<body>
Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Neanderthals are People

Recent science headlines claim homo sapiens (that’d be us regular folks) and Neanderthals interbred.  In other words, shacked up and had babies.  Hence, modern human beings have Neanderthal DNA.  I heard one impassioned caller to Greg Koukl’s program proclaim that such news proves the Bible is untrue. 

Right.

It doesn’t occur to the guy that they can have children with human beings, because, well, Neanderthals were people, too.  You know, human beings. 

Those Enigmatic Neanderthals

Labels: ,

41 Comments:

Blogger steve said...

"I heard one impassioned caller to Greg Koukl’s program proclaim that such news proves the Bible is untrue."

The caller was clearly a throwback to Neanderthals.

9:29 AM, May 18, 2010  
Blogger David said...

Any thoughts about the humanness of Homo ergaster?

10:56 PM, May 18, 2010  
Blogger David said...

If the caller was a throwback to the Neanderthals, does that mean that the Neanderthals were lesser humans?

10:57 PM, May 18, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Any thoughts about the humanness of Homo ergaster?

They were human, too. Just like homo erectus.

5:05 AM, May 19, 2010  
Blogger David said...

"They were human, too. Just like homo erectus."

Ok, now what about Homo habilis?

6:19 AM, May 19, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Homo habilis is bogus, mixing human and ape fossils. From THIS site the author notes this conclusion:

Homo habilis is a very complicated species to describe. No two researchers attribute all the same specimens as habilis, and few can agree on what traits define habilis, if it is a valid species at all, and even whether or not it belongs in the genus Homo or Australopithecus. Hopefully, future discoveries and future cladistic analyses of the specimens involved may clear up these issues, or at least better define what belongs in the species. [emphasis mine]

David, rather than walking through every alleged ape-man and me offering an opinion (which I think will never satisfy you to begin with)it may be helpful to get a biblical perspective on these sorts of things first:

see HERE, HERE and HERE

6:35 AM, May 19, 2010  
Blogger Mike Felker said...

I would also add to this that Koukl likely holds to the same perspective on Neanderthals as Hugh Ross and others; namely, that they aren't human. So wouldn't this evidence put a damper on Koukl's perspective if it is, in fact, true?

Another good reason on why its just best to stick with biblical exegesis and view the evidence through that lens.

6:50 AM, May 19, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Mike,
Greg had Fuz on his show this past Sunday to comment upon the new findings. I haven't heard the interview at this posting.

8:47 AM, May 19, 2010  
Blogger Lynda O said...

Yet another example of the idiocy that happens when people stray from the Bible and apply their own human "reason." So true God's word is, that "the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength."

9:28 AM, May 19, 2010  
Blogger David said...

Ok, let's be more specific then.

Look at the following skulls, and tell me if these are ape skulls or human skulls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KNM_ER_1813

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OH_24

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homo_ergaster.jpg

Describe your criteria for determing if the skull belongs to a human or an ape.

10:11 AM, May 19, 2010  
Blogger David said...

Then visit this web site.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/fun-with-homini.html

Note the graph at the top of the article. Circle the set of cranial capacity data points that corresponds to "human".

10:13 AM, May 19, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

Creationist opinions regarding...

KNM-ER 1813:

"According to Wolpoff, who labels erectus as early Homo sapiens, the cranium KNM-ER 1813 from Koobi Fora, Kenya ‘is associated with a cranial base and frontofacial region that is so similar to early H. sapiens that authors such as T. White include ER 1813 in the same taxon (for him, this is H. erectus )’. Wolpoff describes KNM-ER 1813 as ‘very similar to, really indistinguishable from, early H. sapiens in its teeth and frontofacial architecture (except for its narrow mid-face) but has a much smaller brain size’. If the evaluation of KNM-ER 1813 by White and Wolpoff is correct, then this cranium, with a cranial capacity of only about 509 cm3, may have belonged to a very small human."

[Source - Fossil evidence for alleged apemen—Part 1: the genus Homo by Peter Line, Emphasis addded]

Fossil evidence for alleged apemen—Part 2: non-Homo hominids is good too.

OH 24:

According to this paper, OH 24 is just another ape: Australopithecus and Homo habilis — Pre-Human Ancestors? by A. W. Mehlert

Homo ergaster:

"The relevant evidence clearly shows that Homo sapiens sensu lato is a separate and distinct entity from the other hominids. No overall evolutionary progression is to be found. Adam and Eve, and not the australopiths/habilines, are our actual ancestors. As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man—all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel."

[Source - The non-transitions in ‘human evolution’—on evolutionists’ terms John Woodmorappe, Emphasis added]

5:17 AM, May 20, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

Although written in 1970, the comments of evolutionist Sir Solly Zuckerman on the field of palaeoanthropology are still relevant today:

"...no scientist could logically dispute the proposition that man, without having been involved in any act of divine creation, evolved from some ape-like creature in a very short space of time--speaking in geological terms--without leaving any traces of the steps of the transformation.

As I have already implied, students of fossil primates have not been distinguished for caution when working within the logical constraints of their subject. The record is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all.

...the diagnostic value of marginal anatomical characters can be very easily over-emphasized...Where there is any possibility that the fossil may fall into the class of so-called missing links, the likelihood is that any small divergences will become exaggerated. They become essential diagnostic features. That, alas, is part of the price we still have to pay for the publicity, and publicity-value, which attaches to the term 'missing link.' The fundamental difficulty--and here I repeat what I have written more than once--is that the descriptions of possible human or hominoid fossils that have been provided by their discoverers have almost always been so turned as to indicate that the remains in question have some special place or significance in the line of direct human descent, as opposed to that of the family of apes.

...there is...both art and science in anatomical diagnosis. The moral is that when one is diagnosing, too much art tempered with too little science can sometimes be highly dangerous.

...the evolutionary inferences we base on structural comparisons are in the end only speculations.

...So much glamour still attaches to the theme of the missing-link, and to man's relationships with the animal world, that it may always be difficult to exorcise from the comparative study of Primates, living and fossil, the kind of myths which the unaided eye is able to conjure out of a well of wishful thinking.
"

Beyond the Ivory Tower
Sir Solly Zuckerman
(New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., 1970). pp. 64, 69, 71, 72, 74, 94

5:18 AM, May 20, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

Daivd wrote: "Circle the set of cranial capacity data points that corresponds to 'human'. "

And your point is what?

