Jump to content


Photo

Backtracking Again?


  • Please log in to reply
224 replies to this topic

#1 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 29 August 2017 - 11:01 PM

AS IT TURNS OUT.. THE STENCH FROM THE DARWINISN MONKEY OF "EVOLUTION" IS BECOMING SO UNBEARABLE THAT EVEN DIE HARD ACCIDENTALISTS ARE FORCED INTO ADMITTING WHAT CREATIONISTS HAVE BEEN SCREAMING FROM THE MOUTAINTOPS FOR OVER A CENTURY AND A HALF... THAT THE ROTTING CORPSE OF DARWINISM IS DEAD DEAD DEAD... WHAT WILL THEY COME UP WITH NEXT??  

 

THOUGHTS??

 

Who are you? How the story of human origins is being rewritten

The past 15 years have called into question every assumption about who we are and where we came from. Turns out our evolution is more baffling than we thought.

 

Think again, because over the past 15 years, almost every part of our story, every assumption about who our ancestors were and where we came from, has been called into question.

The new insights have some unsettling implications for how long we have walked the earth, and even who we really are.

 

https://www.newscien...eing-rewritten/

 

 

 



#2 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 29 August 2017 - 11:48 PM

Why, has a hominin fossil been found in the Mesozoic or something ?

You've not even read the article have you ?

#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 August 2017 - 02:46 AM

I read a much longer article Wibble, they recently found a 300,000 year old homo sapien skull with some remains dated as an outer figure of about 350,000 years. Can you at least appreciate that this paints a rather different picture from us walking out of Africa 60,000 years ago?

 

Really the point is that BK is making, is probably that there are a set of beliefs that come from evolutionary scientists, which basically the public is misled into believing to be solid facts. But the story of evolution is that everything they treat as a fact later seems to be overthrown.

 

Conclusion; It seems to me that refuting evolution can be as simple as being patient. Their new find which they insist proves evolution, will inevitably be thwarted. Their neat little out-of-Africa story turned out to be a story, therefore why can't the rest of their stories also be fiction?

 

Answer; No reason why they can't be fiction.

 

Surely you can see that as creationist Christians, it hardly encourages us to become evolutionists when they are continually and consistently mocked when God or time or both, slowly reveals the facts that uproot their ever-changing stories, in order to show the bible history consistent and the evolution-history erroneous?

 

 

 

Wibble: Why, has a hominin fossil been found in the Mesozoic or something ?

 

A red-herring you repeat as an ad nauseam fallacy. (repeating a false argument).

 

We don't expect to find hominens there, because our flood model doesn't say that humans were underwater fish that should be found in the Cambrian. Our models says that whatever organisms you find, happen to be the ones buried in that zone.

 

However we do have enough push-backs now to show how arguing-from-silence is a rather obtuse fallacy silly people make. To say that "because we don't find X in earlier rock therefore it didn't exist", has been explained to you many times now Wibble, to be a type of arguing from ignorance. 

 

They said the same about pines, but now we find a 300 myo Wollemi pine. They said the same about grass and mammals, that they evolved much later, but now we find them with dinos. 

 

So what are you going to do, repeat the fallacy? That's like declaring that stupidity is the new wisdom.

 

EXAMPLE;

 

"No money in a persons bank means they're skint. Bob has none, he is skint."

Abswer; No, his wife and him have a joint account, that is just his current account.

Now here is Jane, she has none in hers.

"That means she is skint."

 

answer; Erm, haven't we had this conversation before, it doesn't follow that it means someone is skint.

"she is skint."

Answer; forget it, this person will just repeat the mistake so as to lie to people by pretending this argument means something.

 

Now will you continue the error Wibble?

 

Conclusion; It doesn't follow that because we don't find humans in the Mesozoic that they didn't exist back then, if the Mesozoic rock was laid down in the same year as all the other rock, which would mean that you only have to find a dinosaur in the Cretaceous, in order to conclude that dinosaurs existed at the same time as the Cambrian organisms.

