Oldest Human Skulls Found

BBC ^ | 6-11-2003 | Jonathan Amos

[Dimensio]

This charge is sometimes applied to Lucy

I'm honestly surprised that it's not tossed out here on FR every now and then. Sure, the claim has been thorougly discredited, but that hasn't stopped some people from presenting similarly discredited claims.

[far sider]

There are plenty of neanderthal fossils and there's no reason to think of them as sub-human. There is evidence that they had a somewhat advanced culture and society. there is also evidence that some of them had medical conditions that affected there bone structure, giving them a more primitive look. However, if a healthy Neanderthal man in modern clothes walked down a city street today, you probably wouldn't notice him as being ununsual.

Typically evolutionists make the most ambitious claims based on fossils that are fragmentary, i.e., the less they have to start with the more they can invent. For instance, about twenty years ago they found a fossil they called Sivapithecus and said it was a human ancestor. Creationists who looks at the fossil said it was probably an ape but it was too incomplete to be sure. Later a more complete fossil of a sivapithecus was found, and evolutionists had to admit it was just an orangutan.

In this article you can see they found three fairly complete skulls and they admit that they are humans. If the skulls were in little tiny pieces they could glue together however they wanted, who knows what claims they would make. If it was Johanson or the Leaky's, instead of Tim White, I suspect the claims would really be spectacular.

[VadeRetro]

Nothing ever disappears from FR. Things just go in and out of fashion.

[VadeRetro]

Behave yourself, now. I don't want to see any more of your posts deleted!

;)

[Dimensio]

Well, post 142 might be deleted, as I reported it as a double-post. As for 141, note that I didn't mention any specific names :)

[jwalsh07]

The Working Years

The Golden Years

[Nebullis]

I haven't seen the fossils, so they tell me nothing...

You doubt the findings, the evidence. Another case of throwing out the facts when the theory is unpalatable.

[far sider]

Thanks for saving me the trouble of looking up Java and Peking. And thanks for confirming that am right. As a so-called creation cultist, I have no problem with Homo erectus. They are clearly human as the name implies. Their cranial capacities are with the human range, etc. (I do have a problem with H. habilis, though.)

I was responding to your claim that creationists can't make up their minds as to whether Java and Peking Man were human or ape. I think you're being disingenuous, if you really mean to say that serious creationists (rather than some amateur who doesn't really know the subject) can't decide if a whole class of hominids is human or not.

[VadeRetro]

I think you're being disingenuous, if you really mean to say that serious creationists (rather than some amateur who doesn't really know the subject) can't decide if a whole class of hominids is human or not.

What do you imagine that I'm making up? Here again is the web page:

A Comparison of Creationist Opinions.

Note the chart. The leading lights of creationism are all over the map in deciding what to call "An APE! Just an APE!" versus "A MAN! Just a MAN!"

[exmarine]

You doubt the findings, the evidence. Another case of throwing out the facts when the theory is unpalatable.

What passes for facts in the evolutionary world in most cases are nothing more than inferences. There is no proof in this article to support the "theory" as you call it. If you want to consider it a fact, go ahead, but the data are insufficient to support that position.

[f.Christian]

HOPEFUL MONSTER THEORY

A concept first introduced out of necessity by the geneticist, Richard Goldschmidt, which states that evolution occurs by sudden and large changes in the offspring of a species resulting in radically different but well adapted organisms, i.e. "hopeful monsters." After being widely discredited for many years this idea is being reintroduced, out of necessity, as a serious theory. The great leaps forward implicit in this theory entirely account for the absence of the "missing links." (See Punctuated Equilibrium)

[VadeRetro]

What it really means when you can't tell what bin to lump things in as you go back in time:

Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record.

It happens with all kinds of things, going back in time, that are a cinch to tell apart now. The bins are arbitrary, but taxonomic trees are the reflection of a real historical tree of common descent.

[Just mythoughts]

You need to go back and read again. I think and read quite well far side. You are the one who cannot read what is written.

Start at the Beginning, in Genesis and follow what is said and you will see that after the 7th day of rest that there was no man to till the ground. So if after describing a creation in Genesis 1, it being good, taking a day off, then saying he had not a man to till the ground tells the reader that the Adam was created on the 8th day.

Furthermore where did the wives for Cain and Seth come from. You really think that their parents were Adam and Eve.

I keep hearing a 6,000 year old earth and 6,000 year old time for creation of man I want to know where it is written.

Now this might get a little deep for you, but you need to stop listening to "evolutionist", and use some common sense. Now if all came from mother "EVE" how many men did God create for her to produced so many races. It is written God created and it was good kind after kind. Only simple silly flesh man tries to make our Heavenly Father's Words fit what simple silly flesh man wants it to say.

Now answer this why does our Heavenly Father say in Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart. So where was man before he was on the earth?

[Nebullis]

What passes for facts in the evolutionary world in most cases are nothing more than inferences.

A skull in hand is not an inference. You have to start somewhere. Given such a skull, what is your explanation for it? And inference doesn't make things wrong. It makes sense, for instance, that the back side of the moon is a continuation of the sphere you see from earth.

[AndrewC]

They got 'em at WalMart?

They might, along with a beetle-browed skull cap or "primitive" teeth.

[VadeRetro]

Punctuated Equilibrium is not Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" theory. You have been corrected on this more often than people have posted you the okapi.

[metesky]

Happy birthday. Where's my check?

[f.Christian]

What does the okapi and monkeys prove ?



FR-ph calls ... the 'hopeful monster' --- "fortuitous mutations" !

[fish hawk]

Would these be the same scientists that say we are going into a global warming or from the scientist that say we are entering another Ice age????