Early Man....Question

[Nostromo]

I'd recommend reading Martin Lubenow if you want to know more.

Yeah if you want some impartial advice on the current state of scientific knowledge regarding evolution, you're best off asking the opinion of a creationist professor.

 

[Crankitup]

Yeah if you want some impartial advice on the current state of scientific knowledge regarding evolution, you're best off asking the opinion of a creationist professor.

Bingo! We have a winner.

Much better than listening to you or I seeing as in addition to his Masters in Theology he also happens to have a Master of Science degree majoring in Anthropology. Eminently more qualified than you or I in this field I'd say.

BTW, I made a typo in my previous post. It's MarVin not Martin.

 

[Nostromo]

Much better than listening to you or I seeing as in addition to his Masters in Theology he also happens to have a Master of Science degree majoring in Anthropology. Eminently more qualified than you or I in this field I'd say.

Argument from authority fallacy. Having a degree in anthropology doesn't make him right about evolution any more than Muhammad Sven Kalisch being a professor of Theology makes Islam true.

 

[Crankitup]

Argument from authority fallacy. Having a degree in anthropology doesn't make him right about evolution any more than Muhammad Sven Kalisch being a professor of Theology makes Islam true.

Who talked about whether he was right or not? All I said was he was eminently more qualified in the field than you or I, which is a patent fact. Whether he's right or not I cannot say for certain but there's a lot more chance that what he has said has veracity than anything you or I could conjure up.

 

[Crankitup]

To the OP, you must make up your own mind. Here's a review of Marvin Lubenow's book 'Bones of Contention' (Revised and Updated 2004) from Amazon.com that might be helpful;

30 of 37 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Must Read, May 26, 2006
By John Adams (Bedford, TX United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Lubenow takes the results of his research over the past 35+ years and illustrates how the hominid fossil data published among the scientific community does not fit the theory of evolution as they claim it does. Evolutionists, of course, would disagree but Lubenow takes the fossil record as a whole, instead of a selective sampling of the data, and shows that even while using the established evolutionists' dates, the fossils do not fit evolution. One of his greatest strengths is his comprehensive fossil hominid chart demonstrating his main premise. Why is such a chart lacking in the evolutionist arsenal? Perhaps because it shows the exact opposite of what they'd like the public to believe.

Lubenow shows that the entire hominid fossil record can be explained, perhaps even better, without the use of evolution. After astutely observing that it is absolutely impossible to prove that any fossil has ever evolved into another (such relationships can only be speculated), he takes the reader on an enlightening journey through the human fossil material. By showing that the supposed transitional fossils are contemporaneous with everything from modern Homo sapiens to Australopithecus, he shows that such a timeline does not favor evolution any more than it does special creation. His conclusions are solid and straightforward.

How does Lubenow explain the existence of Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and the like? His answer is as simple as it is surprising: the fossils we have are all either humans (neanderthalensis/erectus/(some habilis)) or they are extinct apes (some habilis)/Australopithecus. How does he account for anatomical differences between modern H. sapiens and the others? He explains that such differences could easily be the result of rickets/syphillis and similar pathological conditions. In other words, human fossils simply show a great deal of variation among the same species. Humans are all human, apes are all apes. Just becuase a neanderthal has thick brow ridges and slightly flatter skull doesn't make it a different creature, it's a human like you and me. He backs up his diagnosis by joining it with his theory that the world-wide Genesis flood caused the ice age and led to exactly the kind of conditions necessary to cause those pathological conditions.

Evolutionists like to claim that relatively recent discoveries (like Dmanisi) show that the gap between apes and man is illusory. They neglect to mention, however, that such discoveries were just as much a shock to the evolutionist community (i.e. blew 'African Eve' out of the water). What they fail to see is that such transitional fossils are contemporaneous with fossils that can be qualified as modern H. sapiens (KNM ER 1470, 1590, 1472, 1481) so the transition is disqualified. In addition, their claim that the cranial capacity of the Dmanisi skulls bridges the gap between Australopithecus and Homo is silenced by the fact that they resort to a pathological explanation of Homo floresiensis. If H. floresiensis is pathological, then the Dmanisi skulls could be as well. If H. floresiensis is not pathological, then hominids with a similar cranial capacity to the supposed gap species (even smaller, in fact) were around just 18,000 years ago. So much for that theory!

