Young-Earth Creationist input only, please...

[filly]

How can the hominids be explained when holding to a literal, 6-day creation? I'm not attacking...I am genuinely seeking others' input and explanations.

 

[Jason19]

Hi, if my memory serves correctly, "hominids" referes to certain stages of supposed evolutionary beings that are ancestrail to Man?
If that is correct, and i believe it it....or I may go down like afool! haha
then I can tell you what i have heard and what i have read.
Have you ever noticed that everything you ever ever see reguarding these creatures....are drawings...or computer simulated? You never ever see a skull that looks so much different then what we have....and if you do....its not real, but a cast of an original...that can be tampered with.
And when they do show a skull...like I said, its never that different that what is on our own necks today, I have seen people ..e.very day ordinary people with heads like what they show..big, small, fat, wide....but for those really different ones ...notice how the jaw or some peice is never actually connected to the skull.
Also, did you know that human brow ridges never stop growing? people in the early earth lived to nearly a thousand years old....tons of them wiped out in the flood...and boom, you would find skulls with large eyebrow ridges.
All this to say, so many things of evolution that are taught as solid fact, are based on assumptions and hopeful info.
A good book to check out would be "Bones of Contention" by Marvin L. Lubenow. I highly suggest this book.

 

[shernren]

Well, if you're a YEC, then hominids are simply animals God created which went extinct shortly after the Flood.

 

[filly]

Hi, if my memory serves correctly, "hominids" referes to certain stages of supposed evolutionary beings that are ancestrail to Man?
If that is correct, and i believe it it....or I may go down like afool! haha
then I can tell you what i have heard and what i have read.
Have you ever noticed that everything you ever ever see reguarding these creatures....are drawings...or computer simulated? You never ever see a skull that looks so much different then what we have....and if you do....its not real, but a cast of an original...that can be tampered with.
And when they do show a skull...like I said, its never that different that what is on our own necks today, I have seen people ..e.very day ordinary people with heads like what they show..big, small, fat, wide....but for those really different ones ...notice how the jaw or some peice is never actually connected to the skull.
Also, did you know that human brow ridges never stop growing? people in the early earth lived to nearly a thousand years old....tons of them wiped out in the flood...and boom, you would find skulls with large eyebrow ridges.
All this to say, so many things of evolution that are taught as solid fact, are based on assumptions and hopeful info.
A good book to check out would be "Bones of Contention" by Marvin L. Lubenow. I highly suggest this book.

Check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

I don't know...some look pretty complete to me. I don't want to believe in Theistic Evolution, as I simply don't see why God would choose to evolve us. But how do we go about giving a logical explanation?

 

[Numenor]

I don't want to believe in Theistic Evolution, as I simply don't see why God would choose to evolve us

Which begs the question of course...why wouldn't he?

 

[Remus]

Check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

I've often wondered what we're supposed to get from this picture. The skulls seem to be arranged to show the similarities based on time and this showing how small changes can account for each. The problem is the order isn't right. For example, Homo erectus (G) and Home ergaster (H) are out of order. Unless current theory has changed (again), erectus is supposed to have descended from ergaster. Why would these two skulls be reversed in the picture?

Also, Homo sapiens sapiens are not believed to have descended from Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. That means that you should take J, K, and L out of the line. This goes for homo Habilis (D and E) and Homo erectus (G) as well. None of these are believed to be in the line of descent.

So, if you wanted to take this picture and trace the line of descent, you would have to go something like this:
(B & C), F, H, I, M

If you arrange them in this fashion, the skulls are not compelling… at least in my opinion.

 

[filly]

I've often wondered what we're supposed to get from this picture. The skulls seem to be arranged to show the similarities based on time and this showing how small changes can account for each. The problem is the order isn't right. For example, Homo erectus (G) and Home ergaster (H) are out of order. Unless current theory has changed (again), erectus is supposed to have descended from ergaster. Why would these two skulls be reversed in the picture?

