Lucy, peltdown man etc..

ikester7579 · #1 8th April 2003, 08:45 AM

In the insistance of those from another thread, I start this one. Though I do not want to start an arguement, I know this subject will. So I name this one:

Your decision, are the findings real?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=23765

http://www.lifefellowship.org/-Updat...ticles/58.html

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-101.htm

http://www.csama.org/NWS1101.PDF

http://fyi.cnn.com/2001/fyi/teachers...ate/index.html

http://fyi.cnn.com/2001/fyi/news/03/23/ancient.skull/

http://www.rae.org/lucy.html

There's a lot to read here. It is up to you to make your own decision. Some sites are christian some are not. Some are just plain interesting. I have not read them all, but will later. So post what you will with no personal attacks. Thank you.

I put this part that I'm about to say I put in a quote section because I want people to know that this part is an add on to what was originally posted.

I started this thread with the idea that we could do this debate without personal attacks. I see by the second page that some people who are posting here enjoy personal attacks. So I decided not to post anymore in this thread even though I am the thread starter. This pacticular topic to evolutionists is to personal because it questions the icons of their theories. So they resort to hateful and personal attacks. One person went as far to make fun of the political party I belong to as a pot shot at me and my belief. And these personal attacks continue. The bias I see for their theories to be the only truth out there and anyone who would dare question it gets this kind of treatment. Let this thread be an example of how bias science really is by the way it's people react with immature answers and again personal attacks. They only believe what supports them and their cause. They attack all creation scientists with anything that might discredit them, whether true or not(it is mostly an opinion of another that has no fact to it). As I have said before, you can make your own discision, for even God gives us a choice. And I would rather have choices than what's being forced down my throat.

notto · #2 8th April 2003, 09:37 AM

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html

Don't forget:

Calaveras Man
Meister Man
Moab Man
Malachite Man

All of these are great examples of what peer review and the scientific method can show. It can show the fakes and frauds from the real thing.

So, if we find one fake, does that mean that they all are? The interesting thing is that scientists are unanimous in recognizing that Piltdown was a hoax (and there are no sources that try to use it as evidence), meanwhile, creationist sites still use Paluxy and Burdick prints along with Moab man as evidence when these have been shown to be either fakes, or misinterpreted. What's up with that?

Scientists will continuously review the evidence and if it is determined that Lucy or others are fakes or that the evidence was interpreted incorrectly, they will come right out and say it (thats how fakes have been shown and exposed in the past, by the very "evolutionists" who supposedly are using bad evidence. This shows the objectivity of science.

Nothing shown here falsifies evolutionary theory or casts doubt on the overwelming evidence that is credible.

JohnR7 · #3 8th April 2003, 11:04 AM

Today at 08:37 AM notto said this in Post #2

All of these are great examples of what peer review and the scientific method can show. It can show the fakes and frauds from the real thing. 

The thing is, you have ***. Profs. who are making up to fifty or sixty thousand a year. They will raise the funds to go out and work all summer to get that big find that will not only make their sponsors happy, but will help them make a name for themselves so they can be secure in their big bucks job.

So what are they going to do if they do not come up with anything after putting all that work into it? It is like my sister in law says: "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story". Now, I do not agree with her, but she is vice president of a hospital and making more money then I will ever see.

Of course, my mansion is in Heaven. But some people are in a hurry and they want their mansion here and now. Also, as Christians, our work is never in vain. We always get a good return for our efforts. It is one of the areas that God blesses us in.

Zadok001 · #4 8th April 2003, 12:23 PM

Off topic:

Took me a minute to figure out that JohnR7 WASN'T cursing, there.

Follower of Christ · #5 8th April 2003, 12:29 PM

Notto:
''So, if we find one fake, does that mean that they all are? ''

I dont think that one or two fakes hurt the whole cause.

But it is funny that everyone uses the religious fakes against Christianity,
like they speak for us all.

I would see a couple fakes as someone maybe being either overzealous or under pressure to produce.

Fakes are only part of evolutions problem

Taffsadar · #6 8th April 2003, 05:02 PM

Today at 04:29 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #5

But it is funny that everyone uses the religious fakes against Christianity,
like they speak for us all.

Actually we tell to put all the people who believe a word out of Hovinds mouth in one basket, one for the AIGers etc.

Arikay · #7 8th April 2003, 05:20 PM

Im still not sure where it says Lucy was a fake. and im not sure I would put too much weight into articles that like to add in their own bias by saying "or should we now refer to the creature as "Lucifer"?"

Which sounds funny and yet, just, stupid, at the same time.

