Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
33 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, GDR, Taq (4 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,756 Year: 16,792/19,786 Month: 917/2,598 Week: 163/251 Day: 51/65 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Creationism Explains Hominid Fossil Skulls (FINAL STATEMENTS ONLY)
Coyote
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 6 of 137 (599234)
01-05-2011 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by ApostateAbe
01-05-2011 10:27 PM


ID in practice?
Intelligent design in practice is recycling and upgrading what you have already successfully produced.

Intelligent design was "designed" to sneak creationism back into schools after it was banned as creationism, then again as creation "science."

In either case, ID will have the same opinion of hominid fossils as creationism does. A few ID wild cards accept the evidence for an old earth, until they are reined in by the creationists. But it is almost impossible to find an IDer who accepts all of evolution and is still accepted by creationists. That is not what ID was designed for.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-05-2011 10:27 PM ApostateAbe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-05-2011 11:35 PM Coyote has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 8 of 137 (599242)
01-06-2011 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by ApostateAbe
01-05-2011 11:35 PM


Re: ID in practice?
Your prejudices about creationists seem to be clouding your judgment about the most obvious explanation for the similarity between men and apes. Find me an engineer who doesn't recycle old code for new designs. You can't. The intelligent designer of human beings did the same. He may have even borrowed the code for apes that someone else wrote for his own design of Homo sapiens. That is very much like the way we all know intelligent design is done, in all fields of engineering. QED.

Sorry, I can't agree with that.

In graduate school I spent six years, half of it studying fossil man and human osteology. I have studied those fossils in detail.

In my first human osteology class we spent a semester working through all of the 200+ human bones, and near the end the professor brought out a number of primate skeletons. It was truly amazing--but we knew all the bones! Some had slightly different shapes, but there was no problem at all of looking at those bones and quickly identifying which bone and which side of the body, as well as sometimes age and sex. Telling which primate took a lot more time.

The simplest explanation is that all primates are related, and that we are descended from, or closely related to, various fossil specimens.

To come up with an alternate solution you have to document something for which there currently is no evidence--you have to document some unknown designer who did some designing at some unknown time in the past for unknown reasons using unknown means.

Isn't it much simpler to just look at all of those skeletons and arrange them according to morphological similarities? At least we have good evidence for that. It is quite easy to go from Australopithecus and other early critters right down to modern humans, showing relatively small changes at each different species.

Why can't you accept that clear and straightforward evidence?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-05-2011 11:35 PM ApostateAbe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-06-2011 12:32 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 25 of 137 (599701)
01-09-2011 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ICANT
01-09-2011 10:14 PM


Reconstructed skeleton
Isn't that the reconstructed skeleton of Lucy?

That doesn't look like the complete skeleton of Lucy we find Here.

The bones that are brown are represented by the Lucy skeleton. The white parts are recreations.

Reconstructions are done in a number of ways:

First, any bone that is present on one side, such as the left, can be mirrored to the opposite side.

Second, it is common to use reconstruction formulas to work from what you have to what you are missing. You won't expect an individual who is, say, 5' 0" to have the femur length of an individual who is 6' 6". Likewise, you won't expect an individual of light stature (and hence weight) to have the joint dimensions of an individual of twice that weight. So, if you have some of the weight bearing joints you can estimate the weight, and that gives you a good estimate of the area of weight bearing joints which you might not have.

Next, scientists have a lot of other similar fossils to work from, and these are fossils that creationists have never heard of--being small finds which not reach the headlines. But that they are things creationists have never heard of doesn't mean that they don't exist, and that they don't contribute information used in these reconstructions.

Finally, experts who are doing these reconstructions have often spent forty or more years studying bones of all kinds, as well as these particular fossils. They know things!

In other words, scientists who study these things have a pretty good idea of what the missing parts of a substantial skeleton might look like.

