If you will be kind enough to point out the abrupt break between human and ape in these specimens. But be aware that different creationist websites draw the line in different places.
Posted on 06/14/2008 8:25:27 PM PDT by Yomin Postelnik
Hi everyone,
I'm just wondering if anyone had this experience before. I wrote a column about the proof of the existence of a Divine Creator (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2029192/posts ) and am now getting google stalked by an Atheist Group in Austin, in addition to phone calls and emails.
I'm not going to stop saying/writing what I believe or stop speaking out against these tactics, but was wondering if anyone here had experience and knows what to do about google, etc. I know some of us may disagree on the issues, but I don't think there's much debate about these tactics.
The full story of what happened is available here: http://creationistsearcher.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/on-the-lies-and-harassment-tactics-of-martin-wagner-and-russell-glasser/
I'm not demanding anything, merely asserting that you don't have a response to SN1987A. As for whether you participate in these discussions, I wish you wouldn't, for the reasons I've listed. But if you do participate, it would help your cause to respond to the science.
If you look back a page or two on this thread you will find a request from Running Wolf for citations from me. Now citations regarding Darwin as a geologist are just a Google click away. I found half a dozen good ones in five minutes. No one "demanded" that I do other people's searches for them, but it's a part of participating in a discussion.
I am not demanding anything from you, but I am suggesting that changing the subject and ignoring relevant questions does not look good.
Look here. I guess this is the thanks I get.
Last you demanded a copy of their emails.
I never asked (or demanded, what a Drama Queen!) for your e-mails. You came up with the suggestion that you send them to me and that I post them.
Funny how those who reject evolution generally know more about it, and approach it with more intellectual honesty, than those who subscribe to it.
Apparently you don't pay any attention whatsoever to the threads you start or at least the posts of those you attack. I have said in at least three posts that I am not a proponent of evolution theory.
At this point I think you're busted as a total fraud and a liar.
If you will be kind enough to point out the abrupt break between human and ape in these specimens. But be aware that different creationist websites draw the line in different places.
Nonsense. Typical fundamentalist nonsense not backed up by the facts.
This guy is a transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the right center):
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33
I see that the fossil has an estimated age based on 4 separate dating methods, is any one method used as a control for the others? How will we confirm any of this?
Paleo-Anthropologist's have unusual definitions for what constitutes a fossil, at one extreme a tooth or two and a few shards of bone is enough, and at the other end of the envelope reconstructions built up of dissociated fragments well over a hundred can be 'a fossil', such as what KNM-ER 3733 looks to be.
And then there is yet another problem (among many) in the field of paleo-anthropology, and that is the issue of reconstruction. The Rise and Fall of KNM-ER 1470 is a good example.
Your facts as you call them are based on beliefs.
So troublesome was the skull that famed paleo-anthropologist Richard Leakey, the leader of the team that discovered it, once told reporters: “Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man. It simply fits no models of human beginnings.”
Impossible face
Bromage said the original reconstruction relied on preconceptions about how early humans looked that are now known to be incorrect. The result, he said, was a skull that shared several features in common with modern humans, including a relatively flat face and a large brain case.
In the original KNM-ER 1470 reconstruction, this angle was between 60 and 75 degrees, Bromage said. “It was absolutely incompatible with life,” he said. “The jaw would have been positioned so far back in the skull that there would have been no room for an airway or esophagus. It couldn’t breathe or eat.”
Martin also disputes the claim that H. rudolfensis’ large cranial capacity made it stand out among ancient hominids. Martin points out that a 1.6 million-year-old Homo erectus skeleton known as “Turkana Boy” had a cranial capacity of about 900 cc.“At 1.9, you’ve got [H. rudolfensis] with [a cranial capacity] of 750 cc, and at 1.6 you’ve got 900 cc. I don’t have a problem with that,” Martin said.
If confirmed, KNM-ER1470’s new cranial capacity would be comparable to that of H. habilis. “Now it’s no longer an outlier,” Bromage said. “It’s just part of the gang.”
I’m sorry I didn’t see your initial post, and thank you. However, since then every one of your comments has been totally outrageous. And you most certainly did demand the emails, hence my response (a- you can post the filth b- if I do you’ll say I wrote them, that’s why I’d like to send them to you). And if you’re not a proponent of evolutionary theory then you must just like asking ridiculous questions and postulating that evolution doesn’t deal with abiogenesis just for the fun of it. You might want to read The Origin of Species before purporting ridiculous statements on theories “you don’t believe in.” Also, the next time you call someone a liar, you should try to do it without blatantly lying twice in that same post, as is clear to anyone who follows the conversation. Now, it’s clear that you’re just trolling this thread and the other one on creationism, so please take a break.
js is right that creationists do draw a line between them. But it’s for a very good reason. No conclusive ones that are in tact show uniquely human and uniquely ape characteristics together. The one you highlight has uniquely ape features. See also this link, I know that the source has a stated agenda (unlike the evolutionists at talk origins, who deny their agenda, but who go about purporting it in the most vicious of ways).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp
“one of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.
Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.”
