Young Earth Creationist dynamics.

[Zaius137]

Did you get the wrong link? Try this one: Eight-million-year-old bug is alive and growing
Eight-million-year-old bug is alive and growing - environment - 07 August 2007 - New Scientist

Quite possible… thanks.

 

[Valkhorn]

Well Dave I would like to mention a bit about the polymorphic aspects of the human genome that actually predicts a huge bottle neck of the human race happened. We creationists (Theists) knew this for several thousand years as Noah’s flood and just now science can actually see it in our genomes. That fairytale story of small populations over hundreds of thousands of years then mass extinction and then exponential population growth is not just nonsense but mathematically untenable. The out of Africa story 40,000 years ago is just that, a story.

I guess all that fossil evidence is a conspiracy? Were the fossils planted by satan?

The Smithsonian had a wonderful exhibit over the summer about hominid evolution and how we migrated out of Africa. They had plenty of fossils there - and no they weren't fabricated.

I guess you'd rather just ignore any evidence that doesn't agree with your foregone conclusion.

 

[Zaius137]

I guess all that fossil evidence is a conspiracy? Were the fossils planted by satan?

The Smithsonian had a wonderful exhibit over the summer about hominid evolution and how we migrated out of Africa. They had plenty of fossils there - and no they weren't fabricated.

I guess you'd rather just ignore any evidence that doesn't agree with your foregone conclusion.

• "None of five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilised organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another."
  (Luther Sunderland, science researcher)

• "The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self- important animal - ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. Hence the amazing quantity of literature on the subject ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."
  (John Reader, Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus? New Scientist Vol. 89, No.12446 (March 26,1981) pp 802-805))

Evolution is untenable.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

• "None of five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilised organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another."
  (Luther Sunderland, science researcher)

Don't get me wrong, Luther Sunderland is, I'm sure, a genius. He was an aerospace engineer, and for twenty years he developed an avocation of studying creationism. I'm sure that he was also a good human being. Still, being smart and a good person doesn't mean that you can't also be wrong. Sunderland was an aerospace engineer who happened to be a creationist, but most of his high level knowledge about biology would have come through creationist channels. His statement is incorrect; there are several examples of transitional fossils, including the famous feathered dinosaurs and archaeopteryx. One of the areas with the most transitional fossils, interestingly, is the area between lower primates and modern humans, but I'll get to that in a second.

• "The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self- important animal - ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. Hence the amazing quantity of literature on the subject ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."
  (John Reader, Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus? New Scientist Vol. 89, No.12446 (March 26,1981) pp 802-805))

The difficulty with using this quote in an attempt to disprove evolution is that, regardless of how it may sound separated from its context, John Reader did believe that evolution was an explanation for human life (whether he is an atheist, a Christian, or some other religion, I have no idea). His statements were more of an attack on tendencies among scientists to sensationalize all findings of human evolutionary fossils. If asked, I'm sure that John Reader would agree that most human evolution fossils are legitimate and reflect real stages in human evolution. He's probably very knowledgeable about which ones mean what based on their anatomical structure.

Going back to the idea of transitional fossils, we have a relatively large number of fossils linking humanity back to lower primates. While Reader may be correct in saying that they are largely fragmentary and that there are only a small number of fossils (at least for the earliest stages), we are able to reconstruct the organisms that those fossils belong to (I hate to say "animals", since some of the later organisms like H. erectus were probably people in the Biblical sense). They form a fairly complete line from proconsuls down to the ardipithecenes, then to australopithicenes (sorry if I botched the spelling) and finally to hominids, where the number of fossil species is high enough that we actually have a relatively large tree.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Evolution is untenable.

Have you seen the adult female and young male fossils of A. sediba?

 

[Valkhorn]

Evolution is untenable.

Actually this is untrue. If any scientist had any real evidence against evolution they would become famous pretty much overnight.

The reason they don't is pretty clear - they don't have any evidence against it and the best they can come up with is a quote mine, an argument from ignorance, an argument from incredulity, or creationism.

I think we can pretty much nip this whole conversation in the bud by asking any creationist what evidence could falsify a 6,000 year old Earth. If you can't answer this, then it's your position that is untenable, and not evolution.

 

[CabVet]

• "None of five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilised organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another."
  (Luther Sunderland, science researcher)

This guy wouldn't see a transitional fossil if it was dropped on this head:

LUTHER D. SUNDERLAND, B.S. (Penn State University), an aerospace engineer with the General Electric Company, was involved for 30 years with the research and development of automatic flight control systems (autopilots) for a number of aircraft such as the F-111, Boeing 757 and 767.

But since you like him so much, perhaps you should start using one of his other quotes in other threads around here:

"Do not talk about a flood because there is no way a single world flood can be derived from scientific evidence alone." (Luther Sunderland, science researcher)

• "The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self- important animal - ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. Hence the amazing quantity of literature on the subject ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."
  (John Reader, Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus? New Scientist Vol. 89, No.12446 (March 26,1981) pp 802-805))

Evolution is untenable.

