-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Lets try this again
- Thread starter fieldsofwind
- Start date
Fine. Then respond to my post (#24). I read through a section of that first essay you posted (the part on Lucy). Furthermore, I will shortly post my thoughts on the preceding parts.
Upvote
0
I have a big book here written by Professor Stephen Jay Gould called"THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY".Try and read it and give me a detailed response pointing out its flaws.Then we might have a serious debate
Upvote
0
Anyway, just for kicks I analyzed more of that Early Man essay of Pitman's (though, now I'm suspicious about how much of it is actually his own writing).
First, Piltdown Man (can creationists ever talk about something other than hoaxes
). What Pitman conveniently leaves out of his essay is that Piltdown Man was a controversial find from the get-go. A quote from a talk.origins article on the subject elaborates:
"The reaction to the finds was mixed. On the whole the British paleontologists were enthusiastic; the French and American paleontologists tended to be skeptical, some objected quite vociferously. The objectors held that the jawbone and the skull were obviously from two different animals and that their discovery together was simply an accident of placement. In the period 1912-1917 there was a great deal of skepticism. The report in 1917 of the discovery of Piltdown II converted many of the skeptics; one accident of placement was plausible -- two were not.
...
This plausibility did not hold up. During the next two decades there were a number of finds of ancient hominids and near hominids, e.g. Dart's discovery of Australopithecus, the Peking man discoveries, and other Homo erectus and australopithecine finds. Piltdown man did not fit in with the new discoveries."
And so on until the Piltdown hoax was eventually exposed (by scientists, NOT creationists, it should be noted).
Next is Nebraska Man. Pitman's arguments once again seem to be that science makes all sorts of blundering mistakes and grasps at any little straw it can get its hands on. A far more detailed account of the Nebraska Man controversy is available at (yet again) a talk.origins article on the subject.
Third, we come to Ramapithecus lufengensis. At the end of Pitman's little segment is the quote: "Currently, the general view of science is that Ramapithecus was nothing more than an ancestor of the modern ape. What is interesting though is that even in relatively recent times Ramapithecus was widely considered an evolutionary link between apes and man."
It should, of course, be noted that scientific theories are subject to change over time as new evidence is brought in and old evidence is re-evalutated. Newtonian physics were widely accepted as explaining the fundamentals of our universe until the discovery of quantum mechanics. Likewise, Ramapithecus was reclassified as Lufengpithecus lufengensis, but this doesn't mean the fossils are suddenly invalid. Rather, in light of other evidence, its place in the evolutionary frame was more firmly established.
Fourth, we have Australopithecus africanus. Once again, quoting Pitman's essay: "Most evolutionists now consider both Australopithecus africanus and robustus to be an evolutionary dead end and few consider them in any way ancestral to man."
Again, I wonder what Pitman's point is. That scientific evidence is continually evaluated? That new evidence can shed light on older evidence? That scientists don't dogmatically accept everything they are given? (Although, granted, some do).
Which brings us to Australopithecus afarensis (and the Lucy fossil). Aside from my earlier post (#24), I still fail to see what Pitman's point is. Yes, there is debate among the scientific community about Lucy's place in the evolutionary tree. But again, so what? All this proves is that scientists continue to make new discoveries and evaluate data. The theory of evolution is NOT, in any way, in danger here. Rather, the issue of human evolution is subject to flux, as newer data comes into the picture. Furthermore, more data does NOT discredit the idea that we are, in fact, descended from an ape-like species. If anything, it strengthens that view and gives us a more complete history of our ancestors.
Next up is Homo Habilis, but I've written enough for now, so I'll leave that for later.
First, Piltdown Man (can creationists ever talk about something other than hoaxes
). What Pitman conveniently leaves out of his essay is that Piltdown Man was a controversial find from the get-go. A quote from a talk.origins article on the subject elaborates:"The reaction to the finds was mixed. On the whole the British paleontologists were enthusiastic; the French and American paleontologists tended to be skeptical, some objected quite vociferously. The objectors held that the jawbone and the skull were obviously from two different animals and that their discovery together was simply an accident of placement. In the period 1912-1917 there was a great deal of skepticism. The report in 1917 of the discovery of Piltdown II converted many of the skeptics; one accident of placement was plausible -- two were not.