 

You make out that to falsify evolution we need to show an out of place organism. No, what we have to do according to logical rules, is show, "not evolution". To show "not evolution" we have to show a conspicuous absence of evolution, which is to show a lot of non-evolution, by showing an absence of evolution. That is easily achieved, the transitionals are absent.


  • Blitzking likes this

#4 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 30 August 2017 - 10:59 AM

Why, has a hominin fossil been found in the Mesozoic or something ?

You've not even read the article have you ?

 

Check into the Conrad skull cap fossil found in the Carboniferous (that's earlier than the Mesozoic). 


  • MarkForbes likes this

#5 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 August 2017 - 11:24 AM

He won't accept it Gneiss Girl. IndyDave spent forever and a day showing him good evidence that breaks the so called, "evolution pattern". He repeats the same thing every time; contamination of some sort. Then when it has quieted down he will come back and request his Cambrian bunny all over again as though he wasn't shown the evidence.

 

(Wibble: :P

 

:D



#6 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 August 2017 - 11:28 AM

Gneiss girl; Wow - you pulled a good one out there, especially after I read this;

 

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-539313


  • Gneiss girl likes this

#7 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 768 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 30 August 2017 - 07:43 PM

Gneiss girl; Wow - you pulled a good one out there, especially after I read this;
 
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-539313

That's the only reference I can find to the fossil that isn't just a secondhand repost of that story or the author talking about it in various places.

I did find more from the author though:
He's managed to find quite a few fossils from that period, including some various organs: http://scienceblogs....nese-ed-conrad/
He figured out that the supposed moon rocks are in fact fake because they contain fossilized neurons and blood vessels: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-758969
I'm not 100% sure why that's controversial, because he's also figured out that humans have lived on several different planets as long as 3.5 billion years ago: https://www.smashwor...oks/view/702089

Also it's not strictly related to his paleontological work, but if there are any other sufferers of high blood pressure out there, my man has you covered too: http://wretchfossil....re-forever.html

#8 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 31 August 2017 - 12:24 AM

 

Gneiss girl; Wow - you pulled a good one out there, especially after I read this;
 
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-539313

That's the only reference I can find to the fossil that isn't just a secondhand repost of that story or the author talking about it in various places.

I did find more from the author though:
He's managed to find quite a few fossils from that period, including some various organs: http://scienceblogs....nese-ed-conrad/
He figured out that the supposed moon rocks are in fact fake because they contain fossilized neurons and blood vessels: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-758969
I'm not 100% sure why that's controversial, because he's also figured out that humans have lived on several different planets as long as 3.5 billion years ago: https://www.smashwor...oks/view/702089

Also it's not strictly related to his paleontological work, but if there are any other sufferers of high blood pressure out there, my man has you covered too: http://wretchfossil....re-forever.html

 

 

"because he's also figured out that humans have lived on several different planets as long as 3.5 billion years ago"   :burp:

 

So he has "figured that out" has he?  LOL  What was the make and model of his Space Ship / Time Machine Hybrid Vehicle?  :rotfl3:

 

"There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead.

No paleontologist denies that this is so. It is simply a fact, Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in conflict."(Dr. David Berlinsky)



#9 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 31 August 2017 - 07:26 AM

Popoi,

 

Wibble asked, "Why, has a hominin fossil been found in the Mesozoic or something ?"

 

This is why I mentioned the Conrad skull cap fossil. This highlights what I said in an earlier comment in another thread here. We seldom here about these "out of place" fossils (and they do exist) because they go against the evolution narrative. Why haven't more paleontologists taken a look at this particular fossil? Has it been properly evaluated?

 

Popoi, you posted some other articles by Lin Liangtai. While I am not familiar with this person, I must point out the logic flaw in your strategy. It is a classic case of "ad hominem. You attempt to discredit this author based on other "out of the mainstream views" that he appears to have written about.  Lin Liangtai is not the discoverer of the Conrad fossil but does seem to have done some tests and evaluations of this particular fossil. I realize that you are not a paleontologist nor have access to this fossil.  But the way to properly address it would be to find flaws in the actual methods used to evaluate the fossil. What do you think would be Lin's mistakes causing a misinterpretation of this skull cap?

