Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Good for them --- they're trained to spot osteolysis, are they?Except archeologists can actually differ between a non-human skeleton and a human with osteolysis. So, you're wrong.
No... however there are a great many identified Homo sap fossils with identified disease traits that no one is claiming are any other speciesFair enough then ... that further pwns Ectezus' point:I'm sure though that you don't find these Homo sapien sapiens like King Tut, then call them Cro-Magnon, do you?
Good for them --- they're trained to spot osteolysis, are they?
And I'm not necessarily talking skeletons --- I'm talking finding a tooth and calling it a city.
AFAIK, they are trained to spot a lot of bone diseases that could possibly make a homo sapiens skeleton look like a non-homo sapiens.Good for them --- they're trained to spot osteolysis, are they?
That has never, ever, happened. Lying for Jesus indeed.And I'm not necessarily talking skeletons --- I'm talking finding a tooth and calling it a city.
Good --- neat-o --- let's hear it for these orthopedically-trained geologists!No... however there are a great many identified Homo sap fossils with identified disease traits that no one is claiming are any other species
Did I not mention a tool shed full?You are, of course, aware that the vast bulk of scientific knowledge about ancient hominids comes from far more skeletal remains than mere teeth, aren't you?
Way to strawman... we aren't discussing geology and geologists, but rather palaeontology and paeleontologists... who most certainly are trained in bone diseases.Good --- neat-o --- let's hear it for these orthopedically-trained geologists!
So... you want to claim... without any actual supporting evidence... that the several thousand identified non homo sap hominid fossils out there, are ALL the result of misidentified diseases?What I'm talking about then, is if they find someone with an ailment that they cannot identify.
Guess what? You're wrong.Good --- neat-o --- let's hear it for these orthopedically-trained geologists!
What I'm talking about then, is if they find someone with an ailment that they cannot identify.
What they're doing, in my opinion, and for example, is assuming it's some kind of subhuman colony of mutants, instead of turning them over to qualified doctors to see if it's some kind of diseased community of quarantined people.
I'll bet the first call they make when they find something they've never seen before is to Nutional Geographic.
It's called the Publish or Perish Principle.
I could be wrong, though.
Oh, really?That has never, ever, happened.
You don't see that publish or perish actually is an excellent argument against your case, don't you? The first man to discover that all those supposed Neanderthals, homo erectus etc. really are nothing but plain old humans with assorted bone diseases won't leave the front pages for the next year.Good --- neat-o --- let's hear it for these orthopedically-trained geologists!
What I'm talking about then, is if they find someone with an ailment that they cannot identify.
What they're doing, in my opinion, and for example, is assuming it's some kind of subhuman colony of mutants, instead of turning them over to qualified doctors to see if it's some kind of diseased community of quarantined people.
I'll bet the first call they make when they find something they've never seen before is to Nutional Geographic.
It's called the Publish or Perish Principle.
I could be wrong, though.
Are Nebraska Man and Piltdown man the only fossils creationsts are allowed to know about?Oh, really?
Didn't someone find a pig's tooth and claim it was Neanderthal Man or something and danced his way into Nutional Geographic or one of those propaganda magazines --- then later it was discovered to be an oops-sorry moment?
If it's lower strata that worries you guys, that's easy:Care to explain why the freaks and mutants all come from lower(older) strata than the healthy homo sap fossils?
Now, I'm not saying everyone found in "lower strata" got there by divine judgement, but I'm putting this verse forward as an example that uniformitarianism doesn't explain what you guys find.Numbers 16:32 said:And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods.
Then how did Neanderthal Man manage to march right past this "highly specific, highly regulated" peer review?Guess what? You're wrong.
The publish or perish principle doesn't refer to popular magazines like national geographic, but rather highly specific, highly regulated peer reviewed journals... journals that don't care about sensation, but due scientific method.
You know... the ones that no Creationist "article" has ever met the standards of?
Oh, what's this? Did you just shift your goalposts from "finding a tooth and calling it a city" to "finding a tooth and calling it a Neanderthal"? I guess you did! Not that it will help your case, anyway:Oh, really?
Didn't someone find a pig's tooth and claim it was Neanderthal Man or something and danced his way into Nutional Geographic or one of those propaganda magazines --- then later it was discovered to be an oops-sorry moment?
talkorigins.org said:The imaginative drawing of Nebraska Man to which creationists invariably refer was the work of an illustrator collaborating with the scientist Grafton Elliot Smith, and was done for a British popular magazine, not for a scientific publication. Few if any other scientists claimed Nebraska Man was a human ancestor. A few, including Osborn and his colleagues, identified it only as an advanced primate of some kind. Osborn, in fact, specifically avoided making any extravagant claims about Hesperopithecus being an ape-man or human ancestor:
Henry Fairfield Osborn said:"I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae), ..." "Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae."
Emphasis mine, further information here.talkorigins.org said:Most other scientists were skeptical even of the more modest claim that the Hesperopithecus tooth belonged to a primate. It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as an ape-man, or even as an ape, by scientists, and its effect upon the scientific thinking of the time was negligible. For example, in his two-volume book Human Origins published during what was supposedly the heyday of Nebraska Man (1924), George MacCurdy dismissed Nebraska Man in a single footnote:
"In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has not yet been generally accepted."
It managed to march past because it was never submitted to peer review.Then how did Neanderthal Man manage to march right past this "highly specific, highly regulated" peer review?
Well then, if thats not an explanation, you'd better come up with one that doesn't rely on all the freaks and mutants being swallowed up by the earth in divine anger, while no normal homo sap was.If it's lower strata that worries you guys, that's easy:Now, I'm not saying everyone found in "lower strata" got there by divine judgement, but I'm putting this verse forward as an example that uniformitarianism doesn't explain what you guys find.
Do you mean NeBRASKA man?Then how did Neanderthal Man manage to march right past this "highly specific, highly regulated" peer review?
Mr Goodbytes kinda nailed that oneDo you mean NeBRASKA man?
It is my understanding that Nebraska man was not the subject of a journal article, nor ever particularly widely accepted as a hominid fossil by the scientific community
Natural Selection, Evolution... I keep thinking, why do we never find the transitions between one form to the next. Take man... Why dont we find the transition bones of the narrowing of the hips and ribs? The slow change in skulls?
Natural selection, if a modern man was born of an neanderthal, would they not be considered a freak? Of course they would, and are not freaks out casted, of course they are... and the human baby or even child cannot survive on its own, so the freak would die, would it not?
Are we changing? Is there an evidence of change? I know we are mixing the races - white with black, with yellow, with brown, with red... But are we changing, is natural selection at work? For I still see beautiful marrying ugly, skinny with fat, tall with tiny, weak with strong, smart with dumb... Where is the natural selection?
I'm not against evolution if I could see it, but I don't see it... For me to believe in evolution, I would have to see the slow progression from one form to the next. The transitions in skull, hips, ribs, etc... All I see are big jumps, and freaks would be rejected, would they not?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?