Lucy, peltdown man etc..

[ikester7579]

In the insistance of those from another thread, I start this one. Though I do not want to start an arguement, I know this subject will. So I name this one:

[move] Your decision, are the findings real? [/move]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23765

http://www.lifefellowship.org/-Updatables/Articles/58.html

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-101.htm

http://www.csama.org/NWS1101.PDF

http://fyi.cnn.com/2001/fyi/teachers.ednews/05/09/evolution.debate/index.html

http://fyi.cnn.com/2001/fyi/news/03/23/ancient.skull/

http://www.rae.org/lucy.html

There's a lot to read here. It is up to you to make your own decision. Some sites are christian some are not. Some are just plain interesting. I have not read them all, but will later. So post what you will with no personal attacks. Thank you.

I put this part that I'm about to say I put in a quote section because I want people to know that this part is an add on to what was originally posted.

I started this thread with the idea that we could do this debate without personal attacks. I see by the second page that some people who are posting here enjoy personal attacks. So I decided not to post anymore in this thread even though I am the thread starter. This pacticular topic to evolutionists is to personal because it questions the icons of their theories. So they resort to hateful and personal attacks. One person went as far to make fun of the political party I belong to as a pot shot at me and my belief. And these personal attacks continue. The bias I see for their theories to be the only truth out there and anyone who would dare question it gets this kind of treatment. Let this thread be an example of how bias science really is by the way it's people react with immature answers and again personal attacks. They only believe what supports them and their cause. They attack all creation scientists with anything that might discredit them, whether true or not(it is mostly an opinion of another that has no fact to it). As I have said before, you can make your own discision, for even God gives us a choice. And I would rather have choices than what's being forced down my throat.

 

[notto]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html

Don't forget:

Calaveras Man
Meister Man
Moab Man
Malachite Man

All of these are great examples of what peer review and the scientific method can show. It can show the fakes and frauds from the real thing.

So, if we find one fake, does that mean that they all are? The interesting thing is that scientists are unanimous in recognizing that Piltdown was a hoax (and there are no sources that try to use it as evidence), meanwhile, creationist sites still use Paluxy and Burdick prints along with Moab man as evidence when these have been shown to be either fakes, or misinterpreted. What's up with that?

Scientists will continuously review the evidence and if it is determined that Lucy or others are fakes or that the evidence was interpreted incorrectly, they will come right out and say it (thats how fakes have been shown and exposed in the past, by the very "evolutionists" who supposedly are using bad evidence. This shows the objectivity of science.

Nothing shown here falsifies evolutionary theory or casts doubt on the overwelming evidence that is credible.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 08:37 AM notto said this in Post #2

All of these are great examples of what peer review and the scientific method can show. It can show the fakes and frauds from the real thing. 

The thing is, you have ***. Profs. who are making up to fifty or sixty thousand a year. They will raise the funds to go out and work all summer to get that big find that will not only make their sponsors happy, but will help them make a name for themselves so they can be secure in their big bucks job.

So what are they going to do if they do not come up with anything after putting all that work into it? It is like my sister in law says: "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story". Now, I do not agree with her, but she is vice president of a hospital and making more money then I will ever see.

Of course, my mansion is in Heaven. But some people are in a hurry and they want their mansion here and now. Also, as Christians, our work is never in vain. We always get a good return for our efforts. It is one of the areas that God blesses us in.

 

[Zadok001]

Off topic:

Took me a minute to figure out that JohnR7 WASN'T cursing, there.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Notto:
''So, if we find one fake, does that mean that they all are? ''


I dont think that one or two fakes hurt the whole cause.

But it is funny that everyone uses the religious fakes against Christianity,
like they speak for us all.

I would see a couple fakes as someone maybe being either overzealous or under pressure to produce.

Fakes are only part of evolutions problem

 

[Taffsadar]

Today at 04:29 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #5

But it is funny that everyone uses the religious fakes against Christianity,
like they speak for us all.

Actually we tell to put all the people who believe a word out of Hovinds mouth in one basket, one for the AIGers etc.

 

[Arikay]

Im still not sure where it says Lucy was a fake. and im not sure I would put too much weight into articles that like to add in their own bias by saying "or should we now refer to the creature as "Lucifer"?"

Which sounds funny and yet, just, stupid, at the same time.

 

[Melchior]

I would like to be the first to congradulate Ikester on the removal of that fake footprint as his avatar. Congrats on throwing away the false testiments to your God's creation by those who only wish to exploit you and your beliefs.