Lubenow's book can weather the storms. Read this book and you'll learn some amazing things. Sure, the book is geared toward creationists and rightly so, I don't know any evolutionists who can stomach the term 'Genesis flood'. As Lubenow thoroughly demonstrates, evolutionists already believed in evolution as a 'fact' long before they had their fossil data. When the data doesn't match what they expect (and he shows that this is often the case) they just pick the data they like and throw out the rest. I can't think of a better text to debunk the idea that evolution (human evolution in this book) is a 'proven fact based on evidence' nothing could be further from the truth.

Link to Amazon.com entry.

 

[dad]

THIS INFORMATION IS FROM

I know its a long post, but please read the information in order to understand the questions I am asking. Thank you very much

Homo habilis

H. habilis, "handy man", was so called because of evidence of tools found with its remains. Habilis existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. It is very similar to australopithecines in many ways. The face is still primitive, but it projects less than in A. africanus. The back teeth are smaller, but still considerably larger than in modern humans. The average brain size, at 650 cc, is considerably larger than in australopithecines. Brain size varies between 500 and 800 cc, overlapping the australopithecines at the low end and H. erectus at the high end. The brain shape is also more humanlike. The bulge of Broca's area, essential for speech, is visible in one habilis brain cast, and indicates it was possibly capable of rudimentary speech. Habilis is thought to have been about 127 cm (5'0") tall, and about 45 kg (100 lb) in weight, although females may have been smaller.
Habilis has been a controversial species. Originally, some scientists did not accept its validity, believing that all habilis specimens should be assigned to either the australopithecines or Homo erectus. H. habilis is now fully accepted as a species, but it is widely thought that the 'habilis' specimens have too wide a range of variation for a single species, and that some of the specimens should be placed in one or more other species. One suggested species which is accepted by many scientists is Homo rudolfensis, which would contain fossils.

Homo georgicus

This species was named in 2002 to contain fossils found in Dmanisi, Georgia, which seem intermediate between H. habilis and H. erectus. The fossils are about 1.8 million years old, consisting of three partial skulls and three lower jaws. The brain sizes of the skulls vary from 600 to 780 cc. The height, as estimated from a foot bone, would have been about 1.5 m (4'11"). A partial skeleton was also discovered in 2001 but no details are available on it yet. (Vekua et al. 2002, Gabunia et al. 2002)

Homo erectus

H. erectus existed between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. Like habilis, the face has protruding jaws with large molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a long low skull, with a brain size varying between 750 and 1225 cc. Early erectus specimens average about 900 cc, while late ones have an average of about 1100 cc (Leakey 1994). The skeleton is more robust than those of modern humans, implying greater strength. Body proportions vary; the Turkana Boy is tall and slender (though still extraordinarily strong), like modern humans from the same area, while the few limb bones found of Peking Man indicate a shorter, sturdier build. Study of the Turkana Boy skeleton indicates that erectus may have been more efficient at walking than modern humans, whose skeletons have had to adapt to allow for the birth of larger-brained infants (Willis 1989). Homo habilis and all the australopithecines are found only in Africa, but erectus was wide-ranging, and has been found in Africa, Asia, and Europe. There is evidence that erectus probably used fire, and their stone tools are more sophisticated than those of habilis.

Homo ergaster

Some scientists classify some African erectus specimens as belonging to a separate species, Homo ergaster, which differs from the Asian H. erectus fossils in some details of the skull (e.g. the brow ridges differ in shape, and erectus would have a larger brain size). Under this scheme, H. ergaster would include fossils such as the Turkana boy and ER 3733.

Homo antecessor

Homo antecessor was named in 1977 from fossils found at the Spanish cave site of Atapuerca, dated to at least 780,000 years ago, making them the oldest confirmed European hominids. The mid-facial area of antecessor seems very modern, but other parts of the skull such as the teeth, forehead and browridges are much more primitive. Many scientists are doubtful about the validity of antecessor, partly because its definition is based on a juvenile specimen, and feel it may belong to another species. (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997; Kunzig 1997, Carbonell et al. 1995)

Homo sapiens (archaic) (also Homo heidelbergensis)

Archaic forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 500,000 years ago. The term covers a diverse group of skulls which have features of both Homo erectus and modern humans. The brain size is larger than erectus and smaller than most modern humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the skull is more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth are usually less robust than erectus, but more robust than modern humans. Many still have large brow ridges and receding foreheads and chins. There is no clear dividing line between late erectus and archaic sapiens, and many fossils between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago are difficult to classify as one or the other.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (also Homo neanderthalensis)