Also, Homo sapiens sapiens are not believed to have descended from Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. That means that you should take J, K, and L out of the line. This goes for homo Habilis (D and E) and Homo erectus (G) as well. None of these are believed to be in the line of descent.

So, if you wanted to take this picture and trace the line of descent, you would have to go something like this:
(B & C), F, H, I, M

If you arrange them in this fashion, the skulls are not compelling… at least in my opinion.

OK, regardless of whether these skulls are in the right order or not, they still exist and are found at a greater depth than human fossils. They are bipedal creatures. They are human-like, but not human. Is the non-evolutionist point of view that these are simply separate creations just like a kangaroo, panda, and a mosquito? If so, props to God for confusing me and causing me faith-endangering doubt for years.

 

[Remus]

OK, regardless of whether these skulls are in the right order or not

Actually, this is a very important issue. It shows that some of the "evidence" that is out there isn't always what it appears. If you look into it more, you'll find that what Jason was saying about many of the skulls being incomplete is accurate. Just because this picture looks like they are complete does not mean that is what they found. Here's a link to the Smithsonian's site (where that pic originated) that lists the specimens that they have to work with.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/catalog.htm
Also:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
This is the "Human Family Tree" on their site. Be sure to read about each one and note the areas that are where there things aren't clear, debated, or recently changed.

, they still exist and are found at a greater depth than human fossils.

Are they? What if they are human fossils? How is this "greater depth" measured?

They are bipedal creatures. They are human-like, but not human. Is the non-evolutionist point of view that these are simply separate creations just like a kangaroo, panda, and a mosquito?

I believe that some of them are human and others are not. Of course I can't say for sure which ones are and are not, but then, neither can anyone else. What can be done is guess based on what little we know right now. This is what happens and why these things often change (which you can read about at the link above). That’s the nature of science though.

If so, props to God for confusing me and causing me faith-endangering doubt for years.

I'll pray for your faith brother. I can understand where you are coming from. I would caution you to not take everything you read at face value. As I pointed out before, things are not always what they seem or what someone tells you.

 

[filly]

Actually, this is a very important issue. It shows that some of the "evidence" that is out there isn't always what it appears. If you look into it more, you'll find that what Jason was saying about many of the skulls being incomplete is accurate. Just because this picture looks like they are complete does not mean that is what they found. Here's a link to the Smithsonian's site (where that pic originated) that lists the specimens that they have to work with.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/catalog.htm
Also:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
This is the "Human Family Tree" on their site. Be sure to read about each one and note the areas that are where there things aren't clear, debated, or recently changed.


Are they? What if they are human fossils? How is this "greater depth" measured?


I believe that some of them are human and others are not. Of course I can't say for sure which ones are and are not, but then, neither can anyone else. What can be done is guess based on what little we know right now. This is what happens and why these things often change (which you can read about at the link above). That’s the nature of science though.

I'll pray for your faith brother. I can understand where you are coming from. I would caution you to not take everything you read at face value. As I pointed out before, things are not always what they seem or what someone tells you.

Remus,

Thanks so far for the informative replies. So, what do you make of the Smithsonian's pages? Essentially, do you believe the dates are wrong and they should all indicate about 6,000 years old? If so, then why do most of the skulls look very different from our own? From a YEC view, these would have to be apes, correct?

Again, I am not overly concerned with whether the exact lineage is portrayed in a family tree. OK, so there's unknowns or debates. To me, that is pretty irrelevant. What matters is that these skulls are there...and they don't look like you and I. Moreover, they don't look like today's apes, either. They fit in between. So, again, what are they? Separate creations by God, or creatures evolved over time?

 

[mark kennedy]

How can the hominids be explained when holding to a literal, 6-day creation? I'm not attacking...I am genuinely seeking others' input and explanations.