 

[euphoric]

Yesterday at 12:45 PM ikester7579 said this in Post #1

In the insistance of those from another thread, I start this one. Though I do not want to start an arguement, I know this subject will. So I name this one:

[move] Your decision, are the findings real? [/move]

Let's see what you've got.  I'll address them in sets of one or two.

Yesterday at 12:45 PM ikester7579 said this in Post #1

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23765


http://www.lifefellowship.org/-Updatables/Articles/58.html

These two are the exact same article (did you give these even a cursory read?  Posting two versions of the same article seems a bit strange).  It reads like a laundry list of reasons why scientists can't be trusted because some people have faked things.  Let's stick with the two examples you so adamantly insisted were fakes in the other thread, Lucy and Piltdown Man.  An entire FAQ is devoted to Piltdown man on TalkOrigins (boy we sure do a lousy job of keeping our hoaxes a secret), you can find it here:

Piltdown Man

Piltdown was a hoax.  We know it was a hoax because scientists (read that again, scientists, not YECs) investigated the claim and discovered the hoax by Dawson.  In fact, the reason that scientists became suspicious was because Piltdown didn't fit in with the other hominids that had been discovered.  This was a fraud perpetuated by one man and sniffed out by science, not YECs, scientists.

As for Mr. Perloff's claims about Lucy, he cites Solly Zuckerman's analysis.  Zuckerman made this argument in the 1950's (yes folks the 1950's) and he was defeated five decades ago.  Perloff trots this out like it's current news.  Yet another creeationist half-truth designed to deceive the faithful.  From this article:

Solly Zuckerman attempted to prove with biometrical studies (based on measurements) that the australopithecines were apes. Zuckerman lost this debate in the 1950's, and his position was abandoned by everyone else (Johanson and Edey 1981). Creationists like to quote his opinions as if they were still a scientifically acceptable viewpoint.

The same article also addresses the Oxnard argument:

Creationists often cite Oxnard's qualifications, and use of computers to perform his calculations, with approval. This is special pleading; many other scientists are equally qualified, and also use computers. Gish (1993) states that "[a] computer doesn't lie, [a] computer doesn't have a bias". True enough, but the results that come out of a computer are only as good as the data and assumptions that go in. In this case, the primary assumption would seem to be that Oxnard's methods are the best method of determining relationships. This seems doubtful, given some of the other unusual results of Oxnard's study (1987). For example, he places Ramapithecus as the ape closest to humans, and Sivapithecus as closely related to orang-utans, even though the two are so similar that they are now considered to be the same species of Sivapithecus.

So Mr. Perloff's arguments regarding these two particular topics are more than slightly disengenuous.  We can tackle the rest of his article at a later date if you like.

 

[euphoric]

Yesterday at 12:45 PM ikester7579 said this in Post #1

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-101.htm

ICR on Piltdown Man

At least Piltdown answers one often-asked question: "Can virtually all scientists be wrong about such an important matter as human origins?" The answer, most emphatically, is: "Yes, and it wouldn't be the first time." Over 500 doctoral dissertations were done on Piltdown, yet all this intense scientific scrutiny failed to expose the fake.

Intense scientific scrutiny is precisely what uncovered this hoax.  The implicit inference here is that scientists were taken in but the YECs were never fooled.  The truth is that the YECs simply dismiss all of the evidence and then wait until science debunks a fake or finds a new piece of evidence and then they jump out and yell “aha! Gotcha.”  They don’t do the work, they sit on the sidelines and whine until they finally get one or two right.  YEC scrutiny of evidence seems to occasionally benefit from the “even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut” phenomenon.  Other than that its powers of scrutiny are useless.
As for their analysis of Lucy, I won’t dismiss them entirely with a laugh even though they go on about the Paluxy Man Tracks.  Normally such foolishness would banish one to the land of the idiotic, but you went to the trouble to post a link, so I’ll address it.
Aside from a rehash of Oxnard, which I addressed in the Perloff article, ICR trots out the idea that Leakey’s definition of australopithecine would include modern chimpanzees.  They get this gem from a quote by Donald Johanson cited from a 1980 Science article.  The quote, as per standard YEC tactic is taken out of context.  The quote mining is discussed in this article that I posted earlier:

Creationist Arguments: Australopithecines

Yet another ICR attempt to take something a scientist says and torture it until its meaning has completely changed.  As the TalkOrigins article points out, Johanson’s critique of Leakey’s definition only makes sense if Australopithecines and chimps are different.

