When does "Creationism" fail?

[gluadys]

 

[vossler]

My recollection is that the Christians only section came right before I took a hiatus and that was 2.5 years ago. I don't remember you at all from that time.

You may not remember me but I remember you quite well.

But anyway, that still doesn't tell me why you feel I don't look on you as a lost sheep and why you are so adamant about it. All I can do is repeat my earlier statement.

I understand what you said earlier and that may well be true today, I really don't know. All I do know is that wasn't true almost three years ago.

Can I ask about your signature? What does Cooper advise doing when there is extrabiblical evidence that contradicts a literal reading? For instance, does Cooper insist on a literal reading of Luke 2:1?

I'm not sure what Cooper would advise in that situation. I'll just tell you that I have no problems with extra-biblical evidence ans long as it doesn't conflict with God's Word and I would guess he felt the same.

 

[vossler]

So are you saying it is conjecture that hominid fossils exist? Is it conjecture that chromosomes exist?

Or are you saying this evidence exists, but doesn't mean what scientists claim it means? IOW it is not the evidence that is conjectural, but the conclusions scientists have come to?

Exactly, except their conclusions are being presented as evidence.

What do you mean by "things that are called evidence are nothing but conjecture and speculation"? Is the existence of fossils and chromosomes in question? Is it speculation that they exist?

Finding a piece of fossil and ascertaining that it is a transitional form or previous iteration of man is conjecture and speculation. Their existence is obviously not being questioned.

 

[vossler]

Your argument that it is alright to reinterpret the geocentric and flat earth passages in the light of science because they are not doctrinally important, but we can't reinterpret Genesis because it is doctrinal, is like a Catholic arguing the the body and blood passages must be literal because of Transubstantiation. We should get our doctrines from a proper interpretation, not base our interpretation on doctrine.

To be clear, you're the one who's saying we need to reinterpret those passages, I never have. As far as I know every doctrinal issue in the protestant church stems or originates from a proper interpretation. If you know of one that doesn't please share.

But in any case, there is no doctrine that depends on a literal interpretation of Genesis. God is creator whether he took six days or billions of years. We are his creation made in his image whether he moulded man out of mud or used evolution.

I would tell you otherwise. The doctrine of work is dependent on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Original sin is based on a fifth century mistranslation and misinterpretation of Roman 5:12 'in whom all sinned', and anyway most TEs actually do believe in a literal Adam and in some form of original sin. Their view on original sin seems dependant on their denomination background rather than their view of evolution.

My experience is that to say that most TEs believing in a literal Adam is quite a stretch. I've heard many different ideas but few TEs - that I'm aware of - believe in a literal Adam.

They are not an issue to me either. They only become an issue if you apply David Cooper's quote in you sig to them. But clearly you don't, you reserve that, rather inconsistantly, for Genesis. But neither the Genesis days, geocentrism nor flat earth are matters of inerrancy or inspiration. They only contradict the truth if you insist on a literal interpretation against the evidence we have learned through science whether it is the shape, movement or age of the earth.

The Cooper quote also states that unless the facts of the context clearly indicates otherwise. That gives quite a bit of latitude to context. If there isn't any biblical reason to take Scripture outside of it's plain and simple meaning, why do so?

 

[busterdog]

And why do you think the question was either insulting or rhetorical? Busterdog, do you think that God lied to us in His Creation?

If you answer "yes", then you have a reason for distrusting what we find via science. Of course, it also means you have a reason for distrusting God on anything.

If you answer "no", then you are going to have to give up creationism. Is that really so hard to do? If so, ask yourself "why?"

You say God is the expert on origins. I would agree. But I don't understand why God wouldn't put that knowledge into His Creation. Why would not God's Creation show how God created?

Let me submit for your consideration that you aren't defending God but a literal interpretation of the Bible. Is that literal interpretation more important than God?

Its only on TV that people only breakdown and confess under the pressure of cross-examination. Since this is not Matlock, all I can suggest is arguing from within our worldview. Assume it is true and find out where it is consistent, helpful and a credit to the Lord. IF you can't do that, then I am doubt there is much room for optimism about helping me think properly.

 

[Assyrian]

To be clear, you're the one who's saying we need to reinterpret those passages, I never have.

No you simply seem to accept the mainstream YEC interpretations. In some cases science is accepted without question and historical reinterpretations of scripture in the light of science area are assumed to be the plain meaning of the text (though not plain to anyone before the science came along.) In other cases science is rejected in favour of sticking to a literal interpretation. There seems to be no basis for the distinction.

I do not know how YEC chooses between historical reinterpretations the church has made of scripture in the light of science. They accept the flat earth reinterpretations where the early church accepted the scientific analysis of the earth's shape and rejected the literalism of Cosmas Indicopleustes. They accept the reinterpretation of geocentric passages that the churches made after Copernicus turned our understanding of the solar system on its head almost five hundred years ago. But they reject the reinterpretation of the Genesis days that even the Fundamentalists accepted a hundred years ago.

The only reason I can think that YEC accepts heliocentrism and round earth is that if they didn't, they wouldn't be called YECs any more but geocentrists or flat earthers. The odd thing is there seems to be a hierarchy that lines up with the history of science. All flat earthers are geocentrist and YEC (as far as I know but I am not an expert.) Geocentrists are YEC. But you don't seem to get other combinations, flat earth but not geocentrist and YEC, or geocentrist but not not YEC or flat earth.

As far as I know every doctrinal issue in the protestant church stems or originates from a proper interpretation. If you know of one that doesn't please share.

And that is the way it should be. We base our doctrine on our interpretation, we don't base our interpretation on doctrine, which you seem to be doing.

I would tell you otherwise. The doctrine of work is dependent on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

So, what exactly is this 'doctrine' of work you talk about? I haven't come across it in the Nicene creed or in the UK's Evangelical Alliance Statement of Faith.
The bible does teach us a lot about work, but I don't know anything that depends on a literal six day creation.

My experience is that to say that most TEs believing in a literal Adam is quite a stretch. I've heard many different ideas but few TEs - that I'm aware of - believe in a literal Adam.

