The Ape Man: Truth or Fiction?

It is Mark's fault but you are right; this is NOT the thread for discussing strata and dating. Do you want this as a start for another thread on the topic? If so I will set it up.

Sorry, I just felt that if he really wanted to see and hear the person in question, that I would have been happy to send it.However, considering he has a foul mouth, I'll be happy not to send it. I think he needs to wash his mouth with soap. Must still be in his early thirties, needs some growing up.

I'm not going to make any judgement on whether or not this is part of the topic.I do know that discussion of such would be better served in a "Geology and the Great Flood" topic.I suggest you do a variation of the message, and submit it to the "Proposed New Topics" forum. Might I suggest the title "Rates of Formation of Geologic Strata".Adminnemooseus

Yes, he's probably had insufficient exposure to irrationality and ignorance. Probably one of those academic types. Who do these people think they are anyway, thinking that just because they've studied a topic in depth and can discuss it clearly and rationally that other people should pay any attention to what they say? The nerve!--Percy

I'd like to return to a question I asked in Message 5.Would a modern ape consider the common ancestor as human?If there is a critter that an Ape could consider an Ape, and a Human could consider Human, is that not proof of its existence?When we find a fossil that has characteristics of both, how can we say that the Ape Man is not Truth?The only way I see around that conclusion is by precisely defining what Man is.Would any of those who believe the Ape Man is Fiction, be willing to outline those attributes that would distinguish man from ape and that would also be testable?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If you recall, Ramapithecus had to exist before modern man, correct? So let's look at the layers to find if that's true. In 1866 at Calavera-1860 and 1880 at Castenedolo, and then again thirty two years later at Ipswich.They found modern human skulls, and bones in the midst of the "Pliocene layers". Now, you know that the estimated age of the -Pliocene Era" is approximately, seven-twelve million years(according to your theory).How did they manage to find a modern man skull,and bones in layers of strata where Ramapithecus is supposed to be? Did they(modern man and Ramapithecus) make up a treaty to meet there?they both existed at the same time according to the evidence. However, what does that do to your theory? Well, it proves that Ramapithecus is NOT the ancestor of modern man. He can't be, he is in the wrong LOCATION.

and how was the grave of the modern man dated? or was that conveniently left out of the information from your source?one easy reason why: burial. dig down, plant the body, fill, and voila.yawn.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Actually, Ramapithecus is most likely more closely related to the orangutan. The jaw bone in particular is not similar to any of the hominids. It's an early primate but not in the line of Homo.From the Columbia Encyclopedia.

quote:

---

(rmpthks, —pth—) (KEY) , an extinct group of primates that lived from about 12 to 14 million years ago, for a time regarded as a possible ancestor of Australopithecus and, therefore, of modern humans. Fossils of Ramapithecus were discovered in N India and in E Africa, beginning in 1932. Although it was generally an apelike creature, Ramapithecus was considered a possible human ancestor on the basis of the reconstructed jaw and dental characteristics of fragmentary fossils. A complete jaw discovered in 1976 was clearly nonhominid, however, and Ramapithecus is now regarded by many as a member of Sivapithecus, a genus considered to be an ancestor of the orangutan.

---

edited to fix spelling.This message has been edited by jar, 08-23-2004 12:08 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

See Creationist Arguments: Anomalous FossilsCalaveras was probably a joke.

quote:

---

Personal testimonies and geological evidence indicate that it is probably a modern Indian found in nearby limestone caves, and that it was planted as a practical joke by miners. Tests have shown it to be
recent, probably less than 1000 years old

---

The Castenedolo remains were later burials

quote:

---

An official report on these skeletons in 1899 noted that all the fossils from the deposit were impregnated with salt, except the human ones. This implies that they are from relatively recent burials. Collagen tests in 1965 and radiocarbon dating in 1969 confirmed this.

---

It wasn't a burial site. They "had" to make sure it wasn't a burial site before they excavated the site. So that is definitely out of the question.

Isn't ironic that the dating methods being used are not even valid. Let me explain. If we date the fossil by the layer of strata, and "then" we date the strata by the fossil index, that is not science.I believe it's called circular reasoning.This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-25-2004 03:28 PMThis message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-25-2004 03:59 PM

Sounds good to me. Is it possible to add the dating methods also?

Propose a topic. As I see it, dating methods could be included, although I would prefer to keep such restricted to the most fundimental (relative) dating methods. We can hash out the content before it is released to debate.The topic could go to either the "Geology..." or the "Dates..." forum, but I see it as being best in "Geology...".Adminnemooseusps: For whatever it's worth, the non-admin mode minnemooseus has a geology degree. I just wish he could remember where he put it.

How old? The burial could go back some 30,000 years easily. Give the citation for the archaeological report\article on the discovery so we can see what the evidence is.{added by edit} oops, looks like PaulK already did:
http://EvC Forum: The Ape Man: Truth or Fiction?funny that the facts match my post and not yours, eh?enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 08-25-2004 07:58 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Ironic isn't it that this typical creatortionista misrepresentation of the dating methods is just not true, it doesn't address the validation of dating techniques by many correlations -- to argue this point please go to {Age Correlations and an Old Earth} ...
(see http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth)
... preferably after reading it -- and it doesn't address the fact that standard procedure is to use at least two different methods to date things: this is not possible in your circular scenario, thus invalidating it on its own premis, independant of the validity of the dating techniques themselves.I believe that is called failed reasoning.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}