BTW - This is a better graph: Fun with Hominin Cranial Capacity Datasets (and Excel), Part 2

5:28 AM, May 20, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

David asks,

Describe your criteria for determing if the skull belongs to a human or an ape.

My criteria would probably be along the lines used in forensic anatomy.

And I readily admit that is something I am not an expert on.

I am not sure where you are spiritually. Christian? Atheist? I am an Bible believing Christian, and God has specifically revealed how He created and he does not have human beings arising from ape-like hominids. They are a separate category of creature.

I am also aware of how evolutionary paleontologists create fanciful "just so" stories based upon a few fragments of skeletal remains. There a many battles between camps of researchers as to who will get the credit for "discovering" the new link and out right hoaxing has occurred even with in the last 2 decades. See HERE to understand what I mean.

No Christian disputes skeletal remains of these creatures. What is in dispute is how we understand them within a biblical worldview, and that excludes compromised, unbiblical alternatives like theistic evolution and progressive creationism that shreds the text of Genesis as God has revealed it as an historical document.

6:54 AM, May 20, 2010  
Blogger David said...

Escovado,

“Wolpoff describes KNM-ER 1813 as ‘very similar to, really indistinguishable from, early H. sapiens in its teeth and frontofacial architecture (except for its narrow mid-face) but has a much smaller brain size’. If the evaluation of KNM-ER 1813 by White and Wolpoff is correct, then this cranium, with a cranial capacity of only about 509 cm3, may have belonged to a very small human."

Did you actually read these words? HAS A MUCH SMALLER BRAIN SIZE! 509 CC belongs to a very small human? Seriously? The very smallest human skulls measure about 900 CC and these are very extreme cases. Big brains are one the most important identifying criteria for H. sapiens, and you think that a brain size of 509 CC could somehow fit the criteria for H. sapiens? You do realize that this brain size is much, much closer to ape than to human, yes?


“According to this paper, OH 24 is just another ape: Australopithecus and Homo habilis — Pre-Human Ancestors? by A. W. Mehlert”

According to this paper, the australophithecines were not bipedal, and that australopithecines were “just apes”. That alone suggests the paper is of low quality. The evidence for bipedalism in australopithecines is overwhelming. Of course, they were not as fully bipedal as modern humans. That’s exactly what you’d expect in transitional forms! All you have to do is like at ALL of the data, and it’s obvious that the autralopithecines were neither “just apes” or fully human. For example, take a look at Figure 3. Is the foramen magnum in the same far back position in A. africanus as it is in apes? Not a chance.

Regardless, from what I could see, the paper focuses on A. afarenesis and A. africanus, and it makes little mention of OH 24, other than to suggest that some anthropologists might classify some H. habilis fossils are “gracile australopithecines”. So, the conclusion that OH 24 is “just an ape” is a matter of sleight of hand. Focus on other australopithecines (afarensis, africanus) for the entire paper, suggests wrongly that these are “just apes”, note that there is disagreement about the classification of H. habilis fossils, declare H. habilis an australopithecine, and voila, OH 24 is an ape skull. But if this paper actually examined the OH 24, I didn’t see it. To conclude that OH is an ape, you clearly have to totally ignore the skull! You must examine OH 24 ITSELF before drawing conclusions.

A footnote: According to the creationist Mehlert, the ER 1470 skull belongs to an ape. According to the creationist Lubenow, ER 1470 is a human skull. Odd, don't you think?

8:15 AM, May 20, 2010  
Blogger David said...

“No overall evolutionary progression is to be found.

You did look at the graphs of hominid crania, yes? No progression? Using the data in the graphs, explain why you would conclude that there is no evidence of “progression”

"Adam and Eve, and not the australopiths/habilines, are our actual ancestors."

And when, roughly, did Adam and Eve live?

“As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man—all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel."”

Racial variants? Did you take a close look at the erectus skull? Ever see anything like that among a collection of human skulls?
What are the specific criteria used to concluded that erectus is just another “variant” of Homo sapiens? How do you know this is an accurate conclusions?

H. erectus skulls have an average cranial capacity of 900 CC with the smallest coming in at around 750 CC. Again, the very smallest human skulls measure about 900 CC and these are very extreme cases. Now, in case you think that the skulls were smaller because the bodies were smaller, think again. The Lake Turkana boy would have been six feet tall at maturity, and he had a cranial capacity of 900 CC. This is clearly and distinctly different from modern humans.


“Source - The non-transitions in ‘human evolution’—on evolutionists’ terms John Woodmorappe”

Woodmorappe thinks the planet was covered by a global flood. There goes his credibility.

8:16 AM, May 20, 2010  
Blogger David said...

“Although written in 1970, the comments of evolutionist Sir Solly Zuckerman on the field of palaeoanthropology are still relevant today.”

1970? Forty years ago? Any idea how much has been found in the last forty years? Paleoanthropologists don’t even use the term “missing link” any more. Yes, anthropologists can get carried away with their own findings, but it’s getting very difficult to dismiss all of these hominid fossils and their significance for human evolution when the pile of fossils gets bigger every day. I wonder what old Solly would say today.


>"Circle the set of cranial capacity data points that corresponds to 'human'. "

“And your point is what?”

The point is that if apes and humans are clearly separate kinds with no common ancestors, then one should clearly be able to circle the human crania and the ape crania. There should be a clear difference between the sets of ape crania and the sets of human crania. It should be easy to produce a set of criteria that we can use to separate ape and human. But in fact, when one considers all of the hominid species that have existed, it’s remarkably difficult to find a dividing line between human and ape. So, where’s the line, and what is the justification for the line?

“BTW - This is a better graph: Fun with Hominin Cranial Capacity Datasets (and Excel), Part 2”

Yes, the other graph is better, but I was trying to keep it simple.

8:17 AM, May 20, 2010  
Blogger David said...

Fred,

>Describe your criteria for determing if the skull belongs to a human or an ape.

“My criteria would probably be along the lines used in forensic anatomy.”

And those criteria would be…?

“And I readily admit that is something I am not an expert on.”

So, you have no answer. You just know that every species that ever existed is either fully ape or fully human.

“I am a Bible believing Christian, and God has specifically revealed how He created and he does not have human beings arising from ape-like hominids. They are a separate category of creature.”

You have faith, but no evidence. Again, try to draw the circle around the hominid crania. If the Bible is right, this should be easy.


“No Christian disputes skeletal remains of these creatures.”