...
This plausibility did not hold up. During the next two decades there were a number of finds of ancient hominids and near hominids, e.g. Dart's discovery of Australopithecus, the Peking man discoveries, and other Homo erectus and australopithecine finds. Piltdown man did not fit in with the new discoveries."
And so on until the Piltdown hoax was eventually exposed (by scientists, NOT creationists, it should be noted).
Next is Nebraska Man. Pitman's arguments once again seem to be that science makes all sorts of blundering mistakes and grasps at any little straw it can get its hands on. A far more detailed account of the Nebraska Man controversy is available at (yet again) a talk.origins article on the subject.
Third, we come to Ramapithecus lufengensis. At the end of Pitman's little segment is the quote: "Currently, the general view of science is that Ramapithecus was nothing more than an ancestor of the modern ape. What is interesting though is that even in relatively recent times Ramapithecus was widely considered an evolutionary link between apes and man."
It should, of course, be noted that scientific theories are subject to change over time as new evidence is brought in and old evidence is re-evalutated. Newtonian physics were widely accepted as explaining the fundamentals of our universe until the discovery of quantum mechanics. Likewise, Ramapithecus was reclassified as Lufengpithecus lufengensis, but this doesn't mean the fossils are suddenly invalid. Rather, in light of other evidence, its place in the evolutionary frame was more firmly established.
Fourth, we have Australopithecus africanus. Once again, quoting Pitman's essay: "Most evolutionists now consider both Australopithecus africanus and robustus to be an evolutionary dead end and few consider them in any way ancestral to man."
Again, I wonder what Pitman's point is. That scientific evidence is continually evaluated? That new evidence can shed light on older evidence? That scientists don't dogmatically accept everything they are given? (Although, granted, some do).
Which brings us to Australopithecus afarensis (and the Lucy fossil). Aside from my earlier post (#24), I still fail to see what Pitman's point is. Yes, there is debate among the scientific community about Lucy's place in the evolutionary tree. But again, so what? All this proves is that scientists continue to make new discoveries and evaluate data. The theory of evolution is NOT, in any way, in danger here. Rather, the issue of human evolution is subject to flux, as newer data comes into the picture. Furthermore, more data does NOT discredit the idea that we are, in fact, descended from an ape-like species. If anything, it strengthens that view and gives us a more complete history of our ancestors.
Next up is Homo Habilis, but I've written enough for now, so I'll leave that for later.
Upvote
0
Is that that big tomb of a book I saw at Chapters awhile back? I thought about picking it up. Any good?
Upvote
0
crazyfingers
Well-Known Member
- May 17, 2002
- 8,733
- 329
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Yes. Stephen Jay Gould was one of the most renound and respected evolutionists. AND, he was a devout christian. He seems to have had no problem accepting the fact that evolution and religion are not incompatible.
Upvote
0
same here pete... I've got a busy day ahead... got a big military parade to participate in got a navigation lab.... then ill be on a run... and after that... about 2300 my time... we'll get this think kicking...
thanks for not quiting on me
take care
FOW
thanks for not quiting on me
take care
FOW
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
Here is a quote from your link. Even if we accept a Biblical age of 10 000 years, the discrepancy between 10 000 years and the scientifically accepted age of 4, 560 000 000 years is vast.
First of all the earth was created in 7 days, then the Hebrew calander records 5762 years after that. So recorded history as we have it is 12,762 years. Peter tells us that:
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
This works both ways so that 1000 X 1000 equals 1,000,000 years. We know the universe is expanding at twice the distance in half the time. Just like the population increase is double in half the time. To apply this same formula to your age of the universe.
One day would be one million years, then two million, then four million, 8 million, 16 million, 32 million, 64 million would be the end of the first week. Then 128 million, 256 million, 512 million, 1.024 billion, 2.048 billion, 4.096 billion. The discrepancy is less than half a billion. Add one more day, and that would take you out to 16 billion years, the age they say the universe is. Yet in our years, that would be 14 days or two weeks: 14,000 years.