Neandertal (or Neanderthal) man existed between 230,000 and 30,000 years ago. The average brain size is slightly larger than that of modern humans, about 1450 cc, but this is probably correlated with their greater bulk. The brain case however is longer and lower than that of modern humans, with a marked bulge at the back of the skull. Like erectus, they had a protruding jaw and receding forehead. The chin was usually weak. The midfacial area also protrudes, a feature that is not found in erectus or sapiens and may be an adaptation to cold. There are other minor anatomical differences from modern humans, the most unusual being some peculiarities of the shoulder blade, and of the pubic bone in the pelvis. Neandertals mostly lived in cold climates, and their body proportions are similar to those of modern cold-adapted peoples: short and solid, with short limbs. Men averaged about 168 cm (5'6") in height. Their bones are thick and heavy, and show signs of powerful muscle attachments. Neandertals would have been extraordinarily strong by modern standards, and their skeletons show that they endured brutally hard lives. A large number of tools and weapons have been found, more advanced than those of Homo erectus. Neandertals were formidable hunters, and are the first people known to have buried their dead, with the oldest known burial site being about 100,000 years old. They are found throughout Europe and the Middle East. Western European Neandertals usually have a more robust form, and are sometimes called "classic Neandertals". Neandertals found elsewhere tend to be less excessively robust. (Trinkaus and Shipman 1992; Trinkaus and Howells 1979; Gore 1996)

Homo floresiensis

Homo floresiensis was discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2003. Fossils have been discovered from a number of individuals. The most complete fossil is of an adult female about 1 meter tall with a brain size of 417cc. Other fossils indicate that this was a normal size for floresiensis. It is thought that floresiensis is a dwarf form of Homo erectus - it is not uncommon for dwarf forms of large mammals to evolve on islands. H. floresiensis was fully bipedal, used stone tools and fire, and hunted dwarf elephants also found on the island. (Brown et al. 2004, Morwood et al. 2004, Lahr and Foley 2004)

Homo sapiens sapiens (modern)

Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 195,000 years ago. Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc. The forehead rises sharply, eyebrow ridges are very small or more usually absent, the chin is prominent, and the skeleton is very gracile. About 40,000 years ago, with the appearance of the Cro-Magnon culture, tool kits started becoming markedly more sophisticated, using a wider variety of raw materials such as bone and antler, and containing new implements for making clothing, engraving and sculpting. Fine artwork, in the form of decorated tools, beads, ivory carvings of humans and animals, clay figurines, musical instruments, and spectacular cave paintings appeared over the next 20,000 years. (Leakey 1994)
Even within the last 100,000 years, the long-term trends towards smaller molars and decreased robustness can be discerned. The face, jaw and teeth of Mesolithic humans (about 10,000 years ago) are about 10% more robust than ours. Upper Paleolithic humans (about 30,000 years ago) are about 20 to 30% more robust than the modern condition in Europe and Asia. These are considered modern humans, although they are sometimes termed "primitive". Interestingly, some modern humans (aboriginal Australians) have tooth sizes more typical of archaic sapiens. The smallest tooth sizes are found in those areas where food-processing techniques have been used for the longest time. This is a probable example of natural selection which has occurred within the last 10,000 years (Brace 1983).
------

According to science, and other physical evidence (fossils, breeding grounds,ect.) Science has come to the conclusion these are our closest relatives (in evolution, Homo sapien-modern man, and Homo hablis- closest to our modern form)
But since there is this evidence, I am so confused
Ive grown up in the church, and have experienced our perfect God in so many ways. How can I break down this evidence as truth, and still serve a God who created the whole world in 7 days? I just see conflict and want to find resolution within my own faith in order to serve God, this is a huge stumbling block for me recently since studying this in a secular university.

If my questions arent clear please inform me and I will try to rewrite them. Thanks again!

God bless

Easy.

We were originally created with the ability to evolve as needed to the still inhabitable world. In fact, we had a different life process and laws, basically. For example, the long life spans. Impossible in this present world. Apparently the adapting was very fast. Evience of this is found in the ark of Noah. The kinds had to evolve into many types or species since then.

 

[Cabal]

To the OP, you must make up your own mind. Here's a review of Marvin Lubenow's book 'Bones of Contention' (Revised and Updated 2004) from Amazon.com that might be helpful;



Link to Amazon.com entry.

Ah wonderful, the old "they're all either diseased, mutants, or diseased mutants" canard.

Funny how it's always the defective specimens we keep digging up, huh?