Then why bother mention hoaxes?

“What is in dispute is how we understand them within a biblical worldview, and that excludes compromised, unbiblical alternatives like theistic evolution and progressive creationism that shreds the text of Genesis as God has revealed it as an historical document.”

So, you will a priori reject any evidence that contradicts your literal reading of the Bible. The Bible is an historical document? So you think that the world was covered in a global flood?

8:18 AM, May 20, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

“My criteria would probably be along the lines used in forensic anatomy.”

And those criteria would be…?

You mean Wikipedia doesn’t have an article on this?

“And I readily admit that is something I am not an expert on.”

So, you have no answer. You just know that every species that ever existed is either fully ape or fully human.

I never said I didn’t have an answer. It is just one you don’t like. Yes. Every species that ever existed was either fully ape or fully human.

“I am a Bible believing Christian, and God has specifically revealed how He created and he does not have human beings arising from ape-like hominids. They are a separate category of creature.”

You have faith, but no evidence. Again, try to draw the circle around the hominid crania. If the Bible is right, this should be easy.

We all have evidence. You have to interpret the evidence. You use the same amount of “faith” I do in doing so. You have a set of presuppositions you assume to be true and proceed accordingly.

“No Christian disputes skeletal remains of these creatures.”

Then why bother mention hoaxes?

Because it demonstrates the dishonesty of desperate evolutionists.

“What is in dispute is how we understand them within a biblical worldview, and that excludes compromised, unbiblical alternatives like theistic evolution and progressive creationism that shreds the text of Genesis as God has revealed it as an historical document.”

So, you will a priori reject any evidence that contradicts your literal reading of the Bible. The Bible is an historical document? So you think that the world was covered in a global flood?

Just like you will reject a priori any evidence that contradicts your reading of evolutionary history. Yes, the Bible is an historical document. And yes, the world was covered in a global flood. Andrew Snelling just published a 1000 page book on the subject.

8:36 AM, May 20, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

David:

"A footnote: According to the creationist Mehlert, the ER 1470 skull belongs to an ape. According to the creationist Lubenow, ER 1470 is a human skull. Odd, don't you think?"

That's a reflection of how poor and fragmentary the evidence is; there is nothing "odd" about it. Evolutionists have the same problem.

"I wonder what old Solly would say today."

Solly Zuckerman made the first serious attemtps to apply an objective multivariate analysis to the examiniation of hominid bones. His criticisms of the subjective judgements paleoanthropologists use to decided if a frgmented skull is an ape or a human or a "missing link" are just as valid today a it was 40 years ago.

I'm going to be busy today, but will will return for the rest.

8:50 AM, May 20, 2010  
Blogger David said...

“You mean Wikipedia doesn’t have an article on this?”

Does this tell me exactly how you would distinguish ape from human? Wikipedia will tell me how to distinguish fossil ape from fossil human?


>So, you have no answer. You just know that every species that ever existed is either fully ape or fully human.

“I never said I didn’t have an answer. It is just one you don’t like. Yes. Every species that ever existed was either fully ape or fully human.”

I meant an answer to the question of how you would distinguish ape from human. Simply declaring that every species was either fully ape or fully human is not an answer. It’s just a statement of belief. How do you know that a given hominid skull is from a species that is either fully ape or fully human?


“We all have evidence. You have to interpret the evidence.”

Ok, interpret the evidence. Draw the circle.


>Then why bother mention hoaxes?

“Because it demonstrates the dishonesty of desperate evolutionists.”

But, again, you don’t dispute that the fossils exist. So your ad hominem is irrelevant. You think that every single “evolutionist” is dishonest? Better have some evidence to back this up.


“Just like you will reject a priori any evidence that contradicts your reading of evolutionary history.”

I have no problem acknowledging that there are any number of possible observations that would contradict and disprove evolution. The classic answer is “rabbits in the pre-Cambrian. What would you accept as evidence that your YEC position is wrong? Anything at all?


“Yes, the Bible is an historical document. And yes, the world was covered in a global flood. Andrew Snelling just published a 1000 page book on the subject.”

Wow. 1000 pages of nonsense. I wonder what evidence Snelling would accept as evidence against YEC. What’s Snelling’s date for the flood? What’s his explanation for the taxonomic sorting found in the fossil record?

8:53 AM, May 20, 2010  
Blogger David said...

"That's a reflection of how poor and fragmentary the evidence is."

Fragmentary? Take a look for yourself.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.jpg

http://www.anthrotools.org/database/images/er1470.jpg

Ape or human? What is the basis for your answer?

Evolutionists do not have the "same problem", because they're not trying to cram transitional forms into the limited catagories of either "ape" or "human". ER 1470 is what it is. It can not be described as either "fully ape" or "fully human". Hence, the disagreement amoung creationists.

8:59 AM, May 20, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

David: “Did you actually read these words? HAS A MUCH SMALLER BRAIN SIZE! 509 CC belongs to a very small human? Seriously? The very smallest human skulls measure about 900 CC and these are very extreme cases. Big brains are one the most important identifying criteria for H. sapiens, and you think that a brain size of 509 CC could somehow fit the criteria for H. sapiens? You do realize that this brain size is much, much closer to ape than to human, yes?

If you don’t like the interpretation that White and Wolpoff, who are evolutionists, applied to the KNM-ER 1813, then that’s your problem. Even the true believers over at Talk Origins say that “ER 1813 is surprisingly modern, with a rounded skull, no sagittal crest, modest eyebrow ridges, and a small amount of nasal prominence.” It looks like it could be a small human to me too.

Human cranial capacity has a much wider range of variation than you have been led to believe. Please see: An open letter to old-earth creationist, Dr. Fuz Rana. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if a human cranium could be as small as 509 CC.

David: “[KNM–ER 1470]Fragmentary? Take a look for yourself.

I already saw those pictures. KNM–ER 1470 is a reconstruction of a fragmented skull. These reconstructions present many problems. Here’s a recounting of some of its history: The rise and fall of Skull KNM–ER 1470 by A.W. Mehlert. Evolutionists also have the “same problem” because they have to “cram” their fossils into an evolutionary time scale. KNM–ER 1470 could never be classified as human by evolutionists because of its assigned evolutionary age of 1.9 million years ago. They cannot allow modern humans to be living in that evolutionary time frame—no matter what the fossils look like.

David: “Ape or human? What is the basis for your answer?”