Probably the ones believing in a literal Adam are more vocal in debates on the subject. In a poll in the TE subforum, 9 out of 22 believed Adam and his fall were historical though most of the 9 said the account wasn't described historically. Admittedly 1 of the 9 was Mark Kennedy so that probably does not count. 8 out of 21 or 38% of TEs believing in a historical Adam and fall is a sizable proportion, more than voted for Tony Blair in the last election

But TE is not decided by vote. What the 38% shows us is that there in no conflict between TE and belief in a historical Adam, fall, or original sin.

The Cooper quote also states that unless the facts of the context clearly indicates otherwise. That gives quite a bit of latitude to context. If there isn't any biblical reason to take Scripture outside of it's plain and simple meaning, why do so?

So why do you do so with the flat earth and geocentric passages?

If we want to look for clear indications in the context then reinterpreting the six days wins hands down over geocentrism. People like Origen, Augustine and Aquinas had seen clear indications in the context that the six days were figurative, long before science came along and told us the the literal translation was wrong. No one had seen anything in the geocentric passages to suggest they were not literal before Copernicus.

 

[vossler]

No you simply seem to accept the mainstream YEC interpretations. In some cases science is accepted without question and historical reinterpretations of scripture in the light of science area are assumed to be the plain meaning of the text (though not plain to anyone before the science came along.) In other cases science is rejected in favour of sticking to a literal interpretation. There seems to be no basis for the distinction.

I do not know how YEC chooses between historical reinterpretations the church has made of scripture in the light of science. They accept the flat earth reinterpretations where the early church accepted the scientific analysis of the earth's shape and rejected the literalism of Cosmas Indicopleustes. They accept the reinterpretation of geocentric passages that the churches made after Copernicus turned our understanding of the solar system on its head almost five hundred years ago. But they reject the reinterpretation of the Genesis days that even the Fundamentalists accepted a hundred years ago.

The only reason I can think that YEC accepts heliocentrism and round earth is that if they didn't, they wouldn't be called YECs any more but geocentrists or flat earthers. The odd thing is there seems to be a hierarchy that lines up with the history of science. All flat earthers are geocentrist and YEC (as far as I know but I am not an expert.) Geocentrists are YEC. But you don't seem to get other combinations, flat earth but not geocentrist and YEC, or geocentrist but not not YEC or flat earth.

My interpretation of these passages existed well before I ever heard of YEC, therefore no reinterpretation was ever required.

You speak of geocentrists and flat earthers as if their numbers are significant. Other than a young man who posted here a number of months ago I've never known or even heard of a geocentrist. This young man wasn't, as far as I remember, a flat earther. Regardless, this is really such a waste of time because there will always be extremists who believe all sorts of doctrines and beliefs. I'd rather not waste my time speaking about things that have little to no bearing on present day situations. For some reason you believe these ideas or thoughts to possess value, I just don't.

And that is the way it should be. We base our doctrine on our interpretation, we don't base our interpretation on doctrine, which you seem to be doing.

I just stated that doctrine was based on interpretation.

So, what exactly is this 'doctrine' of work you talk about? I haven't come across it in the Nicene creed or in the UK's Evangelical Alliance Statement of Faith.
The bible does teach us a lot about work, but I don't know anything that depends on a literal six day creation.

Are all doctrines in the Nicene creed or the Evangelical Alliance Statement of Faith? If they're not located there then they don't exist?

Exodus 20: 9 - 11 states:

Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
​

That really can't be more of a clear commandment and instruction from God. Of course I'm sure you'll find some way of minimizing it.

Probably the ones believing in a literal Adam are more vocal in debates on the subject. In a poll in the TE subforum, 9 out of 22 believed Adam and his fall were historical though most of the 9 said the account wasn't described historically. Admittedly 1 of the 9 was Mark Kennedy so that probably does not count. 8 out of 21 or 38% of TEs believing in a historical Adam and fall is a sizable proportion, more than voted for Tony Blair in the last election

But TE is not decided by vote. What the 38% shows us is that there in no conflict between TE and belief in a historical Adam, fall, or original sin.

What it does show us is that TE is a vague and nebulous moniker and those that adhere to its doctrine are all over the map concerning all other issues of faith. There is very little glue that holds it together, except for of course evolution. If you think about that, that's really quite sad.

So why do you do so with the flat earth and geocentric passages?

I don't, like I said I have no issues with them. The plain reading doesn't tell me the earth is flat or geocentric. It doesn't teach that either. One can infer that they do, but there is no compelling reason to do so.

If we want to look for clear indications in the context then reinterpreting the six days wins hands down over geocentrism. People like Origen, Augustine and Aquinas had seen clear indications in the context that the six days were figurative, long before science came along and told us the the literal translation was wrong. No one had seen anything in the geocentric passages to suggest they were not literal before Copernicus.

I would disagree. I've seen writings of theologians and historians that say that many ANE people saw the earth as round. As for geocentric ideas, I believe those were based primarily on our physical observations and that in turn affected our reading of Scripture. We know that most of us read it with the intent on finding evidence to back up what we believe or understand. They believed the sun rotated around the earth so then the Bible says it also. This isn't unlike evolution today, except evolution has absolutely nothing within the Bible itself to back up its assertions. So, I guess geocentricism and evolution are actually more closely linked than we ever might have thought.

 

[Assyrian]

My interpretation of these passages existed well before I ever heard of YEC, therefore no reinterpretation was ever required.

Yet you share a common assumption of which science to accept without question and assume a non literal interpretation was intended, and which science to reject in favour of literalism.

The only common factor seems to be how long the science has been around and how ingrained it has become into our cultural assumptions, hence evolution is more likely to be suspect than the age of the earth (OEC and YEC both disagree with evolution), evolution and the age of the earth less acceptable than geocentrism and only a stalwart few question the shape of the earth.

You speak of geocentrists and flat earthers as if their numbers are significant. Other than a young man who posted here a number of months ago I've never known or even heard of a geocentrist. This young man wasn't, as far as I remember, a flat earther. Regardless, this is really such a waste of time because there will always be extremists who believe all sorts of doctrines and beliefs. I'd rather not waste my time speaking about things that have little to no bearing on present day situations. For some reason you believe these ideas or thoughts to possess value, I just don't.

Do you think Luther and Calvin were extremists? Geocentrism is significant because it was once the only way people interpreted those passages in scripture. The only difference between them and you today is you knowledge and acceptance of science which was so controversial in Luther's day.