 

[euphoric]

Yesterday at 12:45 PM ikester7579 said this in Post #1

'http://www.csama.org/NWS1101.PDF

This one doesn’t say much it’s a Creationist newsletter in PDF format, so I admit to getting a bit bored trying to sift through it.  The mention of Piltdown is the same as the others.  It’s a hoax, big freakin’ surprise.  Science knows Piltdown is a hoax, they were the ones who discovered that fact.

Their take on Lucy is disjointed and a bit incoherent.  They display a picture from a National Geographic and make a big to do about the fact that her femur bone was found a mile away and 200 feet lower than the rest of the skeleton.  Johanson had multiple Australopithecine finds at the Hadar site, and my suspicion is that the newsletter is referencing bones from two different finds and implying that both were purported to be from Lucy.  I’ll have to look for more on this as it seems to be an extremely rare argument, and I find that it isn’t used elsewhere.

Yesterday at 12:45 PM ikester7579 said this in Post #1

http://fyi.cnn.com/2001/fyi/teachers.ednews/05/09/evolution.debate/index.html

http://fyi.cnn.com/2001/fyi/news/03/23/ancient.skull/

I’ll refrain from the “CNN an other major media are a terrible source for scientific info” argument and address these two together.  The first is an article that mentions frauds in general, but neither of the relevant ones.  It’s just the story of a 19-year old YEC trying to force the school board to swallow the same stuff he’s been fed.  If he wants them to fix errors, he’s absolutely right.  If he wants to use errors as an excuse to insert creationism or devalue the solid evidence for evolutionary theory, then he’s on very shaky ground.

The second article is about a recent find in Kenya that raises some questions about the path of human evolution.  Nowhere does this article even remotely suggest that Lucy is a fraud.  If Lucy turns out to be an evolutionary dead-end and not our direct ancestor, it has nothing to do with the validity of the Lucy find or evolutionary theory.

 

[euphoric]

Yesterday at 12:45 PM ikester7579 said this in Post #1
http://www.rae.org/lucy.html

This article actually confirms my earlier suspicion.  The knee joint referred to in the YEC newsletter was of a different specimen of the same species.  From your article:

To avoid any misunderstanding, it should be noted that the question was not how far away from Lucy her own knee joint was found, but rather how far away from Lucy was the knee joint found by Johanson the previous year. The discoveries and locations of both the original knee joint (1973) and Lucy (1974) are described in Donald C. Johanson and Maitland E. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (1981) and in the April 1982 issue of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Johanson argues that the original knee-joint is of the same species as Lucy [australopithecus afarensis] because of anatomical similarity, and points to it as one of several evidences to claim that these creatures walked upright.

The article appears to borrow extensively from Duane Gish’s argument about the degree to which australopithecines were adapted for arboreal locomotion.  Ironically, this is addressed in my previous link on TalkOrigins.

From Creationist Arguments: Australopithecines

Gish (1985) has a long discussion of the debate about Lucy's locomotion. He quotes extensively from Stern and Susman (1983), who list many apelike features of A. afarensis and argue that it spent a significant amount of time in the trees. As Gish admits, none of the scientists he mentions deny that Lucy was bipedal, but he goes on to suggest, with no evidence or support, that A. afarensis may have been no more bipedal than living apes, which are well adapted to quadrupedality and only walk on two legs for short distances. By contrast, the feet, knees, legs and pelvises of australopithecines are strongly adapted to bipedality. Gish's conclusion is strongly rejected by Stern and Susman, and, apparently, everyone else

It appears that Duane, and by association the Revolution Against Evolution folks, are trying to make an issue where there is none.  The sources they quote firmly concluded that the specimens were bipedal.

Yesterday at 12:45 PM ikester7579 said this in Post #1

There's a lot to read here. It is up to you to make your own decision. Some sites are christian some are not. Some are just plain interesting. I have not read them all, but will later. So post what you will with no personal attacks. Thank you.

To recap, Lucy is clearly not a fraud, despite unsubstantiated claims from YECs to the contrary.  As for Piltdown Man, any attempt by YECs to claim credit for its debunking is deceitful and the whole thing is a testament to the fact that science has no sacred cows.  If a piece of evidence doesn’t fit it will be scrutinized until the truth is discovered.  Scientists, real ones who do research and conduct experiments, are responsible for debunking hoaxes.  For YECs to try to use that effort to claim victory is pathetic and dishonest. 