As a creationist, it would not bother me in the least if it was human, but it looks like an ape to me, so I’d say it was an ape. I think Mehlert summed up the status of KNM–ER 1470 quite nicely:

One must be careful not to claim this is necessarily the end of the 1470 saga—more developments may yet occur, but we can only go on the state of knowledge at any given time. Twenty-five years ago, it appeared that 1470 fitted the evolutionary scenario reasonably well. In 1999, it looks increasingly like a larger-brained gracile australopithecine. There is precious little evidence to show otherwise. For the present it should be quietly packed away and added to the long list of abandoned or downgraded hominid specimens, which once adorned our natural history textbooks.

5:01 PM, May 20, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

David: “To conclude that OH is an ape, you clearly have to totally ignore the skull! You must examine OH 24 ITSELF before drawing conclusions.

OH 24 looks like an ape to me: OH 24 at the Smithsonian web site. The creationist paper I cited earlier deals with a whole series of fossils of which OH 24 is one. From the evolutionary sources cited by the author, it sounds to me like the role of OH 24 as evidence of human evolution is a bit exaggerated. Funny, OH 24 is yet another reconstructed skull. Could this be a pattern?

Regarding the bipedalism in australopithecines:

Many textbooks will show a picture of the pelvis of a chimpanzee, a human and of an australopithecine (see figure 8). They will then ask the student which of the two are related. It’s a trick question. There are similarities between the pelvis of australopithecines and humans because they are both bipedal. They will stress the similarity between the australopithecine pelvis and the human pelvis, and use this to try to prove a relationship between the two. Does similarity in a dog pelvis and a horse pelvis mean they are related? No, it merely means they are both mammals that walk on all fours.

Another way to look at the same evidence is to realize that the short bowl shaped pelvis of the australopithecines is similar to that in humans because they both walked upright. Similar means of locomotion do not prove a common ancestor. It could prove a common designer (the God of the Bible).

It has been claimed that all of the above features make australopithecines human-like and likely ancestors. In reality these features just mean that australopithecines, like us walked upright.

The pelvis of australopithecines should be compared to those of humans only to establish a similar form of locomotion, not to conjure up an imaginary evolutionary relationship. Having studied not just the pelvis of australopithecines, but skeletons of three of them (two published, one unpublished), and comparing them with humans, other hominids and extant apes it is easy to see the similarities between australopithecines and chimpanzees. There are far more similarities than there are differences, whereas between australopithecines and humans there are similarities yes, mostly in their dentition (large molars and small canines which are best explained by a vegetarian diet) and in their pelvis (similar locomotion), but there are far more differences between the two. The few similarities that do exist have been over emphasized to try to establish an evolutionary relationship.


[source - Matthew Murdock, These apes were made for walking: the pelves of Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus]

5:05 PM, May 20, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

David: “You did look at the graphs of hominid crania, yes? No progression? Using the data in the graphs, explain why you would conclude that there is no evidence of ‘progression’”

If I mindlessly accepted the posted data as you do without questioning how it all was generated, then yes, there appears to be a progression. However, since the dating and classification of the fossils is very debatable and based on evolutionary assumptions, it is only convincing to those who already believe the evolutionary creation myth. This is no different than drawing a phylogenetic tree or a cladogram: it’s all fine and dandy for tracing how evolution might have happened, but it provides little evidence for evolution.

“Racial variants? Did you take a close look at the erectus skull? Ever see anything like that among a collection of human skulls? What are the specific criteria used to concluded that erectus is just another ‘variant’ of Homo sapiens? How do you know this is an accurate conclusions?”

I have seen all these skulls many times over. There is nothing you have presented in this thread that I have not seen before. Creationist Marvin Lubenow believes Homo erectus and Neanderthals to be fully human. According to Lubenow, Homo erectus: controlled the use of fire, made a variety of hand axes and stone tools, buried their dead, had to have built rafts or boats to navigate between islands and engaged in self-initiated art. That sounds human to me. Lubenow has extensive coverage of Homo erectus in his book, “Bones of Contention.” More information: Putting chimpanzees, ‘hominids’, and humans in their proper place and Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability?

On the other hand, creationist Malcolm Bowden was no so generous:

The Homo erectus class first came into being by putting Java man (Pithecanthropus erectus), which consisted of the skull of a giant gorilla (or similar) and a human leg bone, together with Pekin man (Sinanthropus pekinensis), composed entirely of ape skulls. To this was subsequently added a number of other skulls that were generally too human and too early a dating to class as apes, and therefore were put in this intermediate group.

[source: Homo Erectus —A Fabricated Class of 'Ape-Men']

David: “Woodmorappe thinks the planet was covered by a global flood. There goes his credibility.

David: “Wow. 1000 pages of nonsense. I wonder what evidence Snelling would accept as evidence against YEC. What’s Snelling’s date for the flood? What’s his explanation for the taxonomic sorting found in the fossil record?

Nice logical fallacies. I can tell this thread will be going nowhere fast.

Since I would hazard to guess that most of the people who post on this blog believe that the planet was covered by a global flood and therefore, according to David logic, have no credibility, then why are you posting here? Seems to me there’s really no point in continuing the conversation.

5:11 PM, May 20, 2010  
Blogger David said...

“If you don’t like the interpretation that White and Wolpoff, who are evolutionists, applied to the KNM-ER 1813, then that’s your problem.

Did White and Wolpoff say that KNM-ER 1813 was fully human? I’m not sure I see your point.

“Even the true believers over at Talk Origins say that “ER 1813 is surprisingly modern, with a rounded skull, no sagittal crest, modest eyebrow ridges, and a small amount of nasal prominence.”

And a 500 CC brain! And big brain is a a very key feature of H. sapiens. No one at Talk Origins is claiming that this a Homo sapiens skull or anything close to modern human, so I don’t see your point about TO.

“It looks like it could be a small human to me too.”

Wait a minute. You creationists need to make up your minds. This is a Homo habilis skull. I thought that H. habilis individuals were apes.
Now you think it’s a “small human”? With a pin-sized brain? This is way, way below the extreme minimum for humans.

“Human cranial capacity has a much wider range of variation than you have been led to believe.”