 

Interestingly, it appears that this particular author also studied a similar aged human femur. He has offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who can falsify his work. I wonder if he has had any takers? http://www.centerfor...ptical_article/

 

It appears that anthropologist Wilton Krogman (now deceased) also believed this fossil to be legitimate. I present the Conrad fossil as "food for thought". Seemingly, out of place fossils do exist. But are you and others willing to objectively look at the evidence?



#10 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 768 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 31 August 2017 - 10:14 AM

We seldom here about these "out of place" fossils (and they do exist) because they go against the evolution narrative.

We seldom hear about them because the people claiming they are out of place fossils seem to universally be amateur crackpots.
 

Why haven't more paleontologists taken a look at this particular fossil? Has it been properly evaluated?

If the skull is the same one mentioned in this blog post, it has been repeatedly evaluated by paleontologists, who determined it's a rock.
https://bipedalia.wo...’s-just-a-rock/
 

You attempt to discredit this author based on other "out of the mainstream views" that he appears to have written about.

I think the one about lead curing high blood pressure and the one about ancient humans on mars speak to the fact that this guy is a compete crackpot, but I'll grant they aren't directly related. The ones where he claims to have found other human or organic remains are relevant because they speak to his ability to (mis)identify the remains of organic tissue. Given that and his apparent lack of formal education or training, I can't see much reason to take any of his claims very seriously.
 

What do you think would be Lin's mistakes causing a misinterpretation of this skull cap?

He seems to interpret anything that is even vaguely similarly shaped to organic material as definitely fossilized organic material.
 

Interestingly, it appears that this particular author also studied a similar aged human femur. He has offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who can falsify his work. I wonder if he has had any takers? http://www.centerfor...ptical_article/

It looks like a few people did respond to the claim: http://dinosaurmaili...n/msg00395.html(tl;dr: it's actually a rock) 
 

It appears that anthropologist Wilton Krogman (now deceased) also believed this fossil to be legitimate.

One such expert is Mr. Wilton Krogman. He has physically examined the calvarium fossil. His broad smile in the photo (Fig. 1) says that he confirmed it was a human calvarium fossil.

No citation, not even a quote, just a claim and a photo that's not accessible. Given that the man died in 1987 and isn't around to explain things, I am deeply suspicious of the claim of his endorsement.

#11 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 31 August 2017 - 10:41 AM

Popoi, the main creationist organisations, CMI, AIG, ICR, etc..won't usually back specific claims because the problems are usually the same type, there is no way to confirm that the find came from the source. So we always take such individual claims with a pinch of salt but they are intriguing nevertheless, and incredulity about an old human fossil, only occurs if you are evolutionist. "I disbelieve it could be genuine therefore it isn't" (fallacy of arguing from incredulity). 

 

This in itself doesn't mean it is a fraud. In reality miners are likely to find things innocently enough. Genuine people can also genuinely find something.

 

It seems to me those saying it is a rock are indulging the "playing it down" rhetorical device, if they haven't examined it.

 

But even so, given it is natural evolutionists would never accept anything except themselves finding something, as a legitimate find, despite piltdown man and archaeoraptor and Haeckel's frauds (all evolutionists), nevertheless a good tactic Sarfati et al use it to use finds evolutionists themselves agree are genuine evidence..

 

One of them is the Laetoli footprints, about 2 million year old human footprints they assign to 'pithecines for tenuous reasons.

 

Statistically in the present, every human foot belongs to a human, by identity. (1 in 1). So I say that's pretty good evidence of modern humans living 2 million years ago. To conclude "but humans hadn't evolved yet so it must have been an earlier version of pre-human", is circular reasoning. Logically a human foot anatomy belongs to human anatomy in 1 out of 1 cases, statistically. 

 

Finally, if the leader of the flat earth society claims the earth is flat, if he claims that Neil Armstrong is a real man that exists, should that mean we should conclude Neil Armstrong doesn't exist?