 

[Cabal]

According to science, and other physical evidence (fossils, breeding grounds,ect.) Science has come to the conclusion these are our closest relatives (in evolution, Homo sapien-modern man, and Homo hablis- closest to our modern form)
But since there is this evidence, I am so confused
Ive grown up in the church, and have experienced our perfect God in so many ways. How can I break down this evidence as truth, and still serve a God who created the whole world in 7 days?

I don't think you can. I think you have to take a good look at whether a literal reading of Genesis makes more sense than an allegorical one.

I personally can't reconcile God apparently creating on a long timescale but saying He created on a short timescale. Yet the fact that He didn't see fit to explain the actual methods in detail in Genesis means that really, your acceptance of a particular creation mechanism is (in terms of one's walk with Christ) not actually that important - despite what many creationists would have you think.

I just see conflict and want to find resolution within my own faith in order to serve God, this is a huge stumbling block for me recently since studying this in a secular university.

Not believing in a 6-day creation doesn't prevent you from accepting that God had a hand in creation. I've never understood why there seems to be this false dichotomy around to the degree that it is.

I am already questioning my faith, however I still personally believe that although science explains the creation of life by a series of meteor strikes, and tide pools as completely unrealistic. Millions of years of this process reoccurring would not leave a single organism alive, I believe that "a higher power" had to started this process

Well....actually when you look at it from a statistical point of view, it is not so unlikely - but statistics are an approximation because we can't handle large numbers of variables in a system, I'm sure God can though

 

[USincognito]

And that's not the half of it. The so-called study of hominid fossils is very murky and much disagreement exists bewteeen the so-called experts. I'd recommend reading Martin Lubenow if you want to know more.

Lubenow's a crank. I read his book back in the 90s and it was full of the usual PRATTs. He doesn't even agree with his fellow Creationists as to which fossil is "ape" and which is "human".
Post-modernism in pseudoscience: a review of Lubenow's Bones of Contention

Whenever anyone quotes so-called facts to me about 'human evolution' I just can't get out of my head how long that faked fossil 'Piltdown Man' fooled the so-called scientific experts of the day.

Creationists should not cite Piltdown Man is the OP of a debate I was in a few years ago. I stand by the content. Feel free to address it if you're up to it.

 

[Nostromo]

Who talked about whether he was right or not?

Isn't that the whole point of taking his opinion?

All I said was he was eminently more qualified in the field than you or I, which is a patent fact. Whether he's right or not I cannot say for certain but there's a lot more chance that what he has said has veracity than anything you or I could conjure up.

By the same token he's a great deal less qualified than vast numbers of biologists who conclude that evolution is a genuine phenomenon. But as I said, appeal to authority is pointless, the evidence is what it is and it's not very promising from a Biblical perspective.

Another review of Bones of Contention.

 

[Doveaman]

According to science, and other physical evidence (fossils, breeding grounds,ect.) Science has come to the conclusion these are our closest relatives (in evolution, Homo sapien-modern man, and Homo hablis- closest to our modern form)
But since there is this evidence, I am so confused
Ive grown up in the church, and have experienced our perfect God in so many ways. How can I break down this evidence as truth, and still serve a God who created the whole world in 7 days? I just see conflict and want to find resolution within my own faith in order to serve God, this is a huge stumbling block for me recently since studying this in a secular university.

If my questions arent clear please inform me and I will try to rewrite them. Thanks again!

God bless

There is no need for you to be confused or doubt our perfect God.


We can infer that all the evidence of life listed in your OP occurred on an older earth created in Gen 1:1:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

This older earth would have lasted for billions of years, long enough for prehistoric life forms to flourish.

After this old earth period, a catastrophic event or events occurred leading to the extinction of all prehistoric life on earth, and leaving the old earth an uninhabited wasteland as described in Gen 1:2:

Now the earth was (or became) formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Notice that the Spirit of God was "hovering" over a dead planet buried in water (symbolic of baptism) that had already existed even before the six day creation events had begun in Gen 1:3. It was in this dead planet that the fossils we now find today, dating millions of years, were buried.

After these catastrophic events that had left the old earth an uninhabited wasteland, God then went about renewing the earth (symbolic of resurrection) in six days as a habitation for modern man and animals as described in Gen 1:3-31:

Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light...Then God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning — the sixth day.

 

[Doveaman]

Does creation taking longer than a literal 7 days make God any less the Creator?
- Except for a few verses about Adam in the NT...?

It is those few verses about Adam in the NT that effectively renders your suggestion moot.