I explain the Hominids as paleontologists seeing what they want to see. One of the biggest scandles in science has been over the fraud commited by scientists who alter evidence to conform to what they wanted to find. For 40 years the debacle went unnoticed by all but a few scientists who eventually found that evidence for Piltdown Man had been altered to suit their expectations.

The evidence was there the entire time. Any researcher could have looked at the teeth with a microscope and noticed an artificial wear pattern, or the fact that one tooth had a coat of paint on it. But why didn't anyone recognize this forgery? One reason is that beacause Piltdown affirmed many scientists' hypotheses, they were reluctant to put it under scientific scrutiny that might have proved it wrong. Museums prominently displayed casts of Piltdown as scientific fact. Ales Hrdlicka, a leading anthropologist here at the Smithsonian, was one of the few scientists to question whether the jaw and cranium went together. But even here in our museum there was an exhibit on display: "Evolution of the Bony Chin" -- from chimpanzee through Piltdown Man to modern humans! -- see to the right. The Piltdown mandible is the second from the top. Many researchers not associated with the forgery simply saw what they wanted to see in Piltdown. Publications on the "ape-like qualities" of the cranium of Piltdown were not uncommon, and these were authored by trained anatomists looking at a fully modern human cranium.​

The Piltdown Man Scandle

Earlier they discuss the Peking Man (Homo erectus) where 40 individules were found.

"Cranial capacities of Homo erectus average around 1000cc, which is far greater than earlier australopiths and even early Homo. The dentition of Homo erectus is nearly identical to modern humans, although the cheek teeth do remain larger, and the mandible is generally more robust. "​

homo erectus

The fossils they show are just skull caps and they think it's about 1,000 cc. The reconstruction shows a protruding (ape like) face. They base this on a skull cap and I am far from trusting of paleontologists for this kind of thing.

Ronald Clarke finds a hominid foot in a box of monkey bones and half a shin bone. This box had been put there 16 years previously. So he decides he wants his African assistants to go look for the other half, I'm not putting you on, this comes straight from the leading Darwinian of our day.

"Bits of Little Foots left foot were dug up from Sterkfontein in 1978, but the bones were stored away, unremarked and unlebelled, until 1994 when the paleontologist Ronald Clarke, working under the direction of Phillip Tobias, accidentially rediscovered them in a box in the she used by workers at the Sterkfontein cave. Three years later, Clarke chanced upon another box of bones from Sterkfontein, in a stree room at Witwatersrand University. This box was labelled ‘Cercopithecoids’. Clarke had an interst in this kind of monkey, so he looked in the box and was delighted to notice a hominid foot bone in amongst the monkey bones several foot and leg bones in the box seemed to match the bones found in the Sterkfontein shed. One was half a right shinebone, broken across. Clarke gave a cast of the shinbone to two African assistants, Nkawne Molefe and Stephen Motsumi, and asked them to return to Sterkfontein and look for the other half.

The task I had set them was like looking for a needle in a haystack as the rotto is an enormous, deep dark cavern with breccia exposed on the walls, floor and ceiling. After two days of searching with the aid of hand-held lamps, they found it on 3 July 1997.

Molefe and Motsumi’s jigsaw feat was the more astonishing because the bone that fitted their cast was

At he opposite end to where we had previously excavated. The fit was perfect, despite the boine having been blasted apart by lime workers 65 or more years previously. To the left of the exposed end of the right tibia could be seen the section of the broken-off shaft of the lift fibula. From their postitions with the lower limbs in the correct anatomical relationship, it seemed that the whole skeleton had to be there, lying face downwards.

Actually, it wasn’t quite there but, after pondering the geological colapses in the area, Clarke deduced where it must be and, sure enough, Motsumi’s chisel found it there. Clarke and his team wre indeed lucky but here we have a first-class example of that maxim of scientists since Louis Pasteur: Fortune favours the prepared mind.​

(Richard Dawkins, The Ancestors Tale)

How do I explain the Hominids, it's paleontologists seeing what they want to see, plain and simple.

