Posted on 02/18/2006 1:21:05 PM PST by DeweyCA
Wow... at exactly 9:00am. that early :-)
Probably Greenwich Mean Time.
You would think that the CRIDers would learn they don't get to throw out uneducated assertions without a direct on point rsponse.
Of course, they never answer anything on point.
I have been trying to point out the logical fallacies to them and I get back ad hominem.
Fighting against stupidity and vacuity is a never-ending and frustrating job!
Typical postmoderndeconstructionist comments by the author. He replaces scientific inquiry by textual analysis. Then he trys to impose his own definition of terms on those actually doing the work. Creationism is the soulmate of postmoderndeconstructionism.
Especially since there were no clocks :)
Not really. Evolution is, was, and will always be a theory. Laws describe observed regularities; theories attempt to explain observations.
There is no denying the fossil evidence and the progression from Australopithecus to Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus to Homo SapienThat Wikipedia article isn't very clearly written. Besides, I suspect it's just wrong. Australopithecus, which vincentblackshadow referred to, is the genus, Australopithecus africanus is a species within that genus. The very next sentence after the ones you included in your quote, says "The gracile australopithecines first appeared in the hominid fossil record between 5.4 to 1.5 million years ago."Well, yes there is.
A. africanus used to be regarded as ancestral to the genus Homo (in particular Homo erectus). However, fossils assigned to the genus Homo have been found that are older than A. africanus. Thus, the genus Homo either split off from the genus Australopithecus at an earlier date (the latest common ancestor being A. afarensis or an even earlier form), or both developed from an as yet possibly unknown common ancestor independently.
So, the earliest australopithecine fossil is 5.4 million years old. But what does Wikipedia say about how old Australopithecus africanus specifically was?
Australopithecus africanus was an early hominid, an australopithecine, who lived between 3.3 and 2.4 million years ago in the Pliocene.Ah, interesting. A. africanus fossils range from 3.3 to 2.4 mya. OK, now what does Wikipedia say about how old Homo erectus fossils are?
It is now believed that H. erectus is a descendent of more primitive ape-men such as australopithecines and early Homo species. Before their settlement of South Eastern Asia, dating fewer than 500,000 and 300,000 years ago, H. erectus originally migrated during the Pleistocene glacial period in Africa roughly 2.0 million years ago and so disbursed throughout various areas of the Old World.So the Wikipedia articles paint a fully consistent picture to what vincentblackshadow said.
This site at Michigan State says A. africanus fossils range from 3.3 to 2.3 mya, while H. erectus fossils range from 1.7 mya to 300 kya.
It is true that some later Australopithecine fossils are younger than some of the earlier Hominid fossils. But of course that's to be expected, since they're on a bush, not a ladder.
You're not counting all the disenfranchised voters who were turned away and couldn't read the ballot :)
The non-randomness of selection is easily observed by analyzing each letter for 'fitness' in the 'monkeys typing' mind experiment.
Of course, Hays was talking about the Troping Hypothesis.
The author of the article makes this mistake willfully.
Ironically I was out in that area for vacation last year but I never heard of of the bones at all. It is educational though to hear about this but in the end it doesn't prove Creationism. Finding bones in Cretaceous layers like they did in Moab sounds like a slam dunk until you do the carbon dating on them and find they are no more than 1500 years old. Either they were buried on purpose or they were mining (the latter seems to be the most logical). Either way it seems they were natives (my guess is Anasazi).
You're completely missing the point related to VESTIGIAL FEATURES. Modern science has made claims of no use, or de-selected use and then was PROVEN COMPLETELY WRONG, as more knowledge was discovered. That's why your use of these vestigial claims have so little credibility. Truthful (and non-emmbarrasing in the future) statements should be: WE DON'T KNOW OR UNDERSTAND WHAT THE USE IS?
Except the Soviet Union, where "Darwinist Biologists" were executed and Darwin (along with Mendel) were not allowed to be taught or researched.
Getting rid of the masses would also work.
And they were 100 percent creationist, too.
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.