Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,602 Year: 4,859/9,624 Month: 207/427 Week: 17/103 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   The spectacular fall of YEC beliefs
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7

Message 196 of 198 (838927)
08-30-2018 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Dredge
08-28-2018 2:24 AM

Dredge writes:
Sadly, you are mistaking wishful thinking for evidence. This is a very common fault (read: delusion) amongst evolutionists.
What wishful thinking? It is a fact that those fossil species have a mixture of human and ape features, no wishing needed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Dredge, posted 08-28-2018 2:24 AM Dredge has not replied

Posts: 5972
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2

Message 197 of 198 (838947)
08-30-2018 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Taq
08-27-2018 4:16 PM

If you are not already familiar with it, at Jim Foley has his hominid FAQ, Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution (1996-2016). In the "Creationist Arguments" section is a link, Comparison of creationist opinions, though the page itself is entitled "Comparison of all skulls".
Basically, the creationist claim is that apes and humans are not at all related and hence all hominids are either 100% ape or 100% human and that the dividing line between the two is clear. So Foley presents a summary array of six hominid skulls and the verdict published by ten (10) creationists in twelve (12) different publications -- twice by Gish and three times by Taylor (one of which is co-authored with Van Bebber), in which they contradict themselves. The six hominid fossils in the summary chart are: ER 1813, Java, Peking, ER 1470, ER 3733, and WT 15000. The ten (10) creationists are: Baker (1976), Bowden (1981), Cuozzo (1998), Gish (1979 & 1985), Line (2005), Lubenow (1992), Mehlert (1996), Menton (1988), Taylor (1992, co-authoring with van Bebber in 1995, 1996), van Bebber (co-authoring with Taylor in 1995). That gives us twelve (12) published works that had been researched for this article.
Go to the page to read the chart yourself (please do, since my own summary here could contain a miscount or two since there are multiple verdicts by some creationists):
In the case of ER 1813, all creationists classified it as 100% ape except one, Line, who classified it as human but wrote that he couldn't really tell, which itself is a tell (poker term meaning some kind of unconscious behavior a player has which gives away that he's bluffing).
In the case of Java, five (5) creationists classified it as 100% ape, three (3) classified it as 100% human, and one, Taylor, classified it twice as 100% ape (once alone in 1992, and again co-authoring with Van Bebber in 1995) and a third time as 100% human (1996).
In the case of Peking, four (4) creationists classified it as 100% ape and five (5) classified it as 100% human, while one, Taylor, classified it once as 100% ape (1992) and then twice as 100% human (1995 co-authoring with van Bebber and again solo in 1996).
In the case of ER 1470, two (2) creationists consistently classified it as 100% ape and five (5) consistently classified it as 100% human. Again, Line classified it as human, but wrote that he couldn't really tell (again, a poker-type tell), so not 100%. Lubenow classified it as human, but he really couldn't tell (yet again, a poker-type tell), so not 100%. Gish is the surprise, classifying it as 100% human in 1979 and then switching to 100% ape in 1985 (so much for the divide between "kinds" being so clear that "any drunk off the street can do it" (sorry, a casual Navy DP contractor specification for how easy to use a computer program must be)).
In the case of ER 3733, one (1) creationist classified it as 100% ape whereas all the rest (nine (9)) classified it as 100% human.
And again, in the case of ER 3733, one (1) creationist classified it as 100% ape whereas all the rest (nine (9)) classified it as 100% human.
Cuozzo classifies all six hominid fossils as 100% ape.
Line classifies four (4) of the six(6) hominid fossils as 100% human and the remaining two as human with some doubts since he really couldn't tell despite the creationist claim that the dividing line is so clear that anyone can see the difference.
Lubenow classified ER 1813 as 100% ape and the rest human: four (4) were 100% human, whereas one, ER1470, he classified as human but with some reservations (he couldn't tell despite the standard creationist claim of how clear the dividing line is).
So then, if the gaps are {paraphrasing}"so obvious"{/paraphrasing}, then why are the {scare_quotes}"most highly trained and astute"{/scare_quotes} professional creationists unable to agree which are 100% ape and which are 100% human?
I mean, it's all so obvious to anybody, right?
Curious minds want to know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Taq, posted 08-27-2018 4:16 PM Taq has not replied

Posts: 5972
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2

Message 198 of 198 (838949)
08-30-2018 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Dredge
08-26-2018 7:15 AM

Christians need to accept the revelation of the God's creation - to wit: the earth. Science suggests that the earth is billions of years old and that life began as relatively simple creatures, with more complex creatures added as millions of years passed to the present day.
Wow! That is perhaps the first sane utterance I have ever heard from a creationist! And I've been studying "creation science" since about 1981, so that's saying something!
Any actual creationist would believe that the World is the result of their Creator's act of Creation. Faux creationists, whom we have all seen far too often, would instead insist that their vastly fallible false interpretations of frail and faulty human-made scrivenings should be able to take precedence over empirical evidence. Man wrote the Bible; God wrote the World.
But then ...
The obvious gaps in the fossils record are consistent with the Christian theory of a progressive creation. This is an "evolution" of sorts, but has nothing to do with Darwinsim or biological evolution.
... suddenly you veer left off into the weeds, where you stumble out of the car and throw up all over your own shoes.
You seem to want to ... I'm not quite sure what. Do you think that science is a negotiation? Are you trying to compromise on one point in order to gain another?
If there is indeed some "Christian theory of a progressive creation", then propose a new topic in which you present everything you know about that "theory" and we can examine it and comment on it which you will respond to, most especially to our questions!
Otherwise, nobody has any clue what you are babbling about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Dredge, posted 08-26-2018 7:15 AM Dredge has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024