Why don't you leave the details of these reconstructions to the experts? You obviously have nothing to contribute to the discussion except a sullen disbelief in all things scientific that may happen to contradict your particular beliefs.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2011 10:14 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2011 3:22 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 32 of 137 (599772)
01-10-2011 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ICANT
01-10-2011 1:25 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
Nice oration, but you and other creationists still have no rational explanation for fossil hominid skulls.

All you can do is pull out your catechism and twist, misrepresent, and ignore whatever data you can't make fit.

And another give-away. You don't even see the need to be consistent with other creationists! You are pretty much all just making it up as you go.

Is it any wonder we don't consider your opinions in this area to be worth anything?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2011 1:25 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2011 3:14 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 48 of 137 (599853)
01-11-2011 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by ICANT
01-11-2011 10:13 AM


Re: Genesis species
Then again I may just be being preposterous.

Glad you realize that.

But you still haven't addressed the hominid fossils that we do have. Here is the timeline expressed differently:

What you are doing is denying the timeline based entirely on religious beliefs. As more and more evidence is found, you are forced to deny that too.

At what point will your denials and rationalizations stretch too far for even you to believe them?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2011 10:13 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2011 10:47 AM Coyote has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 53 of 137 (599863)
01-11-2011 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by ICANT
01-11-2011 10:47 AM


Re: Genesis species
Nice sketch.

The problem with all such sketches is that you only have life forms at the ends of the branches. All the other pictures of the various life forms are missing. I wonder why.

They are not missing. We have the fossil skulls, which is the subject of this thread. I posted a photograph of many of them upthread.

Now kindly address the information in that chart and stop with trying to lead us down various rabbit holes.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2011 10:47 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 89 of 137 (601539)
01-21-2011 9:28 AM


Back to the topic
How does creationism explain these? (Click on the picture for a nice big view of these skulls.)

  • (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
  • (B) Australopithecus africanus

  • (C) Australopithecus africanus

  • (D) Homo habilis

  • (E) Homo habilis

  • (F) Homo rudolfensis

  • (G) Homo erectus

  • (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus)

  • (I) Homo heidelbergensis

  • (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

  • (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

  • (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

  • (M) Homo sapiens sapiens

  • (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Coyote
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 108 of 137 (601596)
01-21-2011 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by ICANT
01-21-2011 2:47 PM


New subtitle but creationists are still wrong
According to God's Word modern man can not be more than 10,000 years old.

He's wrong.

If the inhabitants of the earth of 30,000 years ago were the same as modern man where is their information they left for us to find?

Archaeologists and paleontologists find that all the time.

Cave paintings are one example, while stone tools are another. We have stone tools going back beyond two million years, representing everything from modern humans to the Oldowan assemblages.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 2:47 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 122 of 137 (601961)
01-25-2011 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by ICANT
01-25-2011 1:53 AM


Fossils, remember?
What does any of that have to do with fossils?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by ICANT, posted 01-25-2011 1:53 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by ICANT, posted 01-25-2011 3:32 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 127 by arachnophilia, posted 01-25-2011 10:26 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Coyote
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 124 of 137 (602060)
01-25-2011 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by ICANT
01-25-2011 3:32 PM


Re: Fossils, remember?
So what is said in the text has everything to do with fossils.

Nonsense.

The Bible is such a gargantuan collection of conflicting values that anyone can prove anything from it.

Robert A. Heinlein, The Number of the Beast


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ICANT, posted 01-25-2011 3:32 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 131 of 137 (602380)
01-27-2011 10:32 PM


Final statement - It is clear...
It is clear from this thread that creationists have no true knowledge of hominid fossil skulls.

They derive their "knowledge" from religious belief, not scholarly study. They proffer their opinions stemming from that belief oblivious to (or uncaring of) how badly those opinions conflict with the information produced from actual study of those fossil skulls and the related evidence.

Why anyone would take those uninformed opinions seriously is a mystery deeper than any addressed by science.

But as usual, Heinlein summed it up well:

Belief gets in the way of learning.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add the "Final statement -" to the subtitle.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019