I read the open letter. I assume that you wanted me to note the Daniel Lyon case. First, Lyon’s cranial capacity was determined by weighing the brain, a methods that is prone to error and obviously different from the method used with fossil skulls. Second, 625 CC is still over 100 CC bigger than 510 CC; show me a modern human skull with a cranial capacity of 510 CC. Third, and most importantly, Lyon was a single case in a population of billions of humans. It is very, very extraordinarily rare to find a human with a cranial capacity of less than 700 or 800 CC. Now, given the total number of fossil skulls found, what are the odds that one of these skulls would just happen to be an example of one of these very, very, very rare cases? I’d say that it would be one in several hundred million.

The ER 1813 skull is not the skull of a modern human.

“I already saw those pictures. KNM–ER 1470 is a reconstruction of a fragmented skull. These reconstructions present many problems.”

Yes, reconstructions have an error associated with them, but it’s not an infinite error. You can still determine a range of accurate cranial capacity values even if you can’t nail it down to the nearest 1 CC.

“It looks like an ape to me, so I’d say it was an ape.”

Could you be more specific? Could you list some concrete criteria for your determination? Isn’t 1470 another habilis skull? Now habilis fossils are ape fossils?

“OH 24 looks like an ape to me.”

Criteria?

"The creationist paper I cited earlier deals with a whole series of fossils of which OH 24 is one."

Are you referring to the paper that talked extensively about afarensis and africanus, but said very little about OH 24?

8:13 PM, May 20, 2010  
Blogger David said...

“Regarding the bipedalism in australopithecine”.

I’m soooo confused. Didn’t the Melhert paper argue that australopithecines were NOT bipedal? As for the rest of the Murdock excerpt, can you point to any ape species at that bipedal? That’s a pretty significant difference from your average ape. You know, creationists are always saying that there are no transitional forms. But what more do you want than a bipedal ape?


“If I mindlessly accepted the posted data as you do without questioning how it all was generated, then yes, there appears to be a progression.”

Ding! Thank you.

“However, since the dating and classification of the fossils is very debatable and based on evolutionary assumptions, it is only convincing to those who already believe the evolutionary creation myth.”

Note that the data had NO classification information, at least in the graph I cited. It just showed data points for cranial capacity. In the end, it really doesn’t matter what you call these skulls, the progression speaks for itself.

Ah, yes, evolution is a myth. Still, you gotta wonder what all those hominids are doing in the fossil record, don’t you? What’s up with all of these species that are so tricky to pigeonhole into “fully human” or “fully ape” pigeonholes?


>“Racial variants? Did you take a close look at the erectus skull?

“I have seen all these skulls many times over. There is nothing you have presented in this thread that I have not seen before…”

What followed didn’t really answer my question. Have you ever seen anything like this among a collection of skulls from all known modern human races?

“On the other hand, creationist Malcolm Bowden was no so generous…”

First, the Java Man skull is not a gorilla skull and Peking skull wasn’t an ape, either. Second,
I’m not sure that this is helping you here. If some H. erectus skull look like ape skulls to Bowden, then this only serves to demonstrate the difficulties in classifying transitional forms as either ape or human. And that’s what you’d expect if evolution is so.


“Since I would hazard to guess that most of the people who post on this blog believe that the planet was covered by a global flood and therefore, according to David logic, have no credibility, then why are you posting here? Seems to me there’s really no point in continuing the conversation.”

The “lack of credibility” comment was directed at those who were cited as “experts”. And, you can demonstrate you credibility by answering the questions that I raised about the date of the fossil and taxonomic sorting.

8:15 PM, May 20, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

David: “Wait a minute. You creationists need to make up your minds. This is a Homo habilis skull. I thought that H. habilis individuals were apes. Now you think it’s a “small human”? With a pin-sized brain? This is way, way below the extreme minimum for humans

…The ER 1813 skull is not the skull of a modern human.

… Could you be more specific? Could you list some concrete criteria for your determination?


There’s an element of sarcasm here I think you’re missing.

When will evolutionists produce some concrete criteria? When you cut through all the jargon regarding these alleged transitional fossils, all one is left with is a load of subjective opinions about whether or not a certain skull is ape, human or somewhere in between--which is exactly what Solly Zuckerman was complaining about. Hasn’t anyone found a complete, intact skull or skeleton for any of these transitional fossils? We have lots of complete skeletons of all types of fauna going back tens of millions of years, yet all you can come up with are a handful of reconstructed skulls and portions of skeletons for these alleged ape-to-human transitional forms.

David: “I’m soooo confused. Didn’t the Melhert paper argue that australopithecines were NOT bipedal? As for the rest of the Murdock excerpt, can you point to any ape species at that bipedal? That’s a pretty significant difference from your average ape. You know, creationists are always saying that there are no transitional forms. But what more do you want than a bipedal ape?

Unfortunately, if what Murdock says is true, then this bipedal ape has more in common with chimpanzees than humans.

David: “What followed didn’t really answer my question. Have you ever seen anything like this among a collection of skulls from all known modern human races?

What, you’re not following is the idea that Marvin Lubenow is putting forth: Homo erectus and the Neanderthals were extinct races of humans. If Homo erectus were these sub-human brutes, then, if what Lubenow says is accurate, how can they leave evidence of modern human behavior?

David: “If some H. erectus skull look like ape skulls to Bowden, then this only serves to demonstrate the difficulties in classifying transitional forms as either ape or human. And that’s what you’d expect if evolution is so.

On the contrary, that’s what you would expect from fragmentary evidence that depends heavily on the presuppositions and imagination of the interpreters of such evidence.

Regarding this graph from the panda’s thumb blog you are so excited about:

David: “Note that the data had NO classification information, at least in the graph I cited. It just showed data points for cranial capacity. In the end, it really doesn’t matter what you call these skulls, the progression speaks for itself.

I have issues with the radiometric dates, which is the other axis of this graph--and beyond the scope of this thread. Additionally, Marvin Lubenow argues in his “Bones of Contention” book that the dating of some of these fossils is also tied up with their notions of their position in the ape-to-human ancestry. Again, this graph does not “speak for itself” unless of course you already accept the evolutionary theory.

David: “And, you can demonstrate you credibility by answering the questions that I raised about the date of the fossil and taxonomic sorting.

That’s another rat hole that can make an entire thread. I would instead recommend that you check out a copy of Snelling’s book and decide for yourself. I am a young-earth creationist, but I do not prescribe to the one-year-flood-created-the-whole-geologic-column thinking of ICR or the AiG people. So, I am not going to defend a position I do not hold.

10:43 PM, May 20, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

I forgot to directly answer your question:

David: “What followed didn’t really answer my question. Have you ever seen anything like this among a collection of skulls from all known modern human races?”