 

[Doveaman]

It's not your faith in God that needs questioning, but your faith in the people who have led you down a garden path to thinking that the only alternative to "a series of meteor strikes" (and actually, it's far more complicated than that), is taking every jot and tittle in the Bible is literal truth that cannot be questioned.

If you know the Bible so well, why are you not converted?

Every jot and tittle in the Bible is questioned, by the way. We would be foolish not to.

 

[Doveaman]

One thing to remember is that accepting evolution in no way means you must reject God. It is simply a matter of changing your interpretation of the bible (which you must remember was written by man) according to what you learn.

Why should anyone reject one interpretation of man for another interpretation of man if interpretations of men are unreliable?

 

[Psudopod]

Why should anyone reject one interpretation of man for another interpretation of man if interpretations of men are unreliable?

Because some are backed up with evidence while others are not.

 

[Crankitup]

He doesn't even agree with his fellow Creationists as to which fossil is "ape" and which is "human".

What's new? Paleontologists don't agree with each other and many Creationists disagree. So what?

Post-modernism in pseudoscience: a review of Lubenow's Bones of Contention

I'd like to go through this point by point but since it's a review of the first edition of Lubenow's work and not of the one I referred to which is more than a decade more recent I'll not sidetrack the thread.

Creationists should not cite Piltdown Man is the OP of a debate I was in a few years ago. I stand by the content. Feel free to address it if you're up to it.

I think your opponent in that debate more than adequately addressed your post. A quick google search and foray into wiki also turns many of your other claims about Piltdown on their head. In any case all I did was mention what enters my head, a personal observation rather than citing the case as my sole cause of doubt.

 

[Doveaman]

Richterface, I honestly don't see how a 7 day creation can happily coexist with the evolution of mankind from Homo erectus & co.

I can (even though I am not convinced we needed to evolve from Homo erectus & co).

Since evolution is a "theory" and not "proof", then it doesn't prove what is true. The best it can do is assume it is true based on the evidence.

I think if you're honest with yourself, these are just assumptions.

Yes, evolution is just assumptions. I agree.

Nobody knows exactly what the conditions were, so for you to claim that no organism could survive it is pure speculation.

Nobody knows exactly what the conditions were, so for you to claim that organism could evolve from it is pure speculation.

I'm not sure how all this is any less realistic than an eternal benevolent creator God wishing everything into existence and forming man from dust, especially when it's at odds with what we can see.

You obviously don't know God.

 

[YoDude]

Hey, first post on this site, and first Christian forum.

Anyway, being a Christian is awesome - in a world of confusion, I have a clear and focused purpose due to my faith, I was called, and I knocked, and I was changed. That does not go away, no science could ever take away my faith - my faith is made perfect in my weakness - therefore I am thankful for my weakness.

I have a very open mind these days, I am exposed to all types of people here in Austin, TX. I don't get offended, I participate in all discussions, my faith allows such conversations, in fact I may even be involved in these discussions from time to time as led by the Lord.

Now for science, I love science! It does not scare me, it does not threathen my faith. Resolving the debate between the biblical creation story and the science evolution story is not important to me, we may be made of stardust as the scientist claim, but God set it in motion. Did we evolve from primordial slime, does it really matter? I don't see the conflict, God is in my heart, that is all that matters, he is proven on a daily basis in his guidance of my life. You either desperately need and believe and are changed by inviting God into your life and accepting him as Lord, or maybe you have grown up in a church with no real conversion experience and are totured by the science vs biblical stuff. I believe that once you are converted, the debate resolves itself in your heart. Science people hate this, they only use logic and evidence to define their world, they cannot understand because God may have hardened their hearts, so that they have no understanding of concepts of faith, even if they tried, Faith (holy spirit) is a gift that can only be received from accepting God as your Lord. Jesus said I did not come here to bring peace, but rather division; the lines are drawn, you are either a man of faith or not - there is no inbetween (although the agnostics may disagree, they don't have geniune Faith and have not been converted).

Anyway, I am excited to more share ideas with you guys, so I will cut this one short and save some for next time. Laters.

 

[Cabal]

Science people hate this, they only use logic and evidence to define their world, they cannot understand because God may have hardened their hearts, so that they have no understanding of concepts of faith, even if they tried, Faith (holy spirit) is a gift that can only be received from accepting God as your Lord.

Sorry to dip my little fly in your ointment, but some Christians are "science people" too and manage with faith perfectly well

 

[Nostromo]

Yes, evolution is just assumptions. I agree.

Stop being so juvenile.