That would mean we are close to the end of the second week and the beginning of a new or a third dispensation.
Upvote
0
First of all, 2 Peter 3:8 is not meant to be taken literally (I've had other Christians slap my wrist for that). Second, where do you get this 1000^2 thing?
Anyway, if you try to apply this flawed logic (and having seen it before, I still don't have a clear understanding of how one arrives at this conclusion) to a literal interpretation of Genesis, you have the problem of plants arriving on the 3rd "day" and animals arriving on the 5th. That doesn't jive with the current evidence buried in the planet.
This weird "formula" is just a case of doubling a bunch of numbers and conveniently arriving at around 4 billion, then claiming it somehow synchs up with the Biblical age of the Earth (which, as I pointed out in another thread, is something creationists can't even agree on).
Upvote
0
Onto more from that Early Man essay (specifically, the section on Homo habilis).
The author writes, primarily about the skull KNM-ER 1470, it's discovery, controversy, etc.
What the author conveniently ignores is any references to OTHER homo habilis fossils. Not to mention the current controversy (among paleontologists, mind you) on whether or not KNM-ER 1470 is Homo habilis, or perhaps a different species, Homo rudolfensis (more).
The author then launches into a discussion about the dating of KNM-ER 1470 which seems to have been taking more or less verbatim from an essay written by David N. Menton, back in 1988 (at least, unlike the section on Lucy, there's a reference to Menton's writing). The discussions goes on about how KNM-ER 1470 was first dated to be 2.9 million years, then younger and younger, etc. While, I don't have the time to go an examine all the references given, I'll simply refer to a post made in the t.o. newsgroup regarding the dating of KNM-ER 1470:
"The dating of KNM-ER 1470 was caught up in the dating problems of the KBS Tuff (a layer of volcanic residue, this one named after Kay Behrensmeyer) and the Tulu Bor Tuff beneath it. The first dating attempts of the KBS Tuff by means of a potassium-argon resulted in a scatter of dates; obviously not a good sign. Later attempts were made with 40Ar/39Ar step heating and these gave the quite early dates which seemed good to Leakey (a family thing there; Leakey is pretty good on the subject with the exception of expecting, like his folks, to find a very early *Homo*). They did seem out of step to most others, however, and, more critically, they didn't match up
with the faunal evidence."
What I find so interesting about this whole discussion, is this seems to be yet another example of science correcting itself. Anomalous results were found, so the subject was tested and re-tested to paint a broader picture. It would take me awhile to check into all those references to the dating of KNM-ER 1470, but I am convinced that the dating of KNM-ER 1470 was certainly not "forced" to be about 1.9 million years as the author would have you believe.
Menton also makes mention of two more points, "recent fission track studies of zircons from the KBS tuff indicate an age of 3 m.y.o" and "Approximately 8 out of 10 specimens ("dates") are discarded by radiometric dating labs because they are well out of range of age they 'ought to be' given there source in the geological column.", which are repeated in Pitman's essay. Sadly, there is no reference for either claim, so I have no way to check up on the validity of those comments.
Anyway, fieldsofwind, your original assertion was (and I would assume, still is) that the hominid fossil record (for that matter, the fossil record entirely) lacks any kind of transitional fossils. Based on what I've read so far, I don't see how your claim has been backed up by your source. If anything, Pitman's essay merely sheds light on the fact that the issue is in a state of constant flux, with newer and better evidence painting a firmer picture of the evolution of hominid species.
If you have something specific you'd like to debate (a particular fossil, etc), then by all means bring it up. It's a little too time consuming to dissect those broad sources.
The author writes, primarily about the skull KNM-ER 1470, it's discovery, controversy, etc.
What the author conveniently ignores is any references to OTHER homo habilis fossils. Not to mention the current controversy (among paleontologists, mind you) on whether or not KNM-ER 1470 is Homo habilis, or perhaps a different species, Homo rudolfensis (more).