In the early church flat earth interpretation were as influential as YEC is today. Not the normal interpretation but a vocal cry for bible literalism in the face of pagan science. It has long gone by the wayside now, but for a YEC, their arguments should be compelling. If you reject modern science in favour of the plain meaning of scripture, then they led the way and their arguments still hold. The only reason you reject them is because you have bought into the pagan science they warned about.

I just stated that doctrine was based on interpretation.

But you argue for a literal interpretation of Genesis because it is doctrinal issue

Are all doctrines in the Nicene creed or the Evangelical Alliance Statement of Faith? If they're not located there then they don't exist?

No those are just the doctrines Christians agree on and think are foundational.

Exodus 20: 9 - 11 states:

Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.​

That really can't be more of a clear commandment and instruction from God. Of course I'm sure you'll find some way of minimizing it.

Are you saying this is a commanded not just to observe the Sabbath but to believe in a six literal day creation? Can we apply this principle to Deuteronomy where Moses repeats the same commandment.
Deut 5:13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
If the six days are literal, is God's hand and arm? If not why not?
The commandment is repeated in Exodus 31:17It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. Was God tired> Was he refreshed after having a day off? If being refreshed is not meant literally, if it does not mean the same as it does in Exodus 23:12Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed, how can you say the six days have to be literal?

How is the Sabbath command effected, the whole point of these passages, if God's day, his arm, his hand or his resting and being refreshed are not actually literal?

What it does show us is that TE is a vague and nebulous moniker and those that adhere to its doctrine are all over the map concerning all other issues of faith. There is very little glue that holds it together, except for of course evolution. If you think about that, that's really quite sad.

No it just shows us that TE is obvious and acceptable across a whole range of denominations, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox and across the spectrum of bible scholarship from highly conservative to liberal.

I don't, like I said I have no issues with them. The plain reading doesn't tell me the earth is flat or geocentric. It doesn't teach that either. One can infer that they do, but there is no compelling reason to do so.

So, why do you think Luther and Calvin felt the geocentrist meaning was so clear?

I would disagree. I've seen writings of theologians and historians that say that many ANE people saw the earth as round.

I have yet to see any evidence to back that up.

However I was comparing evidence for non geocentric interpretation with six literal day. Interpretations of flat earth don't count here because it was the accepted science in the time of the early church writers. Understanding Geological time and the Copernican revolution were a long way off, so we can look to the early church writers for a neutral view of how clear these interpretations are.

As for geocentric ideas, I believe those were based primarily on our physical observations and that in turn affected our reading of Scripture. We know that most of us read it with the intent on finding evidence to back up what we believe or understand. They believed the sun rotated around the earth so then the Bible says it also. This isn't unlike evolution today, except evolution has absolutely nothing within the Bible itself to back up its assertions. So, I guess geocentricism and evolution are actually more closely linked than we ever might have thought.

Are you saying Heliocentrism has anything in the bible to back it up?

What I do find interesting is the way you simply assume the bible is speaking observationally, when that was an interpretation worked out with so much heartache, only after Copernicus came along. It took the church generations to come to terms with this in the face of seeming clear insistence that the sun rushes around the earth but stopped one long day for Joshua, while the earth is established and does not move. Yet today this interpretation is the obvious meaning to you.

 

[vossler]

[FONT=&quot]Yet you share a common assumption of which science to accept without question and assume a non literal interpretation was intended, and which science to reject in favour of literalism. [/FONT]

It all comes down to this one and only criteria. Is it compatible with God's Word? If so, we'll then we've got something to talk about. If not, we'll we won't be getting very far.

Look, I don’t have fancy standards of proof, I like to consider myself simple and straight-forward kind of guy. I’m like someone from Missouri, the ‘Show Me State,’ if you can show me something I’m much more likely to believe it.
[FONT=&quot]

Do you think Luther and Calvin were extremists? Geocentrism is significant because it was once the only way people interpreted those passages in scripture. The only difference between them and you today is you knowledge and acceptance of science which was so controversial in Luther's day.

I wish it were true that the only difference between Luther, Calvin and myself was the issue of geocentrism. Thank you for the complement, but I’m not even close to their league or stature. If anyone believes such things today they would be considered extremists. I don’t believe either of them would.

In the early church flat earth interpretation were as influential as YEC is today. Not the normal interpretation but a vocal cry for bible literalism in the face of pagan science. It has long gone by the wayside now, but for a YEC, their arguments should be compelling. If you reject modern science in favour of the plain meaning of scripture, then they led the way and their arguments still hold. The only reason you reject them is because you have bought into the pagan science they warned about.

Well, that’s certainly one way of looking at it.

But you argue for a literal interpretation of Genesis because it is doctrinal issue

Here’s the post you cited.[/FONT]

Unlike you, I'm not hung up on this issue, never was. First of all it never was a doctrinal issue and that in and of itself should keep it from being brought up today. Yet obviously this is a big issue for you because you never fail to raise it as a defense. Did someone try to teach these things to you when you were young? Did that contribute to you no longer believing Genesis?
​

Where am I arguing for a literal interpretation of Genesis because it is a doctrinal issue?

Now I do believe Genesis is a doctrinal text because everything that follows is contingent on what happens there.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If the six days are literal, is God's hand and arm? If not why not?[/FONT]

What’s with the rhetorical questions? Are you now saying that literal and figurative language cannot coexist within the same text?[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Exodus 31:17[/FONT][FONT=&quot]It is a sign forever between me and the people of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Israel[/FONT][FONT=&quot] that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Was God tired> Was he refreshed after having a day off? If being refreshed is not meant literally, if it does not mean the same as it does in Exodus 23:12Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed, how can you say the six days have to be literal?[/FONT]

God was demonstrating for us how He wished us to live. If you wish to believe that the six days we’re told to work are representative of some much higher number that complies with your line of thinking, who am I to tell you otherwise.[FONT=&quot]

So, why do you think Luther and Calvin felt the geocentrist meaning was so clear?

I don’t know and I really don’t care. The issue plays no role in anything of substance to me and therefore isn’t worthy of my time.

Are you saying Heliocentrism has anything in the bible to back it up?