 

This is why poisoning-the-well with remarks of, "crackpottery" aren't allowed in debate, because if it is a human skull in very old rock, then how would him being a crackpot alter that fact? Sure - he may have crackpot-arguments he wants to use that evidence for, such as, "this is Elvis's skull cap", but really the skull itself isn't necessarily cracked pottery. ;)

 

 

 

Popoi: We seldom hear about them because the people claiming they are out of place fossils seem to universally be amateur crackpots.

 

The problem is, for anyone who claims such a thing, you would then put them in that group, even if they aren't crackpots. You then juxtapose "crackpots" against, "qualified scientists". You may not see it but this is all classed as rhetorical argumentation; you get readers to believe you not by looking at the evidence but by classing the people on one side in a negative light and those on the other side of the debate in a positive light. 

 

So your claim everyone who goes against the tide are crackpots, is rhetorical. There are cases which are genuine which even evolutionists agree with. Sure, they try and explain those things away by things like contamination like they tried with the fresh dino meat, and the Roraima pollen but the point is, if something goes against evolution theory that doesn't = crackpottery.



#12 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,130 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 31 August 2017 - 10:49 AM

 

 

This is why I mentioned the Conrad skull cap fossil. This highlights what I said in an earlier comment in another thread here. We seldom here about these "out of place" fossils (and they do exist) because they go against the evolution narrative. Why haven't more paleontologists taken a look at this particular fossil? Has it been properly evaluated?

 

 

 

I've seen several different examples of potentially "out of place" fossils....some of which may be more valid than others.  But, they all appear ...at least to me... to be "one-offs," e.g., single (or at most a very small number) isolated cases that make up a very, very small percentage of the fossil record.  The narrative holds because of the strength of the pattern we see; it's not entirely perfect, but statistically speaking, it's very close.  To put it another way, this one human "fossil" from the Carboniferous isn't going to buck the human fossil narrative as it's far more likely and reasonable that something else is going on here (see popoi's post).  Now, if we start finding more of these....and not just in the Carboniferous, but in the layers above it, then you guys might be on to something.



#13 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 31 August 2017 - 11:03 AM

 

 

StormanNorman: I've seen several different examples of potentially "out of place" fossils....some of which may be more valid than others.  But, they all appear ...at least to me... to be "one-offs," e.g., single (or at most a very small number) isolated cases that make up a very, very small percentage of the fossil record. 

 

 

On the following chart, the black font is where they were found (in place) the red is now where they are found (out of place), the bubblewrapped font is organisms pushed back from younger eons that are off the chart. (sorry for the distortion)

 

Attached File  wib.jpg   117.47KB   0 downloads

 

I hope you can agree with me that singling out humans alone and saying, "show me a human" would be unrealistic, as the chances of finding a specific organism not known for living in a certain zone, would seem more unlikely than saying; "show me a modern form out of place". So these forms that were previously in place are equivalent to finding earlier humans.

 

(Of course it's my own charts but evolution scientists would not disagree that these have now been found, it is common knowledge grass has been found out of place with dinosaurs. Recently they found something as "diversified/specialised" as a funnelnose ray. That's the interesting thing Norman, it's not just that they're found out of place, they always find perfectly modern examples, that would supposedly only exist after a lot of evolutionary diversification, not some ancient version of an earlier model.)



#14 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 31 August 2017 - 03:04 PM

I read a much longer article Wibble, they recently found a 300,000 year old homo sapien skull with some remains dated as an outer figure of about 350,000 years. Can you at least appreciate that this paints a rather different picture from us walking out of Africa 60,000 years ago?


That would have to wait until we find older Homo sapiens fossils out of Africa. The skeletal fragments you refer to were found in Morocco, and even with these there is no consensus (yet) that they are actually H. sapiens.


 

Really the point is that BK is making, is probably that there are a set of beliefs that come from evolutionary scientists, which basically the public is misled into believing to be solid facts. But the story of evolution is that everything they treat as a fact later seems to be overthrown.