Melchior · #8 8th April 2003, 05:29 PM

I would like to be the first to congradulate Ikester on the removal of that fake footprint as his avatar. Congrats on throwing away the false testiments to your God's creation by those who only wish to exploit you and your beliefs.

euphoric · #9 9th April 2003, 01:42 AM

Yesterday at 12:45 PM ikester7579 said this in Post #1

In the insistance of those from another thread, I start this one. Though I do not want to start an arguement, I know this subject will. So I name this one:

Your decision, are the findings real?

Let's see what you've got.  I'll address them in sets of one or two.

Yesterday at 12:45 PM ikester7579 said this in Post #1

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=23765

http://www.lifefellowship.org/-Updat...ticles/58.html

These two are the exact same article (did you give these even a cursory read?  Posting two versions of the same article seems a bit strange).  It reads like a laundry list of reasons why scientists can't be trusted because some people have faked things.  Let's stick with the two examples you so adamantly insisted were fakes in the other thread, Lucy and Piltdown Man.  An entire FAQ is devoted to Piltdown man on TalkOrigins (boy we sure do a lousy job of keeping our hoaxes a secret), you can find it here:

Piltdown Man

Piltdown was a hoax.  We know it was a hoax because scientists (read that again, scientists, not YECs) investigated the claim and discovered the hoax by Dawson.  In fact, the reason that scientists became suspicious was because Piltdown didn't fit in with the other hominids that had been discovered.  This was a fraud perpetuated by one man and sniffed out by science, not YECs, scientists.

As for Mr. Perloff's claims about Lucy, he cites Solly Zuckerman's analysis.  Zuckerman made this argument in the 1950's (yes folks the 1950's) and he was defeated five decades ago.  Perloff trots this out like it's current news.  Yet another creeationist half-truth designed to deceive the faithful.  From this article:

Solly Zuckerman attempted to prove with biometrical studies (based on measurements) that the australopithecines were apes. Zuckerman lost this debate in the 1950's, and his position was abandoned by everyone else (Johanson and Edey 1981). Creationists like to quote his opinions as if they were still a scientifically acceptable viewpoint.

The same article also addresses the Oxnard argument:

Creationists often cite Oxnard's qualifications, and use of computers to perform his calculations, with approval. This is special pleading; many other scientists are equally qualified, and also use computers. Gish (1993) states that "[a] computer doesn't lie, [a] computer doesn't have a bias". True enough, but the results that come out of a computer are only as good as the data and assumptions that go in. In this case, the primary assumption would seem to be that Oxnard's methods are the best method of determining relationships. This seems doubtful, given some of the other unusual results of Oxnard's study (1987). For example, he places Ramapithecus as the ape closest to humans, and Sivapithecus as closely related to orang-utans, even though the two are so similar that they are now considered to be the same species of Sivapithecus.

So Mr. Perloff's arguments regarding these two particular topics are more than slightly disengenuous.  We can tackle the rest of his article at a later date if you like.

euphoric · #10 9th April 2003, 01:51 AM

Yesterday at 12:45 PM ikester7579 said this in Post #1

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-101.htm

ICR on Piltdown Man

At least Piltdown answers one often-asked question: "Can virtually all scientists be wrong about such an important matter as human origins?" The answer, most emphatically, is: "Yes, and it wouldn't be the first time." Over 500 doctoral dissertations were done on Piltdown, yet all this intense scientific scrutiny failed to expose the fake.

Intense scientific scrutiny is precisely what uncovered this hoax.  The implicit inference here is that scientists were taken in but the YECs were never fooled.  The truth is that the YECs simply dismiss all of the evidence and then wait until science debunks a fake or finds a new piece of evidence and then they jump out and yell “aha! Gotcha.”  They don’t do the work, they sit on the sidelines and whine until they finally get one or two right.  YEC scrutiny of evidence seems to occasionally benefit from the “even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut” phenomenon.  Other than that its powers of scrutiny are useless.
As for their analysis of Lucy, I won’t dismiss them entirely with a laugh even though they go on about the Paluxy Man Tracks.  Normally such foolishness would banish one to the land of the idiotic, but you went to the trouble to post a link, so I’ll address it.
Aside from a rehash of Oxnard, which I addressed in the Perloff article, ICR trots out the idea that Leakey’s definition of australopithecine would include modern chimpanzees.  They get this gem from a quote by Donald Johanson cited from a 1980 Science article.  The quote, as per standard YEC tactic is taken out of context.  The quote mining is discussed in this article that I posted earlier:

Creationist Arguments: Australopithecines

Yet another ICR attempt to take something a scientist says and torture it until its meaning has completely changed.  As the TalkOrigins article points out, Johanson’s critique of Leakey’s definition only makes sense if Australopithecines and chimps are different.