-brett


 

 

[ikester7579]

Yesterday at 04:29 PM Melchior said this in Post #8

I would like to be the first to congradulate Ikester on the removal of that fake footprint as his avatar. Congrats on throwing away the false testiments to your God's creation by those who only wish to exploit you and your beliefs.

Ah yes, I was wondering who would be the first to notice LOL. I have the right to believe what I want in a free country. To make snide remarks is not very becoming. And as I ask those who post here no personal attacks. Lets see if this thread can stay civil. I think if we respect one another we can better understand. Instead of letting anger or hate get in the way. Don't you agree?

 

[Cantuar]

Here's some information about that knee bone and the way creationists are still insisting that part of Lucy was found miles away, despite attempts to get them to correct their statements:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

A letter from Don Johanson setting the record straight about what he found where:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint/johanson1.html

Interesting that creationist sites are still saying that he found part of Lucy miles away even though he's explicitly stated that he didn't.

Another letter:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint/johanson2.html

What was that about not bearing false witness?

 

[ikester7579]

Today at 12:42 AM euphoric said this in Post #9



Let's see what you've got.  I'll address them in sets of one or two.



These two are the exact same article (did you give these even a cursory read?  Posting two versions of the same article seems a bit strange).  It reads like a laundry list of reasons why scientists can't be trusted because some people have faked things.  Let's stick with the two examples you so adamantly insisted were fakes in the other thread, Lucy and Piltdown Man.  An entire FAQ is devoted to Piltdown man on TalkOrigins (boy we sure do a lousy job of keeping our hoaxes a secret), you can find it here:

Piltdown Man

Yep, I found one link that talk about the article and another that was the article and was in more detail. I listed both so the reader could get a better idea an a opinion of someone that was refering.

And no I do not believe that because somethings have been faked that all are faked. I posted these links to show that science is falible also. I'm sure that the reason it took so long for them to admit to these mistakes is because of the problems that arise from such an act. And I believe that the people who constructed the hoax should no longer be trusted.

And then there's talk origins. The famous "let's debunk your local christain forum". Any forum that promotes so much hate and bias toward one subject, belief or person, I do not trust. Bias always clouds the mind of good and fair judgement of anything.

Piltdown was a hoax.  We know it was a hoax because scientists (read that again, scientists, not YECs) investigated the claim and discovered the hoax by Dawson.  In fact, the reason that scientists became suspicious was because Piltdown didn't fit in with the other hominids that had been discovered.  This was a fraud perpetuated by one man and sniffed out by science, not YECs, scientists.

Really! I seem to remember that it took several complaints about the evidence by those on both sides to get it look into.

As for Mr. Perloff's claims about Lucy, he cites Solly Zuckerman's analysis.  Zuckerman made this argument in the 1950's (yes folks the 1950's) and he was defeated five decades ago.  Perloff trots this out like it's current news.  Yet another creeationist half-truth designed to deceive the faithful.  From this article:



The same article also addresses the Oxnard argument:



So Mr. Perloff's arguments regarding these two particular topics are more than slightly disengenuous.  We can tackle the rest of his article at a later date if you like.

I do not know anything about Mr.Perloff. Searching for stuff I ran accross his article and posted it, that's all.

 

[ikester7579]

Yesterday at 11:29 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #5

Notto:
''So, if we find one fake, does that mean that they all are? ''


I dont think that one or two fakes hurt the whole cause.

But it is funny that everyone uses the religious fakes against Christianity,
like they speak for us all.

I would see a couple fakes as someone maybe being either overzealous or under pressure to produce.

Fakes are only part of evolutions problem

Yep, I agree. It is as if it's okay for science to make mistakes or be proven wrong or change a law because of new findings. It's called adapting. But for creationists? It's called ****g. Double standards.

 

[ikester7579]

Yesterday at 04:20 PM Arikay said this in Post #7

Im still not sure where it says Lucy was a fake. and im not sure I would put too much weight into articles that like to add in their own bias by saying "or should we now refer to the creature as "Lucifer"?"

Which sounds funny and yet, just, stupid, at the same time.

Ditto! Just like talk origins.