About as much as there is to back up homosexuality.

What I do find interesting is the way you simply assume the bible is speaking observationally, when that was an interpretation worked out with so much heartache, only after Copernicus came along. It took the church generations to come to terms with this in the face of seeming clear insistence that the sun rushes around the earth but stopped one long day for Joshua, while the earth is established and does not move. Yet today this interpretation is the obvious meaning to you.

This assumption isn’t really that difficult to grasp given that the issue has little to no significance. Sure it took the church a long time to come to terms with heliocentrism, that’s because it was an issue the church should have never been so concerned about. It plays little to no role in the daily lives of people, yet they felt it necessary to fight about it. Go figure. I guess it just goes to show they were just as human as we are.[/FONT]

So yes, their physical observations of the earth, sun and stars caused them to believe the sun rotated around the earth and from that presupposition they then interpreted Scripture to support that observation. Evolutionists do likewise, their observations of the earth, animals, geology, etc. causes them to believe in evolution and from that presupposition they interpret Scripture accordingly. The problem is they have absolutely nothing within Scripture to back up their belief.

 

[gluadys]

Exactly, except their conclusions are being presented as evidence.

I find it hard to think of conclusions being presented as evidence. Do you mean that the conclusions are being presented as supported by the evidence?

Finding a piece of fossil and ascertaining that it is a transitional form or previous iteration of man is conjecture and speculation. Their existence is obviously not being questioned.

OK, the existence of the fossils is not being questioned. It is the nature of the fossils as presented by scientists that you consider conjectural. Is that it?

So let's look at some of these fossils.

AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS had the following characteristics resembling those of chimpanzees: a wide, apelike face with a low forehead, bony browridges, flat nose, protruding upper jaw, and a massive lower jaw with large back teeth. (However, the pointed canine teeth were smaller than those in modern apes.) The brain volume of around 480cc. is about the same as a chimp's.

The shape of the jaw is intermediate between the rectangular shape of apes and the parabolic shape of humans.

As the size of the skull shows, afarensis was a larger animal than the chimpanzee. Males weighed about 45 kilograms and stood about 1.5 meters tall. Females were much smaller, at about 30 kg and 1.1 meter tall -- the largest sexual dimorphism of any hominid or prehominid species.

The larger australopithecine body included characteristics in the spine, pelvis and leg joints that make walking an effective form of locomotion. Though capable of climbing and resting in trees, a habitual bipedal posture freed the hands to manipulate, carry and throw objects. Though the finger and toe bones are curved and proportionally longer than in humans, afarensis hands were similar to humans in most other respects.

AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFRICANUS
The africanus skull is noticeably different from afarensis: in the more vertical slope of the face, the narrower cheekbones and reduced browridges, and the more rounded shape of the cranium. Brain endocasts show significant increases in the frontal and parietal lobes in comparison to chimpanzee brains. The teeth are more similar to human teeth than to those of modern apes; the canine teeth are smaller than those in afarensis, and the shape of the jaw is fully parabolic, like humans.

HOMO HABILIS is the earliest known species to show novel differences from the chimpanzee and australopithid skulls. The face is still projecting, but the jaw is pulled under the brain, with smaller molars (though still much larger than in modern humans), and the skull is thinner, with a distinctive rounded shape, vertical sides and a small forehead above the brows.

The brain size in habilis averages about 650cc and the size of the face is reduced in comparison to a chimpanzee or australopithid. In habilis the brain shape is more humanlike.

Despite its distinctively human cranium, habilis had a fairly apelike physical form: its arms were almost as long as its legs.

HOMO RUDOLFENSIS: many features separate rudolfensis both from the australopithids and from other species of Homo. The rudolfensis browridges are smaller and more integrated into the skull; the face is flatter, narrower and more vertically sloping; there are no heavy muscle attachments at the top of the skull; the back teeth are smaller and the front teeth are larger than in other hominid species. The skull itself is lighter and more delicate, noticeably more rounded in the back or occipital area. The estimated brain volume of 775cc is clearly larger than any attributed to habilis.

HOMO ERGASTER presents a significant increase over earlier hominids in both stature and bone mass. Male ergasters stood close to 1.6 meters tall and weighed around 65 kilos, making them physically almost the equal of modern Africans. Brain capacity increased to 850cc and the skull aquired a definite browridge and an elongated "football" shape (most likely the result of expanded frontal and occipital lobes).

Ergaster is also associated with the rise of the Acheulean tool industry around 1.4 million years ago. These are elegant implements, chipped with great care to functionally specific tool shapes, but also much more massive than the tools used by previous hominids. This diversity of tools, in designs that remain unchanged across hundreds of thousands of years, implies specialization in hunting and in the processing of animal and plant products.

In ergaster appears many of the social and behavioral traits characteristic of human hunter-gatherer populations of today -- knowing resource exploitation of very large geographical areas, long term stability in toolmaking procedures, complex plant and animal processing skills -- which all imply early forms of vocal or gestural language and a considerable role for culture and social learning.

HOMO ERECTUS represents a long line of fossils found in eastern Africa, the Middle East and southern and southeastern Asia.

Erectus shows a gradual lightening of the ergaster features, though many similarities in the skulls (pronounced browridges and an elongated brain case) persist.

Body size remains on a par with ergaster: males were about 1.8 meters and 63 kilos; females 1.6 meters and 53 kilos. Like ergaster, the face has protruding jaws with large molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a long low skull. Brain capacity increased gradually throughout the erectus line, from a range of 800cc to 1060cc at the time erectus first appeared to a range of 1060cc to 1300cc around the time it went extinct.

Cultural advances included geographic dispersion throughout southern Asia, the domestication of fire, refinement to Acheulean tools, and long-term cave habitation.

HOMO HEIDELBERGENSIS marks another increase in hominid size. The designation heidelbergensis covers a diverse group of skulls which share features with Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis and modern humans.

The browridge is smaller and the angle of the rest of the face is more vertical than in erectus or ergaster. Males stood over 1.7 meters and weighed 62 kilos, females 1.6 meters and 51 kilos: bone mass indicates a significant increase in physical strength. In addition, brain size increases gradually up to 1600cc. Heidelberg skeletons and teeth are usually less robust than in erectus, but more robust than modern humans. Most have large browridges and receding foreheads and chins.

