CARBON DATING UNDERCUTS EVOLUTION'S LONG AGES

ICR ^ | October, 2003 | John Baumgardner

[f.Christian]

"For all its faults, "Luther," which opens today nationwide, conveys a great deal of historical information, and now and then it has flashes of real passion. Mr. Ustinov is especially memorable as a canny, titled diplomat navigating a treacherous path between bitterly opposing forces. And the film, photographed by Robert Frazier ("Seven Years in Tibet") on 100 sets in 20 locations throughout Germany, Italy and the Czech Republic, is ravishingly beautiful."

"With religious fundamentalists of every stripe ferociously resisting globalization and modernity, variations of the same primal struggle are still being acted out all over the world. And you are likely to come away from "Luther" with the useful but gloomy realization that the ... movie's essential conflict --- is a never-ending ideological rift programmed into the species."

Martin Luther is a 15th century St Paul - Thomas Jefferson ...

the Reformation was the biggest influence in the founding of the constitution - America ---

no small - ' mean ' matter !

[VadeRetro]

OK, in fairness, co-author Romanowicz consistently omits Baumgardner's name from her listings. (Did someone ask her to do this or did one clerical error get copied?) At any rate, two web pages of 19 omit direct mention of Baumgardner.

That's the good news. The bad news is that, on the second such page, the original article is available in PDF form for direct download. A perusal of same reveals that, for those who hate PDFs, Article 9 on the Result List is the original article in HTML format. Baumgardner is listed as an author either way.

[Stultis]

I lost track of which post was being discussed. My internet connection is unreliable today

Don't sweat it. IMHO Last Visible Dog's protestations of not knowing what people are talking about (the theme of nearly every other post from him) are sheer pretence. It's part of (and with a healthy dose of name calling, just about all of) his trolling technique. He's trying to sow confusion and cause pointless strife. Click on his user name, go to "find in forum," and read his posts in isolation. The pattern will be very obvious. Don't fall for it.

[bondserv]

Does Westernization produce first-rate hospitals, orphanages, and homeless shelters or does Christianity produce these things that have been labeled westernization.

Look at Europe and their westernization without Christianity. It produces unattested abortion, euthanasia, and 10,000 elderly in France who die partially because vacationing health care providers refuse to return to help out.

Who is reaching out to the world to bring the life changing Word of God to shore up the corruption rampant within countries? Muslims? Secular Humanists? Hindus? Buddhists?

Who was captured by the Taliban and held captive in Afghanistan helping the poor women who were being viciously oppressed by Muslim terror? Barbara Streisand? Jane Fonda? Jacque Chirac? Kofi Annan? No.

It was Christians from the last bastion of righteousness left on this planet. God Loving Americans, who are concerned with people's needs here and in eternity. The stories of real sacrifice are endless.

Jesus Christ is the distinguisher.

[js1138]

OK, in fairness, co-author Romanowicz consistently omits Baumgardner's name from her listings.

No doubt embarrassed to be associated with someone who speaks with forked tongue. What is the point of listing someone as a co-author, if they go down the street and say something completely different. The interesting question whether the two personalities are even conscious of each other.

[ThinkPlease]

Baumgardner isn't the only one, IIRC. John Woodmorappe is a pseudonym for Jan Pezckis (sp?), who is also a published science teacher. Woodmorappe quoted Peczkis at some point, which is mildly dishonest. Source : T.O Dishonest Quotes page

[walford]

"Does Westernization produce first-rate hospitals, orphanages, and homeless shelters or does Christianity produce these things that have been labeled westernization.

Look at Europe and their westernization without Christianity. It produces unattested abortion, euthanasia, and 10,000 elderly in France who die partially because vacationing health care providers refuse to return to help out."

Un-Westernized Christianity did not produce these things. Prior to the Reformation, Europe was governed according to the Divine Right of Kings, through which monarchs claimed their thrones as the Will of the Almighty [a crown represents a halo]. Consequently, the creative forces of the people were left untapped, so there was no freedom nor the prosperity it brings. It was in spite of Christianity, not because of it that the West pulled ahead of all other peoples.

These evils to which you refer are the result of a dogmatic Utopianism with is the other side of the coin of religious fundamentalism.

That is, they are subjectively based. That is, they believe that they have the answers and do not need to explain. That is, they have a conception of an ideal world and don't care how many die in the process of bringing it about. This is the same as the radical Muslims who believe they are doing the work of Allah when the blow up school buses full of children.

[VadeRetro]

Neanderthals may be a crossbreed between Unholy Angels and man.

Neanderthals were not 11' 9". They were gnarly, burly, and knobby, but not tall. When you find a Bible verse that mentions odd, bell-shaped rib cages, let me know.

[bondserv]

Some of those skulls you have there look pretty Giantesque. Do they have the full skeletons of all of those guys? What size were their feet? Bone density?

