened. That is a fact.

The Theory of Evolution explains how and why evolution happened. The theory is not the fact that it happened. The map is not the territory.

It's true; the case for evolution happening is watertight even without fossils.

Piltdown man was a fraud. It was suspect from the beginning. Scientists uncovered the fraud. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC001.html.

Nebraska man was a case of over-extrapolation. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC002.html:

quote:

---

he tooth was never held in high regard by scientists. Osborn, who described it, was unsure whether it came from a hominid or from another kind of ape, and others were skeptical that it even belonged to a primate. The illustration was done for a popular publication and was clearly labeled as highly imaginative.

Nebraska Man is an example of science working well. An intriguing discovery was made that could have important implications. The discoverer announced the discovery and sent casts of it to several other experts. Scientists were initially skeptical. More evidence was gathered, ultimately showing that the initial interpretation was wrong. Finally, a retraction was prominently published.

---

Java man was another case of over-extrapolation but was quickly debunked. By scientists. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html.

You are obviously using solely creationist sources. They are not trustworthy. Not a one of them. Broaden your horizons.

You guys said no one claims it to be fact, show me where. I showed you where. Dawkins.

He did not claim the theory of evolution is a fact. It is a fact that evolution happened. You need to be more precise.

I read or hear one side and then i read and hear the other side ok

So far the arguments you have introduced are from creationists alone, and you obviously have made no effort to investigate other sources on those claims.

That plate is from 1905. There were many errors in it. They have been corrected. That plate is no longer relevant other than to historians.

Let's see your evidence for your claim that "Invented for one purpose only. Creationists".

Your aura of impartiality is slipping.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

I should have said the creationist claims about it were debunked. From my link:

quote:

---

Many creationists have claimed that Java Man, discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1893, was "bad science". Gish (1985) says that Dubois found two human skulls at nearby Wadjak at about the same level and had kept them secret; that Dubois later decided Java Man was a giant gibbon; and that the bones do not come from the same individual. Most people would find Gish's meaning of "nearby" surprising: the Wadjak skulls were found 65 miles (104 km) of mountainous countryside away from Java Man. Similarly for "at approximately the same level": the Wadjak skulls were found in cave deposits in the mountains, while Java Man was found in river deposits in a flood plain (Fezer 1993). Nor is it true, as is often claimed, that Dubois kept the existence of the Wadjak skulls secret because knowledge of them would have discredited Java Man. Dubois briefly reported the Wadjak skulls in three separate publications in 1890 and 1892. Despite being corrected on this in a debate in 1982 and in print (Brace 1986), Gish has continued to make this claim, even stating, despite not having apparently read Dubois' reports, that they did not mention the Wadjak skulls (Fezer 1993).

---