Misquote much? Have you read the article by John Reader or just copied this quote from a creationist website? Do you enjoy presenting false information? If you read the entire article, it is clear that Reader was not saying that all fossil hominids have been debunked; he is referring only to their claimed status as the oldest evidence of human evolution. In fact, Reader's article explicitly says that H. erectus is still considered to be a human ancestor.

 

[Jazer]

I guess you'd rather just ignore any evidence that doesn't agree with your foregone conclusion.

We do not ignore evidence. WE just do not have any regard for YOUR opinions that are based on fossil evidence. Because science does not agree on who is who and what is what. They argue among themselves all the time and can not tell you the difference between a monkey and a man. Or in some cases they do not seem to be able to know the difference between a man and a pig. Do we need to visit the Hall of Shame for Evolution Fraud and Deceit to take a look at the Nebraska Man: the Pig-tooth Man.

 

[verysincere]

We do not ignore evidence.

Really? Are you sure about that?

I was a "creation science" speaker/writer/debater for a major portion of my life. Sadly, even before the Young Earth Creationists turned ignoring the evidence into an art form, my colleagues and I were unknowingly guilty of ignoring the evidence most of the time. But as the evidence piled higher, pretending that it wasn't there got much harder. Eventually I had to listen to my conscience and start investigating ALL of the evidence. (And I stopped restricting myself to reading only those "creation scientists" who agreed with me.)

However, in my day (1960's and early 1970's) our ignorance was largely sincere and honest. Dishonest quote-mining, blatant misuse of the evidence, straw-man concoctions, and what critics today call "Lying for Jesus" didn't become prominent in the American "creation science" movement until the mega-ministries and Young Earth Creationist industry emerged prominently in the 1990's. And if you will research the matter, that growing "crisis of conscience" of those days led to a great many of those of us with academic credentials and faculty tenure leaving the YEC camp.

Indeed, in the old days we had to spend a lot of time at a well-equipped university library to investigate the dishonest quote-mining and abuse of evidence (and outright denial of evidence) by Duane Gish, Henry Morris, John Whitcomb et al but as the Internet grew in importance, scholarly resources and counter-arguments became accessible to anyone willing to read it. So I'm not trying to make excuses for us who promoted "creation science" pseudo-science (and very poor Biblical exegesis) back in those early days. But at least it didn't involve the kinds of blatant denial and brazen myopia [I'm trying to be kind] that the creation science industry promotes today. (At least we were honestly ill-informed. To a large degree we were simply gullible and assumed that Gish, Morris, Whitcomb and other early pioneers were being honest with us. But as my own involvement as a speaker/debater took me into the "inner circle" of the movement spawned by The Genesis Flood and other early titles, the ethical implications became as troubling as the pseudo-science and poor Biblical scholarship.)

WE just do not have any regard for YOUR opinions that are based on fossil evidence.

Yes, you (and the corporate "we") have little regard for the evidence at all.

Because science does not agree on who is who and what is what.

And this criticism is coming from a "creation science" community where the self-appointed "experts" argue among themselves and fail to reach consensus on even the basics! For example, how many of the YEC ministries continue to trumpet the Paluxy River tracks as "human footprints among dinosaur footprints" while the slightly better "creation science" publishers beg their followers to abandon such long-ago debunked arguments. And are you ignorant of Malachite Man,the Calaveras Skull, Moabite Man, and countless other YEC hoaxes which continue to be promoted in "creation science" literature despite having been exposed as frauds and abused evidence long ago? (I personally enjoy the bogus creation science propaganda about Piltdown Man. Paleontologists never fully embraced Piltdown Man because the "discoverers" refused to turn over all of their data and specimens for general investigation by the peer-review community. So the field of paleontology progressed even as Piltdown Man was generally ignored outside of die-hard British "loyalists". Scientists eventually debunked the "find" entirely. Not so in the "creation science" community where wrong information is rarely abandoned and the aforementioned frauds are paraded before the faithful decades later. If you don't believe me, spend some time at the book tables in the lobby outside of any conference or church where Ken Ham, Jason Lisle, Duane Gish, or any of their friends are speaking. Oh, I have removed Kent Hovind from my list of offenders because he is still serving out his sentence in federal prison for some 60 counts of criminal fraud. Hovind was just about as honest with the millions of dollars he was raking in from gullible Young Earth Creationists as he was with the scientific evidence. Hovind was as phoney and fact-less as his diploma-mill doctorate, although he is hardly alone among the "instant-Ph.D." crowd in the creation science industry. Need I list some of the prominent names guilty of that fraud?)

They [scientists] argue among themselves all the time

Exactly! That is how science is supposed to work!

Nobody gets a free ride "just because I say so" when defending their evidence and hypotheses. The "creation science" industry could learn from this. Instead, their biggest arguments become public in the courtroom where they litigate against one another for YEC marketshare. Would you like to comment on that topic? Or do you ignore that evidence as well? Ever wonder why a number of "creation science ministries" have lawyers on retainer? Several of the more infamous attorney cease-and-desist letters against other Christian "origins ministries" are available online.)

...and can not tell you the difference between a monkey and a man.

Really? Can you tell us the difference? We await your wisdom on that topic.

Or in some cases they do not seem to be able to know the difference between a man and a pig.