 

[filly]

I explain the Hominids as paleontologists seeing what they want to see. One of the biggest scandles in science has been over the fraud commited by scientists who alter evidence to conform to what they wanted to find. For 40 years the debacle went unnoticed by all but a few scientists who eventually found that evidence for Piltdown Man had been altered to suit their expectations.

The evidence was there the entire time. Any researcher could have looked at the teeth with a microscope and noticed an artificial wear pattern, or the fact that one tooth had a coat of paint on it. But why didn't anyone recognize this forgery? One reason is that beacause Piltdown affirmed many scientists' hypotheses, they were reluctant to put it under scientific scrutiny that might have proved it wrong. Museums prominently displayed casts of Piltdown as scientific fact. Ales Hrdlicka, a leading anthropologist here at the Smithsonian, was one of the few scientists to question whether the jaw and cranium went together. But even here in our museum there was an exhibit on display: "Evolution of the Bony Chin" -- from chimpanzee through Piltdown Man to modern humans! -- see to the right. The Piltdown mandible is the second from the top. Many researchers not associated with the forgery simply saw what they wanted to see in Piltdown. Publications on the "ape-like qualities" of the cranium of Piltdown were not uncommon, and these were authored by trained anatomists looking at a fully modern human cranium.​

The Piltdown Man Scandle

Earlier they discuss the Peking Man (Homo erectus) where 40 individules were found.

"Cranial capacities of Homo erectus average around 1000cc, which is far greater than earlier australopiths and even early Homo. The dentition of Homo erectus is nearly identical to modern humans, although the cheek teeth do remain larger, and the mandible is generally more robust. "​

homo erectus

The fossils they show are just skull caps and they think it's about 1,000 cc. The reconstruction shows a protruding (ape like) face. They base this on a skull cap and I am far from trusting of paleontologists for this kind of thing.

Ronald Clarke finds a hominid foot in a box of monkey bones and half a shin bone. This box had been put there 16 years previously. So he decides he wants his African assistants to go look for the other half, I'm not putting you on, this comes straight from the leading Darwinian of our day.

"Bits of Little Foots left foot were dug up from Sterkfontein in 1978, but the bones were stored away, unremarked and unlebelled, until 1994 when the paleontologist Ronald Clarke, working under the direction of Phillip Tobias, accidentially rediscovered them in a box in the she used by workers at the Sterkfontein cave. Three years later, Clarke chanced upon another box of bones from Sterkfontein, in a stree room at Witwatersrand University. This box was labelled ‘Cercopithecoids’. Clarke had an interst in this kind of monkey, so he looked in the box and was delighted to notice a hominid foot bone in amongst the monkey bones several foot and leg bones in the box seemed to match the bones found in the Sterkfontein shed. One was half a right shinebone, broken across. Clarke gave a cast of the shinbone to two African assistants, Nkawne Molefe and Stephen Motsumi, and asked them to return to Sterkfontein and look for the other half.

The task I had set them was like looking for a needle in a haystack as the rotto is an enormous, deep dark cavern with breccia exposed on the walls, floor and ceiling. After two days of searching with the aid of hand-held lamps, they found it on 3 July 1997.

Molefe and Motsumi’s jigsaw feat was the more astonishing because the bone that fitted their cast was

At he opposite end to where we had previously excavated. The fit was perfect, despite the boine having been blasted apart by lime workers 65 or more years previously. To the left of the exposed end of the right tibia could be seen the section of the broken-off shaft of the lift fibula. From their postitions with the lower limbs in the correct anatomical relationship, it seemed that the whole skeleton had to be there, lying face downwards.

Actually, it wasn’t quite there but, after pondering the geological colapses in the area, Clarke deduced where it must be and, sure enough, Motsumi’s chisel found it there. Clarke and his team wre indeed lucky but here we have a first-class example of that maxim of scientists since Louis Pasteur: Fortune favours the prepared mind.​

(Richard Dawkins, The Ancestors Tale)

How do I explain the Hominids, it's paleontologists seeing what they want to see, plain and simple.

