Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was Nebraska Man a fraud?
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 16 of 46 (87076)
02-17-2004 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Percy
02-17-2004 12:30 PM


Re: The Central Issue
Percy writes:
I'm not sure what Creationists hope to achieve by pushing issues like Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man, nor what evolutionists hope to achieve by defending them. No human endeavor is free of human failties, and science is no exception. The issue isn't whether evolutionists have ever perpetrated scientific misdeeds, because they most certainly have. So have Creationists.
Unless Creationists are trying to make the case for secret factories churning out fossils night and day that scientists surrepticiously slip into the ground so that they may "discover" them, focusing on the frauds has no point because there is overwhelming authentic evidence.
Have a cigar. You are, of course, completely correct.
I don't see myself as "defending" so much as clarifying the nature of the mistakes that were made and the impact it had. But as you say, it is a matter of small importance.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 02-17-2004 12:30 PM Percy has not replied

teen15m6
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 46 (97079)
04-02-2004 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Percy
02-17-2004 12:30 PM


Re: The Central Issue
quote: "overwhelming authentic evidence."
like what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 02-17-2004 12:30 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Loudmouth, posted 04-02-2004 1:57 PM teen15m6 has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 46 (97083)
04-02-2004 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by teen15m6
04-02-2004 1:50 PM


Re: The Central Issue
quote:
quote: "overwhelming authentic evidence."
like what?
The overwhelming number of authentic homonid fossils that point to our evolution from a common ancestor with apes. Take away Nebraska man, Piltdown man, etc. and you are still left with numerous fossils that can't be ignored. Well, can't be ignored unless you are a creationist bent on ignoring evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by teen15m6, posted 04-02-2004 1:50 PM teen15m6 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by teen15m6, posted 04-02-2004 2:08 PM Loudmouth has replied
 Message 30 by Tiny man, posted 04-16-2004 9:42 AM Loudmouth has not replied

teen15m6
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 46 (97086)
04-02-2004 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Loudmouth
04-02-2004 1:57 PM


Re: The Central Issue
"numerous fossiles wich cannot be ignored" mind nameing some?
and no i am not bent on ignoring evidence, so far it seems to me most evolutionist r bent on ignoreing the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Loudmouth, posted 04-02-2004 1:57 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Loudmouth, posted 04-02-2004 4:38 PM teen15m6 has not replied
 Message 25 by JonF, posted 04-03-2004 4:29 PM teen15m6 has not replied
 Message 27 by wj, posted 04-04-2004 7:36 PM teen15m6 has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 46 (97178)
04-02-2004 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by crashfrog
02-17-2004 6:40 AM


Smarties are a sour, sugar-based candy. Much akin to Sweettarts, if you have those.
American "smarties" = British "refreshers"...
And its not "starburst" its "opal fruit"....
And don't even get me started on "marathon" and "snickers" I mean WTF is "snickers" supposed to mean anyway?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2004 6:40 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 04-02-2004 11:51 PM joz has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 46 (97186)
04-02-2004 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by teen15m6
04-02-2004 2:08 PM


Re: The Central Issue
quote:
"numerous fossiles wich cannot be ignored" mind nameing some?
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens
You can find there descriptions and links to pictures of the actual fossils here. You can also look here some of the fossils within a timeline.
Also, here is a diagram of the brain case size for some of the above listed species:

{Rescaled graphic, to restore page width to normal. Right click on image to see larger version. - Adminnemooseus}
As you can see, there is a steady rise in brain size among the hominid fossils. Some of the fossils, which some creationists insist are human, fall well outside the brain size of living human beings.
quote:
and no i am not bent on ignoring evidence, so far it seems to me most evolutionist r bent on ignoreing the truth.
Then you wouldn't mind going through the list of fossils above and tell me how they fit into the Genesis account? What am I missing, what evidence am I ignoring? I have a set of skulls that start out looking ape-like and progressively become more human like. The ages of the more human like fossils are younger than the ages of the more ape like skulls. Both the ages of the fossils and their composition are supported by solid science, unlike the hoaxes and misrepresentations associated with Nebraska man and other fossils that are not part of the collection that I have listed. The above collection are the fossils that creationists ignore, or try to explain away with pseudoscientific logic.
[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 04-02-2004]
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-03-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by teen15m6, posted 04-02-2004 2:08 PM teen15m6 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by wj, posted 04-02-2004 10:28 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 04-04-2004 9:43 PM Loudmouth has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 46 (97374)
04-02-2004 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Loudmouth
04-02-2004 4:38 PM


Re: The Central Issue
If teeny is unable to provide a consistent creationist (spelling corrected) explanation for the existence of the nominated fossils, how about taking up a lesser challenge.
Identify which of the nominated fossils are of humans and which are non-humans, according to creationist thinking.
[This message has been edited by wj, 04-03-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Loudmouth, posted 04-02-2004 4:38 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NosyNed, posted 04-03-2004 2:58 AM wj has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 23 of 46 (97383)
04-02-2004 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by joz
04-02-2004 4:29 PM


I mean WTF is "snickers" supposed to mean
if you're a secret snicker snacker you have something to snicker about snacking secretly.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by joz, posted 04-02-2004 4:29 PM joz has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 24 of 46 (97422)
04-03-2004 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by wj
04-02-2004 10:28 PM


Re: The Central Issue
There is no reason to start making fun(yet).
Teen is a good enough short form for the nic. Don't you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by wj, posted 04-02-2004 10:28 PM wj has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 25 of 46 (97545)
04-03-2004 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by teen15m6
04-02-2004 2:08 PM