See this link as well, even more problems raised http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/problems-with-the-fossil-record.htm
See also some commentary that hits the nail on the head about the tactics of many evolutionists to suppress scientific debate http://www.discovery.org/a/2321
The only difference in where they draw the line is with regard to some very inconclusive and partial specimen. In all specimen with all characteristics defined, the line drawn is clear and without controversy. See the last post to Coyote as well (directly above).
So where do you draw the line, and on what basis?
Genus Homo is our own genus, and is distinct from any of the ape genera for a number of reasons. Please show how Homo ergaster falls more closely within one of the ape genera rather than genus Homo.
And please explain how and why you discount the features which have been used to place it within the genus Homo.
I understand your original point, that the ergaster is much lower on the chain than any other fossil of homo erectus. My point is that it’s not homo erectus. It’s similar to the Australopithecus which had unique baboon features and traits. It’s also one of the lesser intact fossils.
The main point is that we’ve found a plethora of clearly ape fossils and clearly human ones and nothing of substance in between (whereas, if evolution had occured, the numbers of each group would be similar, there’d actually, in all probability, be more transition ones than ape and there’d definite be more than just a few deformed,inconclusive ones). Even evolutionists debate the validity of the ergaster classification and many consider it less of an offshoot and more of a decomposed figure of an Australopithecus.
There is a lot of debate of the various features of H. ergaster precisely because it is intermediate (a transitional). If it was either fully Homo or fully Australopithecus there would not be such a debate.
These intermediate traits qualify ergaster as a transitional, and nothing creationists have come up with has changed that. Now, you may not consider it as a transitional for religious reasons but that does not affect scientists and their researches one whit.
Yeah, sure.
However, since then every one of your comments has been totally outrageous.
What a Drama Queen!
And you most certainly did demand the emails, ...
Then you can show what post I did that in. All I did was ask you to explain what assault had been committed on you.
b- if I do you’ll say I wrote them, that’s why I’d like to send them to you).
You assumed that. Nice! You don't know me. Where do you get off making an accusation like that? You're not only a drama queen you're a jerk.
And if you’re not a proponent of evolutionary theory then you must just like asking ridiculous questions and postulating that evolution doesn’t deal with abiogenesis just for the fun of it.
That's your opinion. Just because you don't have the brain power to understand my questions doesn't make them ridiculous.
You might want to read The Origin of Species before purporting ridiculous statements on theories “you don’t believe in.”
You certainly are arrogant. You can't reply to the substance of what I've said, you can't refute that evolution theory is about change in species not the origin of life itself (huge clue is Darwin's title itself though his work doesn't define all of evolution theory) but you can presume to know what I have or haven't read.
Also, the next time you call someone a liar, you should try to do it without blatantly lying twice in that same post, as is clear to anyone who follows the conversation.
I proved exactly where you had lied. So where did I lie? You are pathetic.
Now, it’s clear that you’re just trolling this thread and the other one on creationism, so please take a break.
This is an open thread. Just because you can't defend yourself intelligently is no reason for me to leave it. It certainly isn't up to you.
Coyoteman,
I’m sorry but this is laughable. The debate is because the one or two decayed fossils do not point to anything clear.
The “ergaster” specimen still do not possess transitional traits, features of both homo and austral, the question is only what to make of the (primarily) skull shape.
That doesn’t negate the fact that while thousands of ape and human fossils have been found, no such numbers have been found of any transitional types, and the few and far between ones listed as “transitional” (none of which actually show transition, i.e. uniquely homo and austral. characteristics) are all highly inconclusive. This fact alone should show that there were no intermediary species and makes logic dictate that these few decayed skeletons are ape fossils that have decayed. There are fossils you wouldn’t be able to differentiate between a cat’s skull and a young weasel’s, but no evidence is around and no claim is made that weasels are evolved cats. Yet you present that as logic for an ape/human connection in spite of the fact that intermediaries simply don’t exist and the math doesn’t add up (thousands of primaries, according to your side, thousands of humans, and a bobbing inconclusive skeleton or tow in between to show intermediary steps that if existed, would be more plentiful than the primary apes, as they’d be their offspring).
As you would say, your religion of evolutionism may cause you to ignore these, but that shouldn’t stand in the way of science or reasoning.
You are wrong. You have blinded yourself so thoroughly that you will not see anything beyond the narrow framework you have created for yourself.
The experts who have actually studied ergaster have established a number of traits which are transitional. Creationist authors have also disagreed on where to place ergaster, whether ape or human, for the same reason.
Even creationists can see the intermediate nature of the species, but you refuse to. I think that says more about you than ergaster.
So when you can’t answer any questions of substance you make it personal instead?
You’ve said nothing in your last post other than ad hominem insinuations. I dub thee “Evolutionist.”
Thank you for confirming the validity of the points I raised (but not answering them).
You’ve said nothing in your last post other than ad hominem insinuations.
From my last post:
The experts who have actually studied ergaster have established a number of traits which are transitional. Creationist authors have also disagreed on where to place ergaster, whether ape or human, for the same reason.Do you have any response to the substance of my post?Even creationists can see the intermediate nature of the species...
Stop playing games. You ignored all my points countering them and repeat the same line “experts disagree.” What about all the experts on the other side, the ones who actually use fact instead of dogmatic adherence to an illogical view that never holds up in debate, that being Darwinism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.