Mark,

Are you suggesting that these hominids walked the Earth at the same time as Adam, created on the same day as him?

This just doesn't seem to fit a YEC framework. So here I am forced to reconcile what science has given us with Genesis. They obviously don't sync up. This must mean that God evolved us. Why, oh why, in the world would He use evolution to produce us...especially when Genesis doesn't hint to it in the slightest. How can God blame anyone for losing faith? It just doesn't jive.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark,

Are you suggesting that these hominids walked the Earth at the same time as Adam, created on the same day as him?

No, I am suggesting that the fossil evidence is being twisted to fit a previously held notion. Did you read about the Piltdown Man scandle? Isn't it odd that it took 40 years to realize the fraud involved, even the Smithsonian Institute was a party to it.

This just doesn't seem to fit a YEC framework. So here I am forced to reconcile what science has given us with Genesis. They obviously don't sync up. This must mean that God evolved us. Why, oh why, in the world would He use evolution to produce us...especially when Genesis doesn't hint to it in the slightest. How can God blame anyone for losing faith? It just doesn't jive.

Your confusing the science with the suppostion of scientists. I am continually amazed that evolutionists beg the question of proof, they claim that there are mountains of proof and when confronted with the actual evidence they act indifferent. You can't understand the Hominids unless you look at the evidence that they were indeed a transitional species.

You should take a look at the actual evidence, especially the fossils themselves. I am wondering if you even bothered to read my post, let alone look at the Smithsonian site. If this evidence is so compelling then why do you have no interest in it?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[shernren]

There's something I don't get ... wich part of hominids is troubling you, Filly? By my understanding they were simply animals, no more, no less. Too bad that they happen to look an awful lot like humans. Maybe some were, maybe some weren't. If you're a YEC you have the license to say "Well, I suppose God had His reasons to make man-like bipeds on the 6th day before He started on Adam" and shrug it off.

 

[filly]

No, I am suggesting that the fossil evidence is being twisted to fit a previously held notion. Did you read about the Piltdown Man scandle? Isn't it odd that it took 40 years to realize the fraud involved, even the Smithsonian Institute was a party to it.



Your confusing the science with the suppostion of scientists. I am continually amazed that evolutionists beg the question of proof, they claim that there are mountains of proof and when confronted with the actual evidence they act indifferent. You can't understand the Hominids unless you look at the evidence that they were indeed a transitional species.

You should take a look at the actual evidence, especially the fossils themselves. I am wondering if you even bothered to read my post, let alone look at the Smithsonian site. If this evidence is so compelling then why do you have no interest in it?

Have a nice day
Mark

So what are they, Mark? All apes, except for the last one? Separate creations by God that look similar to us, but aren't? Apes that use tools? Apes that are not found with human remains? What is your take on all of this?

Not sure why you responded in an attacking manner? I read your post and the links you provided. Then, I simply asked you a question because I'm curious. So if you don't believe these hominids were created on day 6 and walked the Earth with Adam, then obviously you don't take the Bible literally, correct? How have you modified it to fit your desired view?

 

[Remus]

Remus,

Thanks so far for the informative replies. So, what do you make of the Smithsonian's pages? Essentially, do you believe the dates are wrong and they should all indicate about 6,000 years old? If so, then why do most of the skulls look very different from our own? From a YEC view, these would have to be apes, correct?

Again, I am not overly concerned with whether the exact lineage is portrayed in a family tree. OK, so there's unknowns or debates. To me, that is pretty irrelevant. What matters is that these skulls are there...and they don't look like you and I. Moreover, they don't look like today's apes, either. They fit in between. So, again, what are they? Separate creations by God, or creatures evolved over time?