No, BK's only aim, as usual, was to throw mud around with another post full of wild eyed vitriol but no substance. He didn't even read the article that he linked to, pretty poor form don't you think ?
 

Conclusion; It seems to me that refuting evolution can be as simple as being patient. Their new find which they insist proves evolution, will inevitably be thwarted. Their neat little out-of-Africa story turned out to be a story, therefore why can't the rest of their stories also be fiction?[/font]
 
Answer; No reason why they can't be fiction.


No that is the reason why you cling on to a literal Genesis despite it being blatantly false. You are worried that if you can't somehow find a way to continue with believing it inerrant, then the rest of the Bible and your entire faith crumbles. A much more sensible position is that of a theistic evolutionist, who isn't forced to shut out the enormous quantity of science that shows it simply to be a nice story, starting with the creationist geologists in the 18th century who tried to find proof of the Flood in the sedimentary layers, but were forced by the evidence into realizing that it was irreconcilable with such an event.
 

Surely you can see that as creationist Christians, it hardly encourages us to become evolutionists when they are continually and consistently mocked when God or time or both, slowly reveals the facts that uproot their ever-changing stories, in order to show the bible history consistent and the evolution-history erroneous?


You can not be serious.
 

 

Wibble: Why, has a hominin fossil been found in the Mesozoic or something ?[/font][/color]

 
A red-herring you repeat as an ad nauseam fallacy. (repeating a false argument).[/font]
 
We don't expect to find hominens there, because our flood model doesn't say that humans were underwater fish that should be found in the Cambrian. Our models says that whatever organisms you find, happen to be the ones buried in that zone.

 


It is you who continues with the ad nauseum responses that are already refuted. This geographical separation idea does not hold water when you look at the fossil record. As I've told you before, and you will continue to ignore, dinosaur bones have been found on every continent. Many dinosaurs have been found here in England. Were humans and all modern mammals all living entirely separately from dinosaurs with no overlap, and the catastrophic currents of the Flood never mixed them up ? By the way, no modern fish are in Cambrian (or earlier) rock, why is that ? (I'm sure I've asked you that before as well - will he respond this time ?)
 

However we do have enough push-backs now to show how arguing-from-silence is a rather obtuse fallacy silly people make.
 
They said the same about grass and mammals, that they evolved much later, but now we find them with dinos.


It is inevitable there will be pushbacks, the earliest fossils are unlikely to be found first, logically. Grass remains have been found in late Cretaceous coprolites, after previously thought to have arisen a geologically short time later in the Eocene, so what ?

When was it said that (early) mammals never existed with dinosaurs ? That is another strawman you insist on peddling.
 

So what are you going to do, repeat the fallacy? That's like declaring that stupidity is the new wisdom.


If so, then you are very wise ;) 
 



#15 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 31 August 2017 - 03:29 PM

He won't accept it Gneiss Girl. IndyDave spent forever and a day showing him good evidence that breaks the so called, "evolution pattern". He repeats the same thing every time; contamination of some sort. Then when it has quieted down he will come back and request his Cambrian bunny all over again as though he wasn't shown the evidence.

 

(Wibble: :P

 

:D

 

You're quite right, I won't accept it. Why is it that we have so many dinosaur bones that are clearly and indisputably dinosaur bones, yet isolated and poorly documented finds like Gneiss girl has presented are so, well, disputable (just a rounded piece of rock). We have lots of hominid fossils in recent layers that even the amateur eye could recognize as such yet any find 'out of place' in the Carboniferous or whatever is something like that supposed cranial piece. Or in the case of the indisputable human bones of 'Malachite Man' that Indy tried to argue were out of place, were unfossilised and easily explained as unfortunate Pueblan azurite miners buried in tunnel collapses. As for his supposed footprints, they were just laughable.

 

Gneiss Girl - why do you claim to be a theistic evolutionist when 100% of your posts indicate you are creationist ?



#16 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 31 August 2017 - 05:32 PM

 

He won't accept it Gneiss Girl. IndyDave spent forever and a day showing him good evidence that breaks the so called, "evolution pattern". He repeats the same thing every time; contamination of some sort. Then when it has quieted down he will come back and request his Cambrian bunny all over again as though he wasn't shown the evidence.