 

[ikester7579]

Today at 12:51 AM euphoric said this in Post #10



ICR on Piltdown Man



Intense scientific scrutiny is precisely what uncovered this hoax.  The implicit inference here is that scientists were taken in but the YECs were never fooled.  The truth is that the YECs simply dismiss all of the evidence and then wait until science debunks a fake or finds a new piece of evidence and then they jump out and yell “aha! Gotcha.”  They don’t do the work, they sit on the sidelines and whine until they finally get one or two right.  YEC scrutiny of evidence seems to occasionally benefit from the “even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut” phenomenon.  Other than that its powers of scrutiny are useless.

Because creationist(YEC) do not have the resources that evolutionist have to rely on. You would think that with all the resources they do have that more tests would be done to disprove the existance of God instead of resorting to personal opinions and personal attacks of those who even dare to differ.

As for their analysis of Lucy, I won’t dismiss them entirely with a laugh even though they go on about the Paluxy Man Tracks.  Normally such foolishness would banish one to the land of the idiotic, but you went to the trouble to post a link, so I’ll address it.

I can see that personal attacks are a trade mark at this forum. I tried to start this thread and run it this time without going accross the line. But as usual it starts by attacking one man and calling him an idiot, which means all that believe there may be some truth to it are idiots too.

Aside from a rehash of Oxnard, which I addressed in the Perloff article, ICR trots out the idea that Leakey’s definition of australopithecine would include modern chimpanzees.  They get this gem from a quote by Donald Johanson cited from a 1980 Science article.  The quote, as per standard YEC tactic is taken out of context.  The quote mining is discussed in this article that I posted earlier:

Creationist Arguments: Australopithecines

Yet another ICR attempt to take something a scientist says and torture it until its meaning has completely changed.  As the TalkOrigins article points out, Johanson’s critique of Leakey’s definition only makes sense if Australopithecines and chimps are different.

 

[euphoric]

Today at 06:28 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #15

Yep, I found one link that talk about the article and another that was the article and was in more detail. I listed both so the reader could get a better idea an a opinion of someone that was refering.

 

It isn't that important other than to confirm my suspicion that when you posted the links you didn't really read the article.  Both sources appear to be the exact same article, not a summary and a detail, but the exact same verbatim.  The lone difference being that the second source has apparently not discovered the paragraph.

Today at 06:28 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #15

And no I do not believe that because somethings have been faked that all are faked. I posted these links to show that science is falible also. I'm sure that the reason it took so long for them to admit to these mistakes is because of the problems that arise from such an act. And I believe that the people who constructed the hoax should no longer be trusted.

No one is arguing that science isn't fallible.  It is.  Constructing a hoax in science is a one-way ticket to the immediate end of your career.  Not to mention mountains of scorn from your colleagues and you can bet anyone caught is unlikely to garner a shred of trust in the future.

Today at 06:28 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #15

And then there's talk origins. The famous "let's debunk your local christain forum". Any forum that promotes so much hate and bias toward one subject, belief or person, I do not trust. Bias always clouds the mind of good and fair judgement of anything.

TalkOrigins goes to the trouble to link to creationist rebuttals of its articles.  The site is designed to present the view of mainstream science, but it is about as fair as it can be.  Find me a creationist site that links to rebuttals of its articles.  I don't recall AIG or ICR ever doing anything like that.  Perhaps they have, but I doubt it.

Today at 06:28 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #15

Really! I seem to remember that it took several complaints about the evidence by those on both sides to get it look into.

You remember this from what, your memory of the first half of the 20th century.  Or did you have a source for the idea that YEC complaints had anything to do with the investigation of Piltdown Man.  As I said before, YECs complain incessantly about every find.  They're bound to be right eventually.  Hardly gives them much credibility though.

-brett

 

[euphoric]

Today at 06:53 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #18
Because creationist(YEC) do not have the resources that evolutionist have to rely on. You would think that with all the resources they do have that more tests would be done to disprove the existance of God instead of resorting to personal opinions and personal attacks of those who even dare to differ.

 

They don't have the money?  What in the world are they doing with all that cash people are sending them?  It isn't that they don't have the money.  It's that they don't try.

Today at 06:53 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #18
I can see that personal attacks are a trade mark at this forum. I tried to start this thread and run it this time without going accross the line. But as usual it starts by attacking one man and calling him an idiot, which means all that believe there may be some truth to it are idiots too.

I wasn't calling you an idiot, or Gish for that matter(though it's tempting).  I said the Paluxy argument is idiocy, and it is.  I'm not making a personal attack, but come on, the Paluxy thing ranks up there with moon dust.

-brett