Yes, I do believe that these dates are wrong, but I wouldn't say that they should indicate that they are 6k years old. It is difficult to answer your other questions in general terms. Most likely, some of these skulls are humans and just represent the diversity within the species or variations over time. For example, compare the three Neanderthal skulls (J, K, and L). Those three look very different from each other yet are considered the same sub species.

Others I'd say are apes. And judging by the extinction rate we have today, it stands to reason that there could have been (or, in fact, should have been) other creatures like this that have gone extinct that might seem to look like something in between.

Perhaps I'm not a good representative of the YEC position. I don't believe how humans look today is how humans looked when we were created. There's no reason to believe that creatures are static.

Is there a specific skull that you would like to discuss?

 

[LoG]

I would suggest you read up on some of the material that is in this link. There is more to the bible and this Earth than meets the casually observing eye.

http://www.returnofthenephilim.com/NeanderthalAndNephilim.html

 

[tamtam92]

I'm sure you will find answers on www.answersingenesis.org.

 

[mark kennedy]

So what are they, Mark?

Some of them are apes, some of them are human. The thing is that you have to look at the actual fossils in order to decide what they are. Hominid fossils, particularly of the Homo Habilis variety, has become a dumping ground for highly speculative classifications.

All apes, except for the last one?

The earlier ones are clearly apes, you have to realize something very important here. There are a lot of fragments and I do mean a lot, mostly consisting of teeth, skull caps...etc. That's why the Smithsonian site is so important, you have to look at the actual evidence and how it has been handled.

Separate creations by God that look similar to us, but aren't? Apes that use tools? Apes that are not found with human remains? What is your take on all of this?

In the Creationism forum John Crawford and I have actually looked at these supposed tools. For whatever reason, these tools do not appear on the Smithsonian site as evidence, we had to go to the Berkley site to actually find pictures of them. I don't think you are aware of the fact that there is a specific area for talking to Creationists only. People with honest questions are welcome there as long as they don't debate or they are interested in making fellowship posts. Theisitic evolutionists have their own forum for doing the same things. This is the common area where creationists and theistic evolutionists are allowed to debate freely.

Not sure why you responded in an attacking manner? I read your post and the links you provided. Then, I simply asked you a question because I'm curious. So if you don't believe these hominids were created on day 6 and walked the Earth with Adam, then obviously you don't take the Bible literally, correct? How have you modified it to fit your desired view?

Look, I don't think that what you are refering to ever actually existed. Hominids is a referance to ancestoral apemen that the evidence does not prove ever actually walked the earth. When I pointed you to the Piltdown Man scandel I was hoping to show you how the evidence has been minipulated. I don't know what your origins view is but creationists are not impressed with the evidence offered to support ape and human common ancestory.

I never attacked your post, what I did was present the evidence that I had available to support my view. I willingly do this for creationists, theistic evolutionists and atheistic materialists irregardless of their particular persuasion. You asked very general questions and you were offered detailed responses based on the evidence.

The Smithsonian site is the perfect place to see the actual fossils and come to a general, but informed opinion about the Hominid fossils. For whatever reason, evolutionists shy away from in depth discussion about this site. When you didn't offer anything substantive about the site I assumed you were taking a proevolution stance.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Numenor]

There are two sets of assumptions here at work. The YEC assumption is that God created 'as is' all the creatures from which these fossils come. The explanation (I believe) is that it pleased God to do so.

The other side is that since there is an abundance of evidence for Evolution since creation then it is plausible that God used it as his tool for the creation of Man from other hominids. Man is indeed created "with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image", our biological makeup is not related in this respect.

 

[imind]

If you're a YEC you have the license to say "Well, I suppose God had His reasons to make man-like bipeds on the 6th day before He started on Adam" and shrug it off.

why does a YEC have license to do this? god gave us intelligence. aren't we obligated to use it?

btw, our evidence for evolution extends much farther than this one representation of skulls.

and to dismiss all of science with regards to evolution because of piltdown man is absurd.