With the scaling up of physical size and brain capacity seems to have come a greater physical variability. There is sometimes no clear distinction between some western forms of erectus and heidelbergensis. Both used Acheulean tool industry until extinction, and many fossils from around 500,000 years ago are difficult to classify into one species or the other.

In HOMO SAPIENS the face is markedly shrunken in relation to the brain, which attains an adult size of 1040cc to 1595cc. The forehead rises sharply, browridges are very small or absent, and the chin is prominent. The skeleton is very gracile; bones are lighter and smoother, without any loss in body size. On average, males stand 1.7 to 1.8 meters and weigh 65 kilos; females stand 1.5 to 1.6 meters and weigh 54 kilos.

Compared to the Neandertal skull, modern humans look almost infantile. The cranium seems vulnerably round and delicate.

With the appearance of Cro-Magnon culture, the sophisticated Upper Paleolithic tool industry flourished in Europe. Humans used a wider range of raw materials (such as bone and antler) shaped into a wider and more elegant variety of implements for making clothing, tools, habitats, art and ornamentation. Fine artwork appeared n the form of decorated tools, oil lamps, beads, ivory carvings of humans and animals, clay figurines, musical instruments, and spectacular cave paintings.

The extreme reduction in size of the jaw along with its corresponding shift under the skull, has had an impact on human dentation -- particularly in the frequency with which humans show irregular or misaligned teeth. A beautiful, regular smile is the result of a delicate balance among many different facial genes.


http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html

I edited these descriptions to make them shorter, and also to exclude remarks that assumed evolution.

So I just want you to look at the descriptions and tell me if you believe scientists are speculating about them--dreaming them up. Or is it a fact that austalopithecus afarenis had an ape-like face and small brain, but human-like hands and characteristics in the spine and pelvic bones that permitted easy bipedal movement?

Is it imagination or fact that Homo erectus has mostly human characteristics, but also has thick brow ridges, no chin and a low sloping forehead?

Are these descriptions speculative? Or are they based on actual observation and measurement of the fossils, such that, if you personally repeated them, you would describe them in much the same way?

 

[vossler]

I find it hard to think of conclusions being presented as evidence. Do you mean that the conclusions are being presented as supported by the evidence?

Yes!

OK, the existence of the fossils is not being questioned. It is the nature of the fossils as presented by scientists that you consider conjectural. Is that it?

Yes!

I edited these descriptions to make them shorter, and also to exclude remarks that assumed evolution.

Thank you for presenting these descriptions of various skeletal findings. It’s these type of presentations that get to the heart of the matter and allow everyone to see exactly what the whole discussion is about.

So I just want you to look at the descriptions and tell me if you believe scientists are speculating about them--dreaming them up. Or is it a fact that austalopithecus afarenis had an ape-like face and small brain, but human-like hands and characteristics in the spine and pelvic bones that permitted easy bipedal movement?

First of all let me say that just because I claim evolution is conjecture and speculation doesn’t mean that I believe anyone is dreaming things up. That’s quite a different claim.

After reading the descriptions I found them to be, in general, quite fascinating. I realize there is much we can ascertain from fossils. However claims to know whether the creature threw objects, it’s social and behavioral traits, cultural characteristics and the like are things that call for speculation and conjecture.

Is it imagination or fact that Homo erectus has mostly human characteristics, but also has thick brow ridges, no chin and a low sloping forehead?

This does not appear to be based on imagination. It appears to be a description based on the observable facts.

Are these descriptions speculative? Or are they based on actual observation and measurement of the fossils, such that, if you personally repeated them, you would describe them in much the same way?

The problem I see is where we mix facts with speculation and then call them all facts. The things based on the observation and measurement of fossils are facts, it’s when we begin to claim what those fossils did and how they acted is when we’re no longer dealing with facts but conjecture and speculation. So no I would never have repeated those elements of their description.

 

[Deamiter]

vossler, do you claim the study of wear patterns in bones and artifacts recovered from the past can give us no information about creatures in the past? What good is observing something if you don't even attempt to build and defend a conclusion based on the evidence you've discovered?

 

[vossler]

vossler, do you claim the study of wear patterns in bones and artifacts recovered from the past can give us no information about creatures in the past? What good is observing something if you don't even attempt to build and defend a conclusion based on the evidence you've discovered?

I make no such claim. Of course there is valuable information to be obtained from such a study. That isn't the issue, the issue is what presuppositions do you carry into such a study.

 

[shernren]

I make no such claim. Of course there is valuable information to be obtained from such a study. That isn't the issue, the issue is what presuppositions do you carry into such a study.

But certainly the validity or suitability of a presupposition can be checked against the data it is supposed to explain. If not then scientific creationism can't possibly be worth anything.

 

[gluadys]

[FONT=VerdanaHowever claims to know whether the creature threw objects, it’s social and behavioral traits, cultural characteristics and the like are things that call for speculation and conjecture.[/quote]

Do they really?

First, let's note that the description of australopithecus afarensis did not actually say they threw things. It said: "a habitual bipedal posture freed the hands to manipulate, carry and throw objects." IOW, whether they actually threw things or not, their hands, no longer needed for walking, were free to be used in these ways. Is that really speculation?

As for the other behavioral and cultural traits mentioned, I expect you are referring mainly to this section in the description of Homo ergaster:

This diversity of tools, in designs that remain unchanged across hundreds of thousands of years, implies specialization in hunting and in the processing of animal and plant products.

In ergaster appears many of the social and behavioral traits characteristic of human hunter-gatherer populations of today -- knowing resource exploitation of very large geographical areas, long term stability in toolmaking procedures, complex plant and animal processing skills -- which all imply early forms of vocal or gestural language and a considerable role for culture and social learning.​

What this boils down to is that the tools made by Homo ergaster indicate types of activity and an educational process.

Take "complex plant and animal processing skills" for example. Tools found include axes, knives and scrapers. Does not the existence of such tools indicate the activities they were designed for? Such as chopping down trees, cutting up plants and animal carcasses, scraping meat away from skin, etc?

The consistency in tool design indicates that the young were being taught how to make the tools, and how to use them. No doubt they were also being taught how to recognize useful plants and how to hunt, trap and fish.