Re: The Central Issue
"numerous fossiles wich cannot be ignored" mind nameing some?
I like this Chart of Human Evolution, with white numbers in the bars that "indicate the approximate count of distinct individuals in each species from whom fossil remains survive. This is considerably smaller than the number of fossil 'specimens,' because a specimen can be a single tooth, bone or bone fragment.", and lihnks to discussions of each type.
500 Neandertals, 150 Homo Erectus, 50 Homo Hedelbergnesis, 20 Homo Ergaster, 5 Homo Rudolfensis, 15 Homo Habilis, 90 Australopithecus Robustus, 20 Australopithecus Bosel, 5 Australopithecus Aethlopicus, 130 Australopithecus Africanus, 120 Australopithecus Afarensis, 5 Australopithecus Anamansis, 5 Australopithecus Ramidus ...
And that chart's five years old based on a book that's eight years old and was probably a little out of date when it came out; there have been others discovered since then

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by teen15m6, posted 04-02-2004 2:08 PM teen15m6 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2004 5:29 PM JonF has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 46 (97554)
04-03-2004 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by JonF
04-03-2004 4:29 PM


Re: The Central Issue
A similar chart is available at
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
again each species is hyperlinked to a description
the Australopithicus afarensis (of Lucy fame - her knee joint is shown (I think - not identified)) also shows the Laetoli footprint with a link to that.
it is always instructive to compare such trees from different sources.
enjoy.
{{edit in pink -- added}}
[This message has been edited by AbbyLeever, 04-03-2004]

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by JonF, posted 04-03-2004 4:29 PM JonF has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 46 (97721)
04-04-2004 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by teen15m6
04-02-2004 2:08 PM


Re: The Central Issue
"numerous fossiles wich cannot be ignored" mind nameing some?
and no i am not bent on ignoring evidence, so far it seems to me most evolutionist r bent on ignoreing the truth.
The clock is now ticking. Teen has been provided with a couple of substantive replies which identify the human and prehuman fossil material identified by scientists.
How long do we wait before unresponsiveness becomes ignoring the evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by teen15m6, posted 04-02-2004 2:08 PM teen15m6 has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 46 (97734)
04-04-2004 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Loudmouth
04-02-2004 4:38 PM


Re: The Central Issue
I've not done enough reading on this subject to get into intense debate on it, but doing a google search I see there are links to visit with arguments pro and con. I noted this creo con link, for example on page one. I searched "early human fossils modern man."
NOTE: To read the scrambled section of this link, highlight from above the section to read the top portion. Then highlight from the bottom up to read the bottom section. Or you can copy the top section and notepad it to read, doing the same for the bottom secion. I don't know what would cause the scrambling.
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 04-04-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Loudmouth, posted 04-02-2004 4:38 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2004 12:44 AM Buzsaw has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 29 of 46 (97778)
04-05-2004 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw
04-04-2004 9:43 PM


Re: The Central Issue
If you have your text size set large it can cause scrambling. I had no trouble with the site.
(I do note that the sites listing of what evolution predicts is wrong, and I would dispute the "sudden appearance of modern man" in the creation version ... and some other things struck me as not too consistent.)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 04-04-2004 9:43 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Tiny man
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 46 (100364)
04-16-2004 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Loudmouth
04-02-2004 1:57 PM


Human Evolution?
"The overwhelming number of authentic homonid fossils that point to our evolution from a common ancestor with apes. Take away Nebraska man, Piltdown man, etc. and you are still left with numerous fossils that can't be ignored. Well, can't be ignored unless you are a creationist bent on ignoring evidence." Quote by Loudmouth.
Actually, there is no clear cut progression between the Australopithecines (Lucy type skeleton) and modern day Humans. It has been shown pretty much by many scientists that the Australopithecines are not "half ape, half Human". Dr Charles Oxnard (an evolutionary anatomist) believes that in reality the Australopithecines "differ more from both Humans and Africian apes than do these tow living groups from each other. The Australopithecines are unique". [Dr Charles E. Oxnard in "Fossils, Teeth and Sex - New Perspectives on Human Evolution", 1987, p. 227.] In fact, recent CAT scans of the bony labyrinth which once housed their organ of balance have shown conclusively that they did not habitually walk upright - as some evolutionists insist it did.
The next main one in line is Homo Hablis. This is now regarded as a "waste bin" of two or more unrelated species and hence, is an "invalid category". CAT scans have shown that Homo Hablis (the head part of it any way) was even less able to habitually walk upright - which is not what we would expect. Dr Fred Spoor (an atomist) says that the organ of balace was more like that of baboons than of Humans. Interestingly enough, he got support from other findings in Africa to suggest that the limb bones are less adapted for bipedalism and more ape like than the Australopithecines. It was less evolved in the direction of Humans than the Australopithecines.
The next and final one that we will deal with is called Homo Erectus. Well-defined Homo Erectus skeletal types were most probably true Humans living after teh Flood and expressing bony "racial" variation (if one accepts the Biblical model). Once again Fred Spoor's CAT scans have been done on Erectus and it has been discovered that they walked just like we do. They could run, jump, skip, etc. Even though Erectus is often displayed as a stooped ape man. Homo Erectus is truely Human. Dr Sigrid Hartwig Scherer (a paleoanthropologist from Munich Uni) believes that Homo Erectus was the "basic type of Human".
So the question remains, where are the transitional forms between Human and apes? Dr Fred Spoor says that this question is "so far quite problematic".

"Do not be afraid of anyone, and do not worry. But have reverence for Christ in your hearts, and honor him as Lord. Be ready at all times to answer anyone who asks you to explain the hope you have in you but do it with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Loudmouth, posted 04-02-2004 1:57 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 04-16-2004 10:31 AM Tiny man has replied
 Message 32 by Dr Jack, posted 04-16-2004 10:37 AM Tiny man has not replied
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2004 1:06 PM Tiny man has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024