The author then launches into a discussion about the dating of KNM-ER 1470 which seems to have been taking more or less verbatim from an essay written by David N. Menton, back in 1988 (at least, unlike the section on Lucy, there's a reference to Menton's writing). The discussions goes on about how KNM-ER 1470 was first dated to be 2.9 million years, then younger and younger, etc. While, I don't have the time to go an examine all the references given, I'll simply refer to a post made in the t.o. newsgroup regarding the dating of KNM-ER 1470:
"The dating of KNM-ER 1470 was caught up in the dating problems of the KBS Tuff (a layer of volcanic residue, this one named after Kay Behrensmeyer) and the Tulu Bor Tuff beneath it. The first dating attempts of the KBS Tuff by means of a potassium-argon resulted in a scatter of dates; obviously not a good sign. Later attempts were made with 40Ar/39Ar step heating and these gave the quite early dates which seemed good to Leakey (a family thing there; Leakey is pretty good on the subject with the exception of expecting, like his folks, to find a very early *Homo*). They did seem out of step to most others, however, and, more critically, they didn't match up
with the faunal evidence."
What I find so interesting about this whole discussion, is this seems to be yet another example of science correcting itself. Anomalous results were found, so the subject was tested and re-tested to paint a broader picture. It would take me awhile to check into all those references to the dating of KNM-ER 1470, but I am convinced that the dating of KNM-ER 1470 was certainly not "forced" to be about 1.9 million years as the author would have you believe.
Menton also makes mention of two more points, "recent fission track studies of zircons from the KBS tuff indicate an age of 3 m.y.o" and "Approximately 8 out of 10 specimens ("dates") are discarded by radiometric dating labs because they are well out of range of age they 'ought to be' given there source in the geological column.", which are repeated in Pitman's essay. Sadly, there is no reference for either claim, so I have no way to check up on the validity of those comments.
Anyway, fieldsofwind, your original assertion was (and I would assume, still is) that the hominid fossil record (for that matter, the fossil record entirely) lacks any kind of transitional fossils. Based on what I've read so far, I don't see how your claim has been backed up by your source. If anything, Pitman's essay merely sheds light on the fact that the issue is in a state of constant flux, with newer and better evidence painting a firmer picture of the evolution of hominid species.
If you have something specific you'd like to debate (a particular fossil, etc), then by all means bring it up. It's a little too time consuming to dissect those broad sources.
Upvote
0
alright... I've already stated my opinions on the fossil record... most here don't agree... Fact is... they are PIECES of skeleton... (correct me if I'm wrong here) ... of no more than 40% of the skeleton.... of animals that are extremely ape-like... and in many cases the bones (very whethered might I add) have been found to be actual ape bones.
However... here is another article relating to the subject at hand
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-171.htm
However... here is another article relating to the subject at hand
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-171.htm
Upvote
0
lithium.
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2002
- 4,662
- 4
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Here read this it tells you why fossils are hard to find.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dinosaurs/howdoweknow/q51.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dinosaurs/howdoweknow/q51.shtml
Upvote
0
And two more:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-029.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-286.htm
another one that goes along with my 'extinct ape' guess:
http://www.icr.org/headlines/chadskull.html
These Pertain to a previously mentioned whale, and a previously mentioned horse:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-123.htm
http://www.rae.org/bits24.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-029.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-286.htm
another one that goes along with my 'extinct ape' guess:
http://www.icr.org/headlines/chadskull.html
These Pertain to a previously mentioned whale, and a previously mentioned horse:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-123.htm
http://www.rae.org/bits24.htm
Upvote
0
Been there, read it (you posted it earlier in this thread, you realize).
Anyway, this whole argument nothing new. Creationists have long claimed that hominid fossils are either an ape-like species or human. Thing is, they make a flawed assumption that there are only two arbitrary categories to lump these fossils in (apes or humans). Show them one with traits of both species (emerging bipedalism) and they clutch at whatever other characteristics seem to lump it more in favor of one category or the other.
The whole argument comes down to classification of fossils and what constitutes "transitional" or not. Every time a fossil is claimed to be "transitional", creationists will jump all over it trying to prove it isn't. Furthermore, creationists love to add fire to any debate among evolutionists on where to classify the fossil. Sadly, evolutionists aren't necessarily arguing whether or not something is "transitional", but what it is transitional between.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