What is conjectural about any of this?

The things based on the observation and measurement of fossils are facts,

Ok. So we have established two things:
1) the fossils are real, not a matter of conjecture
2) their physical characteristics are real, not a matter of conjecture.

I hope I have convinced you that conclusions about behaviour are logical inferences, not mere speculation, but even if I haven't that is not material to the next step.

Theories, you may have heard, are put to the test by predictions. If the theory makes successful predictions, that is an indication that the theory is probably true (although it is never absolute proof that it is true.) If the evidence relative to the prediction is contrary to the prediction, then the theory is false.

So here we have a summary of predictions about human evolution made by Charles Darwin in 1871:

In an 1871 publication, Charles Darwin speculated that fossils of the earliest humans and their primate ancestors ultimately would be found somewhere in Africa. He based this on the fact that the natural range of our nearest living relatives, chimpanzees and gorillas, is limited to Africa. He concluded that we ultimately must have shared a common ancestor with those apes in Africa. This view was mostly rejected by the scientific world of the time. Before the 1920's, knowledge of our fossil ancestors only went back to the Neandertals in Europe and some presumably earlier human-like forms from Java, in Southeast Asia.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_1.htm​

Now let's go back to that list of fossils, all of which were discovered after 1871.

Here is the list with the dates (in some cases approximate) of when they were first found.

A. afarenesis, mid 1970s
A. africanus 1924
H. habilis 1960s
H. rudolfensis 1986
H. heidelburgensis 1907
H. ergaster 1975
H. erectus 1891

How well did Darwin's predictions hold up?

1. Judged by DNA studies, the animals with a genome closest to our own are the great apes of Africa, specifically the chimpanzees as being most like us and then the gorillas.

2. With the exception of H. erectus and H. heidelburgensis, all of the fossil hominids were first found in Africa. And although the first H. erectus fossil found was in Indonesia, the oldest H. erectus fossils found are from Africa.

3. All of the hominid fossils show a mixture of ape-like and human-like features or features intermediate between ape and human (e.g. intermediate brain size, or intermediate shape of the jaw).

Now without making any judgment as to whether any of this means evolution happened, is it a matter of speculation that Darwin made three correct predictions about future evidence that he could not have known in 1871? Or is this a matter of historical fact?

 

[Assyrian]

It all comes down to this one and only criteria. Is it compatible with God's Word? If so, we'll then we've got something to talk about. If not, we'll we won't be getting very far.

The sciences are all compatible with God's word, but in each case the church has had to leave behind the misinterpretation which was contradicted by scientific discovery.

Look, I don’t have fancy standards of proof, I like to consider myself simple and straight-forward kind of guy. I’m like someone from Missouri, the ‘Show Me State,’ if you can show me something I’m much more likely to believe it.

I have shown you plenty of times but you seem to have completely different standards proof in operation.
What are you asking me to show you? That evolution and old Earth can be proven from the bible, or that it is possible to interpret the bible in a way that isn't contradicted by science? What level of evidence do you demand to reject the plain reading of the geocentric passages?

There is nothing in scripture to suggest anything other than a literal flat earth and geocentric interpretations. The 'observation' interpretation does fit the scriptures, sort of anyway, but it is a case of reading this into scripture, and it is done for no other reason than to reconcile the passages with science.

On the other hand we have had Christian writers reading the Genesis account and for no other reason than the text itself coming to the conclusion that the days are not literal. We have evidence in Genesis that 'day' is used in a wide range of different meanings in the first two chapters, evidence in Exodus that the descriptions of creation is metaphorical, even Jesus Paul and the writer of Hebrews pick up metaphors in it. Moses himself tells us God's days are not the same as our days in a Psalm about the creation.

I wish it were true that the only difference between Luther, Calvin and myself was the issue of geocentrism. Thank you for the complement, but I’m not even close to their league or stature. If anyone believes such things today they would be considered extremists. I don’t believe either of them would.

What is the difference between them interpreting scripture geocentrically back then and interpreting it geocentrically today? Has scripture changed? The only reason it would be extremist to be a geocentrist now is because the science has been accepted as part of our culture and only an extremist would consider contradicting it.

Luther and Calvin show us clearly that the plain reading of scripture was geocentrist. We also learn from their mistake that it is sound exegesis to look at other ways to interpret scripture when our tradition literal interpretation has been contradicted by science.

Well, that’s certainly one way of looking at it.


Here’s the post you cited.

Unlike you, I'm not hung up on this issue, never was. First of all it never was a doctrinal issue and that in and of itself should keep it from being brought up today. Yet obviously this is a big issue for you because you never fail to raise it as a defense. Did someone try to teach these things to you when you were young? Did that contribute to you no longer believing Genesis?​

Where am I arguing for a literal interpretation of Genesis because it is a doctrinal issue?

You justify your non literal interpretation and abandonment of the David Copper rule for the geocentric passages because you say they are not doctrinal. But you treat Genesis differently. You do think is doctrinal it must be interpreted literally. Of course if the doctrine you talk about is based on a literal interpretation, using that to argue for a literal interpretation is a circular argument.

Now I do believe Genesis is a doctrinal text because everything that follows is contingent on what happens there.

God created us. We have all sinned and fallen short of his glory. This is described beautifully in Genesis whether there was an individual called Adam or not. Everything that follows is contingent on that.

What’s with the rhetorical questions? Are you now saying that literal and figurative language cannot coexist within the same text?

You quoted the Exodus passage as if it was some kind of slam dunk proof the creation days were literal. Now you are these passages contain figurative language? One of the figures is the anthropomorphism describing God as a weary labourer who is refreshed after a days rest. The six days come up inside this metaphor. It is like saying the prodigal son was a metaphor but the pigs were real.

No one in the NT who deals with this takes it literally. Paul says the the Sabbath is a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ Col 2:17. What happened to it being a commemoration of God's six day Creation and seventh day rest? Jesus tells us he and his Father never stopped work. The writer of Hebrews tells us there is a seventh day rest of God, but it is not a 24 hour break God took after finishing the creation, it is a rest we can enter into in God today.

God was demonstrating for us how He wished us to live. If you wish to believe that the six days we’re told to work are representative of some much higher number that complies with your line of thinking, who am I to tell you otherwise.

