Explanation from Creationists?

[ThatRobGuy]

The 2 enclosed pics, plus the link pretty much sum it up.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3


other pic: http://www.theistic-evolution.com/pages5455.jpg

Web Link: http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html

Well, how can you explain the visual evidence which is backed up by tangible evidence (fossils), and still say that God created us in the manor which is described in the old testament.

I, personally, have more respect for God, knowing that he put this intricate process of evolution in place, rather than just going on believing that blew into some magic dirt and made dust puppets out of us.

What do you guys think?

 

[Jan87676]

All I see is a bunch of different sized human heads,miniverchivi. That proves absolutely nothing.

Each person has a different sized head.

Two examples:


1) http://www.nps.gov/yell/press/images/fetch_large.jpg


2) http://www.stormynights.org/spiderman/images/jameson_large.jpg

 

[MrGoodBytes]

All I see is a bunch of different sized human heads,miniverchivi. That proves absolutely nothing.

Each person has a different sized head.

Two examples:[...]

Right. Now you find me an X-ray of someone with a head like specimens A to L, then we'll talk.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

All I see is a bunch of different sized human heads,miniverchivi. That proves absolutely nothing.

Each person has a different sized head.

Yes, but the shape is what we are concerned with....to say the the skull from figure "A" is human, you're acknowledging evolution....because the shape has changed so vastly.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Check and mate,MrGoodBytes.

Checked and mated a little too soon, I'd say.

Right. Now you find me an X-ray of someone with a head like specimens A to L, then we'll talk.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Yes, it's always a good time to joke when we have no valid rebuttal...props to MrGoodBytes for using easy to understand logic.

Not easy enough, apparently... thanks anyway.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Yes, it's always a good time to joke when we have no valid rebuttal...props to MrGoodBytes for using easy to understand logic.

Isn't Photoshop wonderful, try again.

 

[gwilenius]

Images A through M show nothing but different species of hominids which may or may not have coexisted. The question is not whether or not they existed, which they did, but at what time frames did they exist? If you research the methods of radioisotope dating, you will find there is extreme variation in all the methodologies; data which does not fit resonably within preconceived ideas of specimen age are often discarded.

Additionally, the changes from one species to the next are not gradual. Brain cavity size, for example; as well as jaw structures and bone lengths (for those of which sufficient remains are found.) What archeologists have so marvelously done in our textbooks is combine bits and fragments of different species, tossed out data that did not fit the preconceived notions, and used great ad hominen arguments to support "observations" which were molded to fit the theory. When science is conducted in this manner, anything can be proved or disproved.

Sure, the species pictured existed, but there is no strong evidence one existed prior to the other. The sample set simply is not large enough and the data not strong enough for a conclusive statement that these fossil remains represent human ancestry rather than human or primate deformities.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

What archeologists have so marvelously done in our textbooks is combine bits and fragments of different species, tossed out data that did not fit the preconceived notions, and used great ad hominen arguments to support "observations" which were molded to fit the theory. When science is conducted in this manner, anything can be proved or disproved.

The irony of this statement is almost too much to bear.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Images A through M show nothing but different species of hominids which may or may not have coexisted. The question is not whether or not they existed, which they did, but at what time frames did they exist? If you research the methods of radioisotope dating, you will find there is extreme variation in all the methodologies; data which does not fit resonably within preconceived ideas of specimen age are often discarded.

Additionally, the changes from one species to the next are not gradual. Brain cavity size, for example; as well as jaw structures and bone lengths (for those of which sufficient remains are found.) What archeologists have so marvelously done in our textbooks is combine bits and fragments of different species, tossed out data that did not fit the preconceived notions, and used great ad hominen arguments to support "observations" which were molded to fit the theory. When science is conducted in this manner, anything can be proved or disproved.

Sure, the species pictured existed, but there is no strong evidence one existed prior to the other. The sample set simply is not large enough and the data not strong enough for a conclusive statement that these fossil remains represent human ancestry rather than human or primate deformities.

Did you by any chance get that idea from AiG or ICR...because those groups of "Scientists" are no better than Ron Wyatt when it comes trying to falsify real scientific facts.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Images A through M show nothing but different species of hominids which may or may not have coexisted

No, they don't.

 

[Dannager]

If you research the methods of radioisotope dating, you will find there is extreme variation in all the methodologies; data which does not fit resonably within preconceived ideas of specimen age are often discarded.

I hate to have to ask, but do you actually know how radioisotopic calibration works? It sounds like you're channeling AiG or ICR.

 

[steen]

If you research the methods of radioisotope dating, you will find there is extreme variation in all the methodologies;

this is a false claim. You need to brush up on radiometric dating./ here is a text by a Christian scientists to maybe clarify things for you:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Additionally, the changes from one species to the next are not gradual.

Ah, how abrupt is the difference between the Empidonax flycatchers?