No. However, that does not exclude the idea that Homo erectus can be an extinct race of humans either. Interestingly enough, Marvin Lubenow devotes an entire chapter in his book to the growing number of evolutionists who have doubts that Homo erectus is morphologically distinct enough from humans to warrant it being classified as a different species.

11:20 PM, May 20, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

I appreciate your and Escovados back and forth. I particularly appreciate Escovado who has provided some excellent responses. Thanks, man.

Moving on---

“You mean Wikipedia doesn’t have an article on this?”

Does this tell me exactly how you would distinguish ape from human? Wikipedia will tell me how to distinguish fossil ape from fossil human?

Not necessarily, but Wikipedia is the go-to site for pretty much all the atheists and other cranks wanting to bang their drum.

Simply declaring that every species was either fully ape or fully human is not an answer. It’s just a statement of belief. How do you know that a given hominid skull is from a species that is either fully ape or fully human?

Three things: First, I stated I am not an expert on forensic analysis. However, I, like pretty much everyone else in the world, have to appeal to a number of trusted authorities on the matter. Second, like Escovado has been pointing out, the "evidence" for ancient hominids is scattered, fragmentary, heavily prone to misinterpretation (as has been demonstrated time and again) even by the best forensic expert, and in some case if you took time to read Bergman's report, prone to hoaxing for personal and financial gain. Third, God has specifically revealed to us that man is created unique and separate from the animals. There are no intermediary transitional half-man, half-ape hominids. I believe God over you.

But, again, you don’t dispute that the fossils exist. So your ad hominem is irrelevant. You think that every single “evolutionist” is dishonest? Better have some evidence to back this up.

Like I stated, I don't dispute the facts. Facts have to be interpreted. I do not believe every single evolutionist is "dishonest." I noted the article (and there are full length books on the subject too written by non-creationists) because there is a clear record of secular academics hoaxing in order to get personal recognition or some other financial gain. Hence, they fudge evidence, make up evidence, remove evidence, in order to achieve their goal. Still, that doesn't mean every single evolutionist is dishonest. Those honest evolutionists are merely interpreting the data according to their set views of the world. I know you wish to think they are looking at the evidence and then discovering the evolutionary explanation of history, but that is rarely how those things work. They are starting with some assumptions about the world, where man came from, and earth's past, and fitting the evidence into that model.

I have no problem acknowledging that there are any number of possible observations that would contradict and disprove evolution. The classic answer is “rabbits in the pre-Cambrian.

How about soft tissue found in supposed 70 million year old dinosaur bones? See previous post.

What would you accept as evidence that your YEC position is wrong? Anything at all?

God telling me otherwise.

“Yes, the Bible is an historical document. And yes, the world was covered in a global flood. Andrew Snelling just published a 1000 page book on the subject.”

Wow. 1000 pages of nonsense. I wonder what evidence Snelling would accept as evidence against YEC. What’s Snelling’s date for the flood? What’s his explanation for the taxonomic sorting found in the fossil record?

Thank you mister atheist for that thorough expert criticism. I look forward to reading your withering book report.

6:45 AM, May 21, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

I found a very interesing web site last night: Time-Space Chart of Hominid Fossils.

It lists the species classified as hominids with their associated finds along with any available photos and drawings.

7:45 AM, May 21, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

And another thing I forgot...

David: “I’m soooo confused. Didn’t the Melhert paper argue that australopithecines were NOT bipedal?

So what if Melhert and Murdock's opinions differ? Are creationsits not allowed to have opposing opinions for some reason?

8:20 AM, May 21, 2010  
Blogger David said...

“Not necessarily, but Wikipedia is the go-to site for pretty much all the atheists and other cranks wanting to bang their drum.”

Whatever. It doesn’t answer the question.

“I, like pretty much everyone else in the world, have to appeal to a number of trusted authorities on the matter.”

And these would be “authorities” that hold a position rejected by 99.99% of all geologists. They are the equivalent of authorities who believe that the sun goes around the earth. These authorities are absolutely required by the faith to always interpret the evidence as pointing to a young earth, despite the literal mountains of evidence against the YEC hypothesis. They are an embarrassment to Christianity.

“The "evidence" for ancient hominids is scattered, fragmentary, heavily prone to misinterpretation (as has been demonstrated time and again) even by the best forensic expert, and in some case if you took time to read Bergman's report, prone to hoaxing for personal and financial gain.”

Excuses and hand-waving. There’s plenty of material available, and even with errors in reconstruction, you can’t turn the fragments into an infinite number of possible skulls, pelvises, etc. If you have evidence of hoaxing for personal and financial gain for any of the hominid fossils discovered since the 1950s, then please present it.

“God has specifically revealed to us that man is created unique and separate from the animals. There are no intermediary transitional half-man, half-ape hominids. I believe God over you.”

Well, that’s really the crux of it, isn’t it? The evidence is irrelevant. You believe in the literal truth of a Bronze Age creation myth, and that’s that.


“Facts have to be interpreted. “

And it’s very clear that there is no chance that you’re going to interpret the facts in such as way as to contradict your YEC myth.

"I do not believe every single evolutionist is "dishonest."

Good. Then stop talking about hoaxes.

“I noted the article (and there are full length books on the subject too written by non-creationists) because there is a clear record of secular academics hoaxing in order to get personal recognition or some other financial gain. Hence, they fudge evidence, make up evidence, remove evidence, in order to achieve their goal.”

And with the ad hominem! Either put up evidence of hoaxes in the case of post-1950s fossils or recognize this argument for what it is.

What if I rejected Christianity on the grounds that countless Christian leaders have turned out to be hoaxers, frauds and hypocrites? Would you find my argument compelling?

“They are starting with some assumptions about the world, where man came from, and earth's past, and fitting the evidence into that model.”

Yes, but they are testable assumptions. If the data don’t support the model, we toss out the model and start over. This has happened countless times in science, and in fact, creationists are always pointing this out as a “weakness”. They say, “see, the scientists can’t make up their minds and science is always changing the answers”. Well, if the scientist’s views were “set in stone” as yours are with respect to YEC, then there would never be an opportunities to say “see, the scientists can’t make up their minds and science is always changing the answers”.

So, make up your mind. Either scientists never interpret data in a way that contradicts their assumptions. Or scientists are always changing their minds and their answers.

8:46 AM, May 21, 2010  
Blogger David said...