You could start with me and work you way up to Moses. In fact why not go for the big one? Take it up with Jesus who denied the literal basis of Sabbath given in Genesis and Exodus when he said the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath and denied God ever actually stopped working.

[FONT=&quot]

[FONT=&quot]I don’t know and I really don’t care. The issue plays no role in anything of substance to me and therefore isn’t worthy of my time.

The issue of conflict between science and the literal plain meaning of scripture is not important to you? The fact the men of God like Luther and Calvin faced the same dilemma you face today? The fact that it is possible to insist on the plain literal meaning of scripture against science, and get it wrong?

[/FONT]

About as much as there is to back up homosexuality.

In other words there is none. While there is evidence that made people think the Genesis days were not literal, when the church switched from geocentric to heliocentric interpretation is was done solely on the basis of what science not on anything whatsoever even hinted at in scripture.

[FONT=&quot]This assumption isn’t really that difficult to grasp given that the issue has little to no significance. Sure it took the church a long time to come to terms with heliocentrism, that’s because it was an issue the church should have never been so concerned about. It plays little to no role in the daily lives of people, yet they felt it necessary to fight about it. Go figure. I guess it just goes to show they were just as human as we are.

It was one of the biggest issues of all, and all the other doctrines and teachings of scripture hang on it. It was the reliability of scripture itself.

[/FONT][/FONT]

So yes, their physical observations of the earth, sun and stars caused them to believe the sun rotated around the earth and from that presupposition they then interpreted Scripture to support that observation. Evolutionists do likewise, their observations of the earth, animals, geology, etc. causes them to believe in evolution and from that presupposition they interpret Scripture accordingly. The problem is they have absolutely nothing within Scripture to back up their belief.

Wait a minute, I though you just admitted there was nothing in scripture to support your heliocentric interpretation either (About as much as there is to back up homosexuality.) We are talking about sciences, heliocentism and evolution, that have no actual support in scripture, but simply do no contradict the bible when we reinterpret it. And at least with evolution there is nothing, other than the common biblical potter metaphor, that contradicts evolution in the bible. The only problem for evolution in the bible would be if the world really was 6000 year old, but we have seen there is plenty in scripture to support that interpretation. o if we compare the two side by side:

Heliocentrism:
The bible doesn't teach it
The plain literal meaning of a number of passages contradicts it. The earth does not move.
The sun rushes around behind the earth at night, and stopped at Joshua's command
There is nothing in scripture to suggest any other way to interpret these passages.


Evolution:
The bible does not teach it.
A literal interpretation of the six day in Exodus contradicts it.
So does the description of God making man and animal out of clay.
However there are biblical grounds that suggest other interpretations of the six days
. . 1) it is in the middle of another metaphor
. . 2) Moses himself suggested God's days were not literal.
There are biblical grounds to take the 'made of clay' figuratively
. . 1) God as a potter is a common biblical metaphor
. . 2) Other parts of the story are not literal. The snake wasn't a snake
. . it was a figurative description of Satan.

Heliocentrism contradicts the plain meaning of scripture with nothing to suggest the reinterpretation adopted because of science. With evolution the reinterpretations of scripture have a scriptural basis.

Let's look at that last paragraph again

So yes, their physical observations of the earth, sun and stars caused them to believe the sun rotated around the earth and from that presupposition they then interpreted Scripture to support that observation. Evolutionists do likewise, their observations of the earth, animals, geology, etc. causes them to believe in evolution and from that presupposition they interpret Scripture accordingly. The problem is they have absolutely nothing within Scripture to back up their belief.

There is a very disturbing argument in here. Luther and Calvin only interpreted these passages geocentrically because they read their geocentrists presuppositions into the passages? Is this you idea? Because if it is you did not think it through. If you read it in some creationist source I would not go back to them again if I were you. The person who came up with this argument either did not study these passages or if they did they are incapable of reading them objectively. If they are right then it is impossible to know what the plain meaning of scripture is because we will always bring our presuppositions to it YEC as much as TE. And if Luther and Calvin could not get past their presuppositions to the plain text what chance have we? It is using postmodernism to defend the plains meaning of scripture only to find postmodernism consumes any possibility of their being a plain meaning

 

[shernren]

So yes, their physical observations of the earth, sun and stars caused them to believe the sun rotated around the earth and from that presupposition they then interpreted Scripture to support that observation. Evolutionists do likewise, their observations of the earth, animals, geology, etc. causes them to believe in evolution and from that presupposition they interpret Scripture accordingly. The problem is they have absolutely nothing within Scripture to back up their belief.

And yet the scientists of the day were perfectly happy to abandon parts of their theory that did not fit the data, and replace them with new ideas that did - even when they came straight from Copernicus. An example of this is how Clavius, a leading Jesuit astronomer of the time, explained the trepidation of the firmament of the fixed stars. The "fixed stars" of the sky actually do move in slight amounts relative to the earth, and they do so at non-constant rates - hence the "trepidation" of the "firmament" that those fixed stars were supposedly embedded in which carried them across the skies. The current theory was that the firmament of the fixed stars were embedded in yet more firmaments, each with slightly different motions, that caused the stars to have such variable motion. Clavius rejected that idea in favor of one that said that the earth itself had small axial motions in order that the stars' motions may be explained - which in the context of Aristotelian physics would have been rather foreign, and had come straight from Copernicus' works.

So you can see that the science of the day was not fixed in its presuppositions. It was perfectly willing to abandon parts of its theory, even Aristotelian parts, to accommodate data. So observations which supported heliocentrism would certainly have convinced the Jesuit astronomers. They did - but not before the Catholic Church had declared heliocentrism "formally heretical", thus causing strong pressure on the Jesuits that prevented them from exploring heliocentrism openly.

What it does show us is that TE is a vague and nebulous moniker and those that adhere to its doctrine are all over the map concerning all other issues of faith. There is very little glue that holds it together, except for of course evolution. If you think about that, that's really quite sad.

When MK had the same objection to TEs I replied pretty harshly, but I think the point was lost on him. I hope it won't be lost on you.

 

[vossler]

What this boils down to is that the tools made by Homo ergaster indicate types of activity and an educational process.

