Posted on 05/04/2004 8:21:26 PM PDT by bondserv
The human fossil record is completely compatible with special creation.
This is not a true statement. Since these fossils are clearly different, where are the living organisms they represent?
Since Genesis does not say that God caused the flood to destroy apes, the fossil evidence clearly contradicts special creation.
It looks like the good Dr. is another one of these creationists who collect science degrees to add weight to their arguments. But it's still not science.
Some evolutionists try to deny the fact of gross non-transitions in evolution by arguing that the taxonomic names themselves cover up a great deal of presumed evolutionary change. For instance, they may claim that Australopithecus and Homo only seem to be separate and distinct entities, but in actuality the two genera grade into each other, and thus the names Australopithecus and Homo are merely arbitrary divisions of an evolutionary continuum of primitive-to-advanced hominids. Nothing could be further from the truth! As we shall see, a variety of statistical analyses have been performed, and these show that, for the most part, australopiths and Homo each consist of a mutually-distinct cluster of morphological attributes. And, if anything, (and as discussed above) there probably exists a proliferation of artificial species reflecting trivial differences rather than a small number of specific names, each subsuming an excessive amount of variation.If Woody were the only creationist writing, or if only all his brethren would coordinate with him, there would be no problems. But look:
Creationist Arguments, Homo habilis.
This is precisely where the creationists fall all over themselves trying to figure out what is "only" a man and what is "only" an ape. The mirror-image argument among real scientists is whether a given specimen belongs in genus Australopithecus or genus Homo. That's the signature of transitional fossils. They're hard to classify. This problem should never come up if the special creation model was right. After all, a kind is a kind and what is now distinct must have always been distinct.
Where the fossils represent variation within a kind, the living organisms are still present just not with that particular variation.
Where the fossils represent a unique kind, scripture does not rule out extinction. In fact extinction is entirely possible with the curse that was placed on the earth. We see a continuing degradation of the gene pool. This is true of man which now has hundreds of genetic diseases, but hardly any positive mutations. It's thought to be the reason for the Koala bear's near extinction as well.
Creationists readily admit that there were dinosaurs and that they became extinct. Whether they did that before the flood, or were represented on the ark but failed to thrive afterwards, we don't know. The Bible refers to a creature that had a tail like a cedar tree, that could place a dinosaur like creature in existence well after the flood.
1) I'm not an expert on skulls and even if I was, I couldn't tell much from the pictures. You could probably show me a number of skulls of current apes and I wouldn't be able to positively identify the creature as to whether it was man or ape. I rely on others to be experts in those fields, such as Gish and Menton. I have read that creationists are often denied access to examine these fossils.
That apes are in many ways physically similar to man is not disputed by creationists. In many ways they clearly lower animals than man.
2) Why can't Gish, Menton agree? Assuming that Talk Origins is correctly presenting up-to-date Gish and Menton's findings, there's a number of possible reasons:
Look at the following link of Menton's of how many times evolutionists have had to reverse their own findings. And yes it deals with Lucy but not the obvious issue of evolutionists piecing together a creature from bones found miles apart. I agree it shouldn't be that difficult, but then when you have a large group of people insisting that evolution happened and constantly imagining that they have found proof, it takes a large amount of work to counter their claim.
I give you credit. That's an interesting admission.
However, strict Biblical literalists do not accept extinction as a possibility, which is why they don't recognize such things as skull A in Vade's post. They would ask you for the chapter and verse that describes extinction events.
In the case of dinosaur fossils, creationists usually tell us they're only a few hundred years old, or that they're just rocks, but not that they represent any creature that ever lived and certainly not millions of years ago.
I'm glad you have such a lengthy excuse. Long excuses are much better than short ones. But your claim is in tatters.
The fact is that Darwin predicted ape-human intermediates would be found (and in Africa, too). Not bad. The only non-modern hominid known in his day was Neanderthal Man--much more human than ape--and it had been found in Germany.
All you have is to try to lawyer it away, but it won't go away. And then there are the walking whales, feathered dinos, legged sirenians ... Most of the 200-plus vertebrate transitional fossils in Kathleen Hunts FAQ were unknown in Darwin's day. His theory and his book said they would turn up. It's a shame that doctrinaire malice prevents you from giving a person credit for making a prediction like that.
Some of them do squawk at A being placed where it is, because it's a modern chimp! Another thing lots of the data lawyers scream about is Neanderthal skulls being in the sequence, since they're more or less off the direct line. I would be just as happy to see the same thing done with the Neanderthals replaced with one or two of the early modern H. sapiens Skuhl specimens from 90-100K ago.
I mean Qafzeh, not Skhul. (And especially not "Skuhl!")
Hah!
Creationists read articles by real scientists and write spin articles saying "Bah, humbug!" That's creation science. That's IT, folks!
Still, even if Jonathan Sarfati or Duane Gish or John Woodmorappe/Jan Peczkis has only the same access to hominid fossil information as you or I, that ought to be plenty enough to tell an ape from a human if it were as simple as that.
You threw me a curve there. Even as I pulled out the following quote from Gish's article,
Do we see evolution here? Absolutely not. Ape-like creatures (the australopithecines) suddenly appear without a trace of an ancestor,I was answering you, not Gish, when I said, "Without a trace? Try 'monkeys.'"
I should answer the Gish claim, which is about the origin of australopithecines, not of apes. While we don't have the fossil of the common ancestor of modern chimps and australopithecines (and we wouldn't know it for sure if we did), Tchadanthropus sahelensis is getting pretty close. (To about seven million years ago.) For that matter, the australopithecines are themselves closer to chimps than man in the head, even as they have already learned to walk upright (if not in fully human fashion). Seeing a lack of transition in all that takes some contortion.
"I don't think he thinks about the things that he thinks about" ... for extra credit ... name the source of the quote ... please speak up and don't be moot ;
A second language is nice to have after you've mangled your first one.
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.