“How about soft tissue found in supposed 70 million year old dinosaur bones? See previous post.”

Ah, the old soft tissue in the dino bit. Yes, this finding was unexpected, but keep in mind that the tissue was “soft” until it was rehydrated. Collagen is one of those bio-polymers like cellulose and lignin that is very, very durable.

Problem with concluding that the dino is only 4000 years old is that you must now reject all of the geological evidence that says otherwise. Also, if all the dino fossils are about 4000 years old, then you’d expect to find a lot of other stuff well-preserved like long chains of DNA, etc., because we know that these other bio-molecules can easily survive that long. We have plenty of materials that everyone agrees is a few thousand years old in which many types of biomolecules survive, but we never find these biomolecules in any dino fossil. Why not? 4000 years is not a very long time.

>What would you accept as evidence that your YEC position is wrong? Anything at all?

“God telling me otherwise. “
Sigh. Well, that’s it then.
That’s the difference between science and religion.


“Thank you mister atheist for that thorough expert criticism. I look forward to reading your withering book report.”

Oh, trust me. I could write a 100,000 page book filled with criticisms. I can show you entire geosciences libraries filled with criticisms. But I thought that we could start with just a few specific criticisms, just to see where that takes us.

8:46 AM, May 21, 2010  
Blogger David said...

“Hasn’t anyone found a complete, intact skull or skeleton for any of these transitional fossils? We have lots of complete skeletons of all types of fauna going back tens of millions of years.”

Well, both the Lucy and Lake Turkana skeletons are pretty complete. Obviously, the odds of finding complete skeletons of a given species are strongly related to population size and the environment in which the organism lived. Consider the difference in population size of gazelles and hunter-gather humans in Africa.

“Yet all you can come up with are a handful of reconstructed skulls and portions of skeletons for these alleged ape-to-human transitional forms.”

And yet, they do exist. And we have far, far more material available then in 1970, so the Zuckerman quote really is irrelevant. So, what are they doing in the fossil record looking so much like transitional forms.

You want concrete criteria? Go the primary literature where these fossils are described. It’s a basic rule that if you are going to claim that something is a new species, you must explain why it’s a new species and you must give a very detailed species description that lays out the criteria by which others of the same species can be identified.


“Unfortunately, if what Murdock says is true, then this bipedal ape has more in common with chimpanzees than humans.”

What’s wrong with that? Point is, bipedalism is a very big difference if one is comparing australopithecines to apes. We’re not talking about some minor change in molar size here. In a transitional form, some traits will place the organism closer to the ancestral form and some traits will place the organism closer to the descendent form. What else would you expect from a transitional form?

And why can’t creationist agree about the bipedality of the australopithecines? Doesn’t that tell you something about the impossibility of assigning certain fossils to the two exclusive categories of “fully ape” and “fully human”. Why can’t this be done with all of these fossils? And please spare me the “fragments” excuse. If species are either fully ape or fully human, there’s more than enough material available to decide what is what…unless this fossil species are neither.

"How can they leave evidence of modern human behavior?"

H. erectus had a few nice tricks, but “modern human behavior”? Bit of a stretch, don’t you think? The H. habilis remains are also associated with stone tools, and apes are never associated with stone tools. So, that makes habilis human, right? Or is hablis and ape? It’s so confusing.

“On the contrary, that’s what you would expect from fragmentary evidence that depends heavily on the presuppositions and imagination of the interpreters of such evidence.”

Yes, there is some “interpretation” involved in reconstruction, but there aren’t an infinite number of ways to reconstruct a skull. If you hand the same sort of fragments of modern ape and modern human skulls to a decent primate anatomist, they would have no problem indentify the fragments as either ape or human.

8:53 AM, May 21, 2010  
Blogger David said...

>David: “Note that the data had NO classification information, at least in the graph I cited. It just showed data points for cranial capacity. In the end, it really doesn’t matter what you call these skulls, the progression speaks for itself.”

“I have issues with the radiometric dates, which is the other axis of this graph--and beyond the scope of this thread.”

Well, of course you do. So, take the dates away. Now, circle the humans and the apes. Explain your criteria. If you can’t do this, then the graph does indeed speak for itself.

"That’s another rat hole that can make an entire thread."

Quite right. But let’s poke around in that rat hole a bit. So, if the flood didn’t create the entire geologic column, how do you get sedimentary deposits that are five to ten miles in depth? What about continents? Once all joined together or not?


>Have you ever seen anything like this among a collection of skulls from all known modern human races?”

“No.”

Good enough.


“I found a very interesing web site last night: Time-Space Chart of Hominid Fossils.”

Very nice web site. I like it.

“So what if Melhert and Murdock's opinions differ? Are creationsits not allowed to have opposing opinions for some reason?”

Of course they can have different opinions. The question is why do they have different opinions when all relevant species are either fully ape or fully human?

8:54 AM, May 21, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

“I, like pretty much everyone else in the world, have to appeal to a number of trusted authorities on the matter.”

And these would be “authorities” that hold a position rejected by 99.99% of all geologists. They are the equivalent of authorities who believe that the sun goes around the earth. These authorities are absolutely required by the faith to always interpret the evidence as pointing to a young earth, despite the literal mountains of evidence against the YEC hypothesis. They are an embarrassment to Christianity.

Here you are mixing categories. The response had to do with evaluating alleged ape-men remains. Now you jumped down to geological evidence for a global flood. If you mean that 99.99 percent of these geological authorities reject the historical biblical record of the flood, then I may agree with you. People hate God's view of men and things. If you are saying 99.99 percent of all geologists reject a catastrophism model as the mechanism for the geology we observe, then you are grossly in error. Again, before you make grand pronouncements of "literal mountains of evidence" then you had better be clear as to what Andrew Snelling, Steve Austin, and a whole host of other biblical geologists are saying in response. In a way you are offering excuses and hand-waving as you accuse me of below.

Excuses and hand-waving. There’s plenty of material available, and even with errors in reconstruction, you can’t turn the fragments into an infinite number of possible skulls, pelvises, etc. If you have evidence of hoaxing for personal and financial gain for any of the hominid fossils discovered since the 1950s, then please present it.

Did you not even read that article I posted? The author lists several within the last decade. Here it is again

Well, that’s really the crux of it, isn’t it? The evidence is irrelevant. You believe in the literal truth of a Bronze Age creation myth, and that’s that.

If you say so.