Ditto. Why don't you go ahead and educate them (and us) on those differences? What are they missing, exactly?

And what exactly were your scholarly credentials again? Have you published your evidence and analysis so that your peers in the scientific community can learn from your expertise?

 

[verysincere]

"None of five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilised organisms..."

Yes, it is very hard to find museum janitors, ticket-takers, and concession stand workers who really know their evolutionary biology. I'll concede that. However, if you want huge catalogs and compilations of "transitional fossil forms", you'll find plenty of them online. One of the most accessible for the average layperson appears at the TalkOrigins website.

"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table..." --- New Scientist Vol. 89, No.12446 (March 26,1981) pp 802-805))

1) An amateur assessment from 31 years ago hardly is an honest accounting of the enormous volume of hominid fossil finds since that time.

2) I should hope that you would realize that New Scientist has become the science equivalent of The National Inquirer. A number of boycotts of the magazine by the scientific community have called it "a real threat to the public understanding of science". For example, its publication of articles by non-scientists promoting the equivalent of perpetual motion machines without any serious critique by the editors destroyed the periodical's credibility years ago.

Evolution is untenable.

I admit that I've not been following the news much lately. That headline escaped my notice. Details? Which peer-reviewed journals of biology have announced this conclusion?

(Or is this something you came up with on your own? Have you submitted your evidence for publication?)

 

[CaliforniaSun]

We do not ignore evidence. WE just do not have any regard for YOUR opinions that are based on fossil evidence. Because science does not agree on who is who and what is what. They argue among themselves all the time and can not tell you the difference between a monkey and a man. Or in some cases they do not seem to be able to know the difference between a man and a pig. Do we need to visit the Hall of Shame for Evolution Fraud and Deceit to take a look at the Nebraska Man: the Pig-tooth Man.

Have you seen the A. sediba fossils? What category would you put them in, monkey or man??

 

[Valkhorn]

We do not ignore evidence. WE just do not have any regard for YOUR opinions that are based on fossil evidence. Because science does not agree on who is who and what is what. They argue among themselves all the time and can not tell you the difference between a monkey and a man. Or in some cases they do not seem to be able to know the difference between a man and a pig. Do we need to visit the Hall of Shame for Evolution Fraud and Deceit to take a look at the Nebraska Man: the Pig-tooth Man.

If there is a 'hall of shame' for evolution, then there is an entire annex devoted to the hall of shame for creationism. How many times have you gotten it dead wrong or continue to get it dead wrong?

Let me ask you what I asked Zaius - what would show creationism to be wrong? What would show that there never was a global flood and that the earth is far greater than 6,000 years old?

If you cannot answer those questions, then your positions are dogmatic and you won't ever change your mind anyway - no matter how much evidence is shown. So, will you answer those questions or not?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

If there is a 'hall of shame' for evolution, then there is an entire annex devoted to the hall of shame for creationism. How many times have you gotten it dead wrong or continue to get it dead wrong?

Let me ask you what I asked Zaius - what would show creationism to be wrong? What would show that there never was a global flood and that the earth is far greater than 6,000 years old?

If you cannot answer those questions, then your positions are dogmatic and you won't ever change your mind anyway - no matter how much evidence is shown. So, will you answer those questions or not?

Yeah, I agree. It's fun to debate and laugh at each others postions (e.g. lololo creationism is so stupid.... lololo we didn' come from no monkey), but at the end of the day, it comes down to this, cdesign proponentsists, what evidence would change your mind about yec'ism?

If you cannot provide an answer, then what's the point? Really?? You've chosen a position because of your beliefs, and nothing will change your mind.

 

[Zaius137]

Have you seen the adult female and young male fossils of A. sediba?

Long arms small brain size… this is a fossilized ape… great find. If you can believe this ape can morph into a human in two million years… God bless you.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Long arms small brain size… this is a fossilized ape… great find. If you can believe this ape can morph into a human in two million years… God bless you.

How do you know it's an ape? It has a larger brain than A. africanus, but not as big as H. erectus. If you fail to see how this is transitional... then god help you.

 

[Jazer]

Have you seen the A. sediba fossils? What category would you put them in, monkey or man??

I am a GAP so we do not put anyone in any category. I only talk about what took place AFTER the Holocene extinction. You need to talk to an OEC. We use to talk about Lucy because she is so famous and because they try to take a monkey and make it look like it's walking upright like people do. But that discussion really never goes anywhere.

 

[NailsII]

Sometimes I wonder how young-earth creationism would have survived if we had found a living population of one of our closest ancestors, like H. sapiens neanderthalis or even H. ergaster.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

I am a GAP so we do not put anyone in any category. I only talk about what took place AFTER the Holocene extinction. You need to talk to an OEC. We use to talk about Lucy because she is so famous and because they try to take a monkey and make it look like it's walking upright like people do. But that discussion really never goes anywhere.

pssssst... Lucy was bipedal.

 

[NailsII]

pssssst... Lucy was bipedal.

And that's a fact.

 

[CabVet]

Long arms small brain size… this is a fossilized ape… great find. If you can believe this ape can morph into a human in two million years… God bless you.

Didn't really answer the question, did you?