Maybe they were folks with some bone disease, Elephantitous, rickets.

I have read much of "Bones of Contention", however looking for the link I found the Jack Cuozzo book, of which I have only read the sample at Amazon, which looked interesting describing first hand research by the author.

"Bones of Contention"
by Marvin L. Lubenow

"Buried Alive: The Startling Truth About Neanderthal Man"
by Jack Cuozzo

[HalfFull]

OK, in fairness, co-author Romanowicz consistently omits Baumgardner's name from her listings. (Did someone ask her to do this or did one clerical error get copied?) At any rate, two web pages of 19 omit direct mention of Baumgardner.

That's the good news. The bad news is that, on the second such page, the original article is available in PDF form for direct download. A perusal of same reveals that, for those who hate PDFs, Article 9 on the Result List is the original article in HTML format. Baumgardner is listed as an author either way.

Well thanks for the futher research. Their are several possible scenerios, in my opinion (but I freely admit, I don't know the scoop) (1) He was listed as a contributor, but had a very minor role in the entire article; (2) Was interested in the overall subject, contributed, but didn't agree with all the conclusions by the other authors of the article; (3) Contributed, but later saw he could not agree with some of the conclusions, and asked to have his name removed. (4) Changed his viewpoint as he continued his research, and later asked to have his name reviewed; or (5) Never contibuted in any siginificant way, but was included as a contributer because of his association with the other authors. ; (6) was a major contributor

In any case, to attack him and dismiss the man out of hand because of a sentence or two he may or may not have had anything to do with is a bit unfair. Since the article had 4 or 5 authors listed, we will probably never know who wrote the majority of " Time scales and heterogeneous Structure in Geodynamic Earth Models" and its conclusions.

[walford]

Creationist Arguments: Neandertals

Creationists often point out, correctly, that Neandertals were human, but they tend to exaggerate their similarity to modern humans:

"The creationists in those days [the 1860's] responded 'Now wait a minute. Neanderthals are just plain people, some of whom suffered bone disease'"
"Nowadays, evolutionists agree with creationists: Neanderthals were just plain people, no more different from people living today than people than one living nation is different from another." Parker in (Morris and Parker 1982).

"Nowadays, Neanderthal Man is classified as Homo sapiens, completely human" (Huse 1983).

Actually, Neandertals are usually classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a subspecies of humans, in recognition of consistent differences such as heavy brow ridges, a long low skull, a robust skeleton, and others. (Some scientists believe the differences are large enough to justify a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis.) Evolutionists last century claimed that these were real differences between us and Neandertals, and they were right. Creationists claimed that the differences were a result of various diseases or environmental factors, and they were wrong. For Parker to claim that creationists won this debate is a rewriting of history.

Amazingly, a century after scientists knew otherwise, most creationists still believe that Neandertals were merely modern humans, deformed by diseases such as rickets, arthritis or syphilis. Some, but by no means all, Neandertals have been found with signs of health problems such as arthritis. But Neandertals have many distinctive features, and there is no reason why these diseases (or any others) would cause many, let alone all, of these features on even one, let alone many, individuals. Modern knowledge and experience also contradicts the idea that disease is a cause of Neandertal features, because these diseases do not cause modern humans to look like Neandertals.

In the 1800's the famous pathologist Rudolf Virchow was one who claimed that the first Neandertal fossil found was of a rickets sufferer. As Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) point out, Virchow, an expert on rickets, should have been the first to realize how ridiculous this diagnosis was. People with rickets are undernourished and calcium-poor, and their bones are so weak that even the weight of the body can cause them to bend. The bones of the first Neandertal, by contrast, were about 50% thicker than those of the average modern human, and clearly belonged to an extraordinarily athletic and muscular individual.

Lubenow (1992), relying on the authority of Virchow and Ivanhoe (1970), claims that Neandertals (and H. erectus and the archaic sapiens) were caused by a post-Flood ice age: heavy cloud cover, the need to shelter and wear heavy clothes, and a lack of vitamin D sources, would all have combined to cause severe rickets.

This explanation fails for many reasons:

• Rickets does not produce a Neandertal, or Homo erectus morphology; it is clear from many sources (Reader 1981; Tattersall 1995) that the original Neandertal skeleton was unlike any previously known, even in a century in which rickets was a common disease.
• Evidence of rickets is easily detectable, especially on the growing ends of the long bones of the body. Radiology courses routinely teach the symptoms. It has never (so far as I know) been detected in Neandertals or Homo erectus.
• Even Virchow did not claim rickets as a sole cause. Virchow in 1872 decided that the first Neandertal Man fossil had had rickets in childhood, head injuries in middle age, and chronic arthritis in old age. A whole population of such people strains credibility, to say the least, although Lubenow says that this diagnosis "is as valid today as when [Virchow] first made it".
• The long bones of Neandertals, like those of rickets victims, are often more curved than normal, but rickets causes a sideways curvature of the femur, while Neandertal femurs curve backwards (Klein 1989).
• Humans could hardly have stayed in shelter all the time; food gathering would have required them to spend a lot of time outside (and probably a lot more time than most modern urban humans).
• The most extreme differences from modern humans (H. erectus) are mostly found in regions such as Africa and Java, which were always tropical; the reverse of what would be predicted by Lubenow's hypothesis.
• Creationists usually claim that most of the fossil record was laid down by the Noahaic Flood. And yet there are hundreds of fossils of "post-Flood" humans, who supposedly lived in a period of low population and little fossilization. Why, underneath these post-Flood humans, do we not find far larger numbers of fossilized pre-Flood humans?

Lubenow claims that modern scientists do not consider rickets as a cause of Neandertalism because it is a virtually unknown disease nowadays. This is not true. Although not as common as it used to be, rickets has other causes besides vitamin D deficiency and still occurs. Information on it is common in medical textbooks (and even on the web), and the symptoms bear no apparent similarity to the Neandertal skeleton or skull.

Ironically enough, one of the best refutations of the idea that Neandertalism is caused by diseases such as rickets, syphilis or arthritis, is by a creationist author, Jack Cuozzo (1998, pp.275-279). As Cuozzo documents, the symptoms of these diseases bear very little resemblance to the features of Neandertals. (See also a review of Cuozzo's book Buried Alive by Colin Groves.)

Creationists sometimes imply that a paper by Straus and Cave (1957) showed that Neandertals were identical to modern humans. Straus and Cave overturned the stereotype, created by Boule, that Neandertals were semi-erect ape-men with a shambling gait and a divergent big toe, and showed instead that their posture was identical to ours. However their conclusions applied only to posture, and they did not claim that Neandertals were identical to modern humans; in fact quite the opposite:

"This is not to deny that his limbs, as well as his skull, exhibit distinctive features - features which collectively distinguish him from all groups of modern men. In other words, his "total morphological pattern", in the phraseology of Le Gros Clark (1955) differs from that of "sapiens" man." (Straus, Jr. and Cave 1957)

The exhibit on Neandertals at the ICR (Institute for Creation Research) Museum says (or used to say):

"Many Neanderthal features are similar to those in elderly humans today. Since humans lived to great ages in the initial generations after the flood and Babel, perhaps the features are primarily due to advanced age ...".

In fact, the distinctive features of Neandertals, least of all the powerful bones and muscles, seem to bear little resemblance to those of old people. This argument is particularly implausible because even Neandertal children are distinctive. Whoever wrote this presumably also thinks that Neandertals are arthritic modern humans.

At least two evolutionary scientists have revived the idea that Neandertal morphology may be a result of congenital diseases such as rickets (Ivanhoe 1970) or syphilis (Wright 1971). According to Day (1986), neither of these cases was adequately supported or subsequently justified. Both claims seem to have sunk without a trace except among creationists, who often cite them. Gish goes even further, dishonestly implying that even the scientific community accepts these claims:

"They have now concluded that these primitive features of Neandertal people were not genetic, they were pathological." (Gish 1985)

Straus and Cave (1957) made a striking comment about Neandertals:

"Notwithstanding, if he could be reincarnated and placed in a New York subway - provided that he were bathed, shaved, and dressed in modern clothing - it is doubtful whether he would attract any more attention than some of its other denizens".

This may be a source of the creationist idea that Neandertals are "just plain people" (Morris and Parker 1982). Note, though, that this is not quite what the quote says. Anyone who has travelled the Big Apple's subway will probably agree that Neandertals could look quite odd and still meet Straus and Cave's rather lax criterion. Gish (1985) distorts this quote by claiming that a Neandertal in a business suit could walk down a city street and not attract more attention than any other individual, a statement that is probably false.

Johanson and Edey (1981) extend this example by saying that if you put Homo erectus on a subway, "people would probably take a suspicious look at him". Put Homo habilis on the subway, and "people would probably move to the other end of the car". Berra (1990) states that "if cleaned up, shaved and dressed in business suits, [Neandertals] could probably pass for television evangelists."

The following quote from Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) refutes claims that Neandertals differ no more from modern humans than living races do from each other:

"Rare individuals among modern humans may share one, or even a few, of the anatomical characteristics of Neandertals, but not one human - much less any population - can be found that possesses the entire constellation of traits that define Neandertals" (p 412).