“Facts have to be interpreted. “

And it’s very clear that there is no chance that you’re going to interpret the facts in such as way as to contradict your YEC myth.

And it is very clear that there is no chance that you're going to interpret the facts in such a way as to contradict your Darwinian atheism. You basically validate what the Bible says about those who bitterly rage against their creator.

"I do not believe every single evolutionist is "dishonest."

Good. Then stop talking about hoaxes.

Go read that article.

And with the ad hominem! Either put up evidence of hoaxes in the case of post-1950s fossils or recognize this argument for what it is.

Go read the article.

What if I rejected Christianity on the grounds that countless Christian leaders have turned out to be hoaxers, frauds and hypocrites? Would you find my argument compelling?
Yes. Because it is exactly what the Bible predicted. Read 2 Peter 2 and Jude. Christ specifically warned there would be leaders who would be hoaxers, frauds, and hypocrites and they would lead many astray. TV is filled with such personalities.

So, make up your mind. Either scientists never interpret data in a way that contradicts their assumptions. Or scientists are always changing their minds and their answers.

I would say it was both.

Listen, I'll let you have the last word. But I really need to move on, because I have other responsibilities and I want to blog on other issues. I don't have the time to go back and forth in one post. I'll mention evolution and creation again in a future post sometimes, so you're more than welcome to come back around and interact under there.

9:12 AM, May 21, 2010  
Blogger David said...

“Here you are mixing categories. The response had to do with evaluating alleged ape-men remains. Now you jumped down to geological evidence for a global flood."

You’re right that the response had to do with evaluating alleged “ape-men”, so I am mixing categories a bit, but my point was that one can judge the quality of your authorities by looking at their positions on a variety of scientific topics. It’s difficult to take an “authority” seriously on the related topic of hominid fossils when they hold to the belief that the earth is 6000 years old.

"People hate God's view of men and things.”

You are aware that a large percentage of these geologists are Christians, yes? Do these geologists hate God's view of men and things?


“If you are saying 99.99 percent of all geologists reject a catastrophism model as the mechanism for the geology we observe, then you are grossly in error.”

Uh, no, I wasn’t saying this. I was referring to the question of the age of the Earth.

“…Andrew Snelling, Steve Austin, and a whole host of other biblical geologists are saying in response.

I’ve actually had an email exchange with Snelling several years ago, and I know all about Austin and his bogus “Mt. St. Helen’s equals the Grand Canyon” nonsense. Of your whole host, how many have doctorates in geology? I think that the grand total is about five. Maybe five. Not much of a host.

“Did you not even read that article I posted? The author lists several within the last decade. Here it is again”

Read the article. I count one case of clear fraud involving hominid fossils. Reiner Potsch von Zieten’s. That’s it. To be honest, I’ve never heard of the guy or his fossil. The fossil in question is not one where the humanness of the fossil was in doubt, and we have tons of other Neanderthal material, so I’m not sure that it’s really relevant to the points I’ve been trying to make. Never said fraud didn’t happen. Said that you have no evidence of fraud or hoaxes in the cases involving the “not ape, not human” fossils we've been discussing.


“And it is very clear that there is no chance that you're going to interpret the facts in such a way as to contradict your Darwinian atheism. You basically validate what the Bible says about those who bitterly rage against their creator.”

First, I’m not an atheist, nor am I “raging against the Creator”. Second, this is simply untrue. If dinos and humans lived together, then it’s quite possible that we’ll find their fossils together. If we find hominid fossils mixed in the dino fossils, we’re going to have to throw out the book and start over. That’s how science works. In contrast, you’ve clearly stated that absolutely nothing will change your mind. That’s how religion works.


“Go read the article.”

Read the article. No evidence of fraud in the cases of the fossils relevant to this discussion.

>What if I rejected Christianity on the grounds that countless Christian leaders have turned out to be hoaxers, frauds and hypocrites? Would you find my argument compelling?

"Yes. Because it is exactly what the Bible predicted. Read 2 Peter 2 and Jude. Christ specifically warned there would be leaders who would be hoaxers, frauds, and hypocrites and they would lead many astray. TV is filled with such personalities."

Yes, the argument is compelling? So, I can reject Christianity?

>So, make up your mind. Either scientists never interpret data in a way that contradicts their assumptions. Or scientists are always changing their minds and their answers.

“I would say it was both.”

Umm, I believe that these two possibilities are essentially contradictory and perhaps mutually exclusive. Guess you want to have your cake and eat it, too.


“So you're more than welcome to come back around and interact under there.”

No joke, in all seriousness, I appreciate your invitation.

9:47 AM, May 21, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

You still have the last word, but a couple of thoughts:

Yes, the argument is compelling? So, I can reject Christianity?

If you reject Christianity based upon fraudulent claims of spirituality by bogus Christian leaders, then yes, that is compelling evidence that the Bible is true. That is what I am saying. The scripture makes it clear people reject Christ's claims based upon the lives of bogus Christians all the time.

One last one,
First, I’m not an atheist, nor am I “raging against the Creator”.

That is why it would be helpful to put up a bit about yourself at your profile page so we can know where you are coming from. I have yet to read anything you have written here or at Dan's blog defending your theology. I can only assume by your admission here you make some profession of faith. I would encourage you to share a bit. What I have seen so far is a firm rejection of God's authority in the matters of how He has revealed Himself in His Scripture, and yes, through a bronze age people and book.

10:03 AM, May 21, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

Since I have much more important things to do with my time than go around in circles with David, I'll close with this post.

There are other young earth creation models you are obviously not aware of that account for the entire geologic column outside of the single flood theory. I'll leave the discovery of those up to you.

Yes, of course, the evidence keeps piling up, but the quality of that evidence has not improved one bit since the days of Solly Zuckerman. That speaks volumes. The alleged transitional forms between man and apes still consist only of fragments of jaws, reconstructed skull fragments, part of a femur, etc., no complete skeleton or even a reasonable proportion of one ever being discovered. The speculation and generalizations drawn from the fossil evidence still follows an inverse law: Where it is very fragmentary, sweeping claims can be made regarding the position and importance of the 'hominid'. Where more fossil bones have been discovered, opinions become more conservative, for extravagant claims could be refuted from the available evidence, and whether the fossils are from an ape or a human becomes more obvious.

Enjoy your graph. I wish I could be more impressed with it, but I’m not. You can’t have a progression if you don’t have the time, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

12:54 PM, May 21, 2010  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home