.... What archeologists have so marvelously done in our textbooks is combine bits and fragments of different species, tossed out data that did not fit the preconceived notions, and used great ad hominen arguments to support "observations" which were molded to fit the theory.

No, what you are describing is the M.O. of creationists. Irony, anybody?

When science is conducted in this manner, anything can be proved or disproved.

Fortunately, this is not how science is conducted (which is why creationism is not science, because it IS conducted like that).

Sure, the species pictured existed, but there is no strong evidence one existed prior to the other.

Ah, another creationist "just because I deny the facts" claim.

The sample set simply is not large enough and the data not strong enough for a conclusive statement that these fossil remains represent human ancestry rather than human or primate deformities.

Well, yes actually it is, so you need to prove your "just because I say so" claim.

 

[Cassandra]

All I see is a bunch of different sized human heads,miniverchivi. That proves absolutely nothing.

So you think Chimpanzees are humans?


Do didn't even read the links, did you?

 

[USincognito]

...and used great ad hominen arguments to support "observations" which were molded to fit the theory.

The phrase you're looking for is ad hoc, and you'd be incorrect there too. All of the samples in the photo are well documented to have come from appropriate time frames and geographic distribution.

 

[Chrono Traveler]

The irony of this statement is almost too much to bear.

that reminds me...

I made this for you guys =p

 

[shinbits]

Well, how can you explain the visual evidence which is backed up by tangible evidence (fossils), and still say that God created us in the manor which is described in the old testament.

Quick question: how do u know that the fossils shown aren't just extinct apes rather than "transitionals"? See, unless you believe that all apes that have ever existed are direct ancestors of humans, you'd have to answer that question.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Quick question: how do u know that the fossils shown aren't just extinct apes rather than "transitionals"? See, unless you believe that all apes that have ever existed are direct ancestors of humans, you'd have to answer that question.

They are extinct apes. They are also morphological intermediates, possessing features that are neither fully human nor fully ape-like.

Understand, the claim here is not that those particular specimens are thought to be the hominid ancestors. That information is probably unknowable and irrelevant to boot. The claim here is that there are a significant number of similar but meaningfully distinct bipedal ape fossils, the totality of which is far better explained by an evolutionary framework than by anything else.

 

[gwilenius]

The phrase you're looking for is ad hoc, and you'd be incorrect there too. All of the samples in the photo are well documented to have come from appropriate time frames and geographic distribution.

No, ad hoc is not what I was looking for. Evolution is based on attacks against creation and creationists, of which Darwin was among the strongest and most vocal. In the context of my sentence, I admit ad hoc may not be the correct choice, though it is appropriate to a degree. The arguments are based more on a priori statements with a foundation of argumentum ad hominen. None of these is entirely correct in the full perspective, but the arguments for Evolution (as well as for Creation) involve a mess of genetic fallacies, and very poor science. Granted, there is some good science, and that is where you find those who question Evolution as well as Creation.

The latin terminology cast aside - BOTH side are plagued with bias, assumptions, presumptions, opinions, and collections of observations spattered with a few findings whcih support EITHER view; you pick your side and pick your evidence, and then you can discredit the other based on your bias and personal collection of "facts and observations" (you = general, not you personally).

It seems the past century has erroded the art of effective and rational discourse between the two sides, not unexpected because the extremes are often the most vocal.

As for me, to clarify, I am a Creationist. (Ah! I knew it! Comes the cry of the Evolutionist). However, evolution does play a role in my views, but not to the degere that men descended from apes. Microevolution is highly supported, and proven. However, there are many questions Creation has yet to answer, just as there are many which Evolution has to answer. Why am I a Creationist? First, I have personally experienced the power of the Word of God, and there would be no power in it if it was full of lies, half-truths, assumptions, or contradictions (oh-oh, I just opened another box).

But, since God said it, it must be true. So, pick my theory. Evolution doesn't fit, there are too many inconsistencies, and too many assumptions. The current Creation theories don't entirely fit, also too many assumptions and inconsistencies. I am more of a proponent of "mature-earth" creation; albeit still a theory, but one which still fits observation just as well as does evolutionary theory (refering to old-earth evolution).

Regardless, for those others who are reading this, I do not frequent the AiG site ( I don't even know who they are) nor the ICR site, and who is Ron Wyatt? I like to stick to more "credible" sources such as

Scientific American
Science News
Nature
Origins
Journal of Biblical Archeology
and others

Web sites are good places to get references, but I always look up the source and investigate the claims.

oh, give me a little more credit than stuffing me in a box with "those Creationists,"

 

[shinbits]

Understand, the claim here is not that those particular specimens are thought to be the hominid ancestors. That information is probably unknowable and irrelevant to boot. The claim here is that there are a significant number of similar but meaningfully distinct bipedal ape fossils, the totality of which is far better explained by an evolutionary framework than by anything else.

That's intersting.

But why is the thought that these forms evolved better then the thought that these are just variations of a kind?