Some creationists, such as Doug Sharp (1997), have claimed that Neandertals have existed in historic times. The most cited example is that of a Neandertal reputedly found with (or sometimes in) a suit of chain mail armor (Nature, Apr 23 1908, 77:587), but Sharp also mentions a report of a living Neandertal-like human found in the Phillippines (Nature, Dec 8 1910, 85:176). Both of these reports are so short, a single paragraph, that Sharp quotes them in their entirety. The problem with these claims is that they were made at a time when Neandertals were not nearly as well known as they are today, and by authors who probably had no personal familiarity with Neandertal fossils. There was a tendency in the early 1900's to classify any skull with a browridge or receding forehead as a Neandertal (Trinkaus and Howells, Sci.Am, Dec 1979). This tendency is perfectly illustrated in the report on the "chain mail Neandertal", which mentioned that another scientist had recently classified Australian aborigines as Neandertals. Needless to say, any such claim would be considered ridiculous today. Such old reports, non-peer-reviewed and unsupported by any recent or even contemporary documentation, are equally worthless as evidence of recent Neandertals. (See also my response to Sharp, who commented on the above argument on his web page.

In 1998, creationist Jack Cuozzo published his book Buried Alive, which claimed that Neandertals were humans who had lived for hundreds of years, and that their skull features were caused by extrapolating the changes which normally occur in modern human skulls as they age. Follow this link for material about this book and related issues.

---

Related links

Images of Neandertals, a look at attempts to depict Neandertals.

Neanderthal or Neandertal: how should it be spelt?

Rickets and Neandertals

Neandertal injuries

A Neandertal in armor?

Jack Cuozzo's book Buried Alive

---

This page is part of the Fossil Hominids FAQ at the talk.origins Archive.

Home Page | Species | Fossils | Creationism | Reading | References
Illustrations | What's New | Feedback | Search | Links | Fiction

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html, 08/31/2002
Copyright © Jim Foley || Email me

[bondserv]

I attribute righteousness to Biblical literacy. The Reformation brought about a hunger for the Word of God in the midst of Monarchies.

The knowledge of "Freedom in Christ" that the RC Church kept hidden through it's traditions, held back the Christians in that era. People need to personally know who their God is and how much He has done for them, to be alive, spiritual beings.

That is missing in Modern Europe, and was missing amongst the masses in the Dark Ages. There was much enlightenment by the people in the early Church prior to the dumbing down of Christians by the Monarchial Church during the Dark Ages.

[Last Visible Dog]

Don't sweat it. IMHO Last Visible Dog's protestations of not knowing what people are talking about (the theme of nearly every other post from him) are sheer pretence.

I see you think you are a mind reader.

It's part of (and with a healthy dose of name calling, just about all of) his trolling technique

Now you have resorted to lying. I have never used name-calling. I am here because I find the subject interesting and I do take a firm stand against closed minded people like yourself. This pisses your and forces you to pretend you can read minds, make baseless accusation and flat-out lie.

He's trying to sow confusion and cause pointless strife. Click on his user name, go to "find in forum," and read his posts in isolation. The pattern will be very obvious. Don't fall for it.

You can't read my mind, so stop pretending like you think you can. You are pissed that I have pointed out how closed minded your - nothing more, nothing less.

[Last Visible Dog]

I lost track of which post was being discussed. My internet connection is unreliable today and I can't easily track conversations backwards.

No problem, I agree with your statement. I was pointing out the silliness of someone cheering on your questions as if they were positions. The fact is your actual position about God is contrary to the position held by the person that was cheering on your question claiming they were analogies that somehow attack my position (truth is I had not taken a position). I was pointing out the silliness of the message about you statement, I have no issue with anything you have said.

[bondserv]

Like a pogo-stick. I keep hearing evolutionists saying science is about continually refining the theory. This looks like confusion to me.

They are homo sapiens, they aren't, a sub-species, not a sub-species...

The only agreement I see here is to disagree. That is one of the hallmarks of talkorigins.org.

The bones of the first Neandertal, by contrast, were about 50% thicker than those of the average modern human, and clearly belonged to an extraordinarily athletic and muscular individual.

Since science is forced to guess, lets just trust a reliable source on this topic. There were giants in the land.

[balrog666]

Silly premise placemarker.

[bondserv]

Dishing up humor on a placemate.

[balrog666]

Dishing up humor on a placemate.

LOL. You mean you or me?

[bondserv]

Ah what the heck, both of us. I ain't that smart, most things I say are questionable.

I've been so warped by this feminists society that I feel if I don't have an opinion on something, my rights are in some kind of jeopardy.

Fortunately we have you old guys to keep us whippersnappers in check. (No offense, if I recall correctly, you said somewhere you were a grandpa. Please correct me if I have once again put my foot in my mouth). ;-)

[RadioAstronomer]

Also, what the heck is that graph supposed to mean, anyway? What is the unlabeled y axis? I'm assuming that it means number of samples, but I'm not a freaking psychic, TELL ME! Also, a critical number they leave out is just how many samples they measured. Is it a small percentage? All? A small fraction? What are their errors? They don't list a single error in the whole paper.

I wonder what the regression analysis and P-value would show.