Take "complex plant and animal processing skills" for example. Tools found include axes, knives and scrapers. Does not the existence of such tools indicate the activities they were designed for? Such as chopping down trees, cutting up plants and animal carcasses, scraping meat away from skin, etc?

Could it be that those tools were found in a layer of sediment where human remains were also found? I've read that that's the case for habilis.

These findings are speculative and biased. I've heard speakers give very plausible and logical explanations for most of these 'facts'. I'm not here to to scientifically convince you otherwise, that is not nor has it ever been my purpose. I look to science for answers to where the Bible gives none, but I don't use science as a tool to sway others. You obviously place a lot of stock in modern scientific findings and I don't. You won't convince me via science and I know I won't even attempt to do likewise.

Ok. So we have established two things:
1) the fossils are real, not a matter of conjecture
2) their physical characteristics are real, not a matter of conjecture.

Agreed!

I hope I have convinced you that conclusions about behaviour are logical inferences, not mere speculation, but even if I haven't that is not material to the next step.

If all I had was the information you provided that could be a logical inference, but it still not a fact and that's my main point. The thing is though, there's more information available than what you've provided, some to back up your assertions and some that counters them. My statement about human remains being found in the same layer is just one example.

Theories, you may have heard, are put to the test by predictions. If the theory makes successful predictions, that is an indication that the theory is probably true (although it is never absolute proof that it is true.) If the evidence relative to the prediction is contrary to the prediction, then the theory is false.

If one enters the study of this topic with a bias towards one side then it will be difficult to have successful predictions. I liken it a bit to the Superbowl. Two teams, 80,000 people, 40,000 rooting for one side and the other 40,000 rooting for the other. A controversial play happens and 50% of the witnesses claim one thing happened while the other 50% claim an entirely different thing. Both swear they are right because they came into the stadium with preconceived ideas. Evolution is really no different.

 

[gluadys]

Could it be that those tools were found in a layer of sediment where human remains were also found? I've read that that's the case for habilis.

Well, of course the tools were found with the fossils!!! Otherwise, (especially in the case of habilis) we would not conclude they were made by them. When tools are found, but no fossils, we conclude they were made, but we don't know who made them until we find the tools and the fossils together. Once we can associate particular type of tool with a particular type of fossil, then finding the tools without fossil remains is sufficient to indicate the species must have lived there and produced the tools. But that reasoning cannot apply until you find the fossils and the tools together. H. habilis might have been classified as another australopithecine, (though a more human-like one) except for the fact that habilus fossils are associated with tools. No australopithecine species is associated with tools.

And there are so many findings of Acheulian tools associated with ergaster and erectus remains, that there can be no doubt as to who the makers of the tools were.

So I don't know what the point of the question is.

However, as I said, the association of certain hominid fossils with certain tools, while hardly speculation, is not pertinent to the issues I am raising. It is an interesting study, but one we need not pursue at this point.

You won't convince me via science and I know I won't even attempt to do likewise.

I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am trying to find out what it is you are referring to as "conjecture and speculation" and why.

If one enters the study of this topic with a bias towards one side then it will be difficult to have successful predictions. I liken it a bit to the Superbowl. Two teams, 80,000 people, 40,000 rooting for one side and the other 40,000 rooting for the other. A controversial play happens and 50% of the witnesses claim one thing happened while the other 50% claim an entirely different thing. Both swear they are right because they came into the stadium with preconceived ideas. Evolution is really no different.

Not an equivalent analogy. What you are proposing here is a disagreement (with bias on both sides) over an event already witnessed, an event that has already happened, not something either set of fans predicted for the future.

So let's go over Darwin's predictions again. Remember he made these predictions in 1871. But none of the fossils we are looking at was found until at least 20 years later, some not until a century later. The DNA code was not found until a century later and the human genome not until later still.

The question is: is it speculation that these predictions of Darwin turned out to be true?

1. Evidence would be found pointing to Africa as the place of origin of the human lineage.
2. Fossils would be found with mixtures of ape-like and human-like characteristics.
3. Evidence would indicate the great apes of Africa are the nearest living relatives of humans.

Is it a fact that the oldest hominid fossils are all found in Africa? Or is that conjecture and speculation?

Is it a fact that fossil australopithecines, and fossils such as H. habilis, H. erectus, etc. show a mixture of ape-like and human-like characteristics? Or is that conjecture and speculation?

Is it a fact that a comparison of human DNA with that of other animals shows a greater resemblance to the DNA of African great apes than to any other animal? Or is that conjecture and speculation?

 

[vossler]

Well, of course the tools were found with the fossils!!! Otherwise, (especially in the case of habilis) we would not conclude they were made by them. When tools are found, but no fossils, we conclude they were made, but we don't know who made them until we find the tools and the fossils together. Once we can associate particular type of tool with a particular type of fossil, then finding the tools without fossil remains is sufficient to indicate the species must have lived there and produced the tools. But that reasoning cannot apply until you find the fossils and the tools together. H. habilis might have been classified as another australopithecine, (though a more human-like one) except for the fact that habilus fossils are associated with tools. No australopithecine species is associated with tools.

I think you misunderstood me. I was trying to say that that the habilis fossil was found in a layer with modern human fossils and they are the ones who crafted the tools not habilis.

I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am trying to find out what it is you are referring to as "conjecture and speculation" and why.

Good, then we're all clear here.

The question is: is it speculation that these predictions of Darwin turned out to be true?

I believe his speculations didn't turn out to be true and you believe they did.

Is it a fact that the oldest hominid fossils are all found in Africa? Or is that conjecture and speculation?

Based on modern scientific measuring standards that is probably true. However that doesn't mean they are right.

Is it a fact that fossil australopithecines, and fossils such as H. habilis, H. erectus, etc. show a mixture of ape-like and human-like characteristics? Or is that conjecture and speculation?

To those from whom you produced an analysis that answer is yes. For the untrained eye like me it still looks like conjecture and speculation and I'm sure there are some trained eyes who would agree.

Is it a fact that a comparison of human DNA with that of other animals shows a greater resemblance to the DNA of African great apes than to any other animal? Or is that conjecture and speculation?

That is a fact. However to then go one and say we are related, that is conjecture and speculation.