 

(Wibble: :P

 

:D

 

You're quite right, I won't accept it. Why is it that we have so many dinosaur bones that are clearly and indisputably dinosaur bones, yet isolated and poorly documented finds like Gneiss girl has presented are so, well, disputable (just a rounded piece of rock). We have lots of hominid fossils in recent layers that even the amateur eye could recognize as such yet any find 'out of place' in the Carboniferous or whatever is something like that supposed cranial piece. Or in the case of the indisputable human bones of 'Malachite Man' that Indy tried to argue were out of place, were unfossilised and easily explained as unfortunate Pueblan azurite miners buried in tunnel collapses. As for his supposed footprints, they were just laughable.

 

Gneiss Girl - why do you claim to be a theistic evolutionist when 100% of your posts indicate you are creationist ?

 

 

Wibble. All I am asking is for people to be objective when looking at scientific evidence. When evidence is presented that is contradictory to what you believe, how do you evaluate it? 

 

Many people would say something like,  "most scientists agree" or "the experts say..."  One should recognize that science should be a search for truth, not a popularity contest. A similar logic fallacy is the appeal to authority.

 

What kinds of questions does Wibble ask himself when presented with evidence of one form or another? Does he do as Popoi and use the old "ad hominem" excuse? Or perhaps, you do as so many others? That is, just discount evidence when it doesn't fit the desired narrative... or accept the evidence without question, when it does fit? 

 

Re: "Gneiss Girl - why do you claim to be a theistic evolutionist when 100% of your posts indicate you are creationist ?"

 

Sorry, I have never claimed to be a Creationist. (Not sure why you conclude that out of my comments) But unlike most scientists, I would not be so quick to discount it either. I try to be more objective when it comes to the science. If someone wants to write about evidence for global flood or young Earth, they should be allowed to do so. Then others can weigh that evidence against other evidences. 



#17 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 31 August 2017 - 06:27 PM

I read a much longer article Wibble, they recently found a 300,000 year old homo sapien skull with some remains dated as an outer figure of about 350,000 years. Can you at least appreciate that this paints a rather different picture from us walking out of Africa 60,000 years ago?

That would have to wait until we find older Homo sapiens fossils out of Africa. The skeletal fragments you refer to were found in Morocco, and even with these there is no consensus (yet) that they are actually H. sapiens.
 

Really the point is that BK is making, is probably that there are a set of beliefs that come from evolutionary scientists, which basically the public is misled into believing to be solid facts. But the story of evolution is that everything they treat as a fact later seems to be overthrown.

No, BK's only aim, as usual, was to throw mud around with another post full of wild eyed vitriol but no substance. He didn't even read the article that he linked to, pretty poor form don't you think ?
 

Conclusion; It seems to me that refuting evolution can be as simple as being patient. Their new find which they insist proves evolution, will inevitably be thwarted. Their neat little out-of-Africa story turned out to be a story, therefore why can't the rest of their stories also be fiction?[/font]
 
Answer; No reason why they can't be fiction.

No that is the reason why you cling on to a literal Genesis despite it being blatantly false. You are worried that if you can't somehow find a way to continue with believing it inerrant, then the rest of the Bible and your entire faith crumbles. A much more sensible position is that of a theistic evolutionist, who isn't forced to shut out the enormous quantity of science that shows it simply to be a nice story, starting with the creationist geologists in the 18th century who tried to find proof of the Flood in the sedimentary layers, but were forced by the evidence into realizing that it was irreconcilable with such an event.
 

Surely you can see that as creationist Christians, it hardly encourages us to become evolutionists when they are continually and consistently mocked when God or time or both, slowly reveals the facts that uproot their ever-changing stories, in order to show the bible history consistent and the evolution-history erroneous?

You can not be serious.
 

 

Wibble: Why, has a hominin fossil been found in the Mesozoic or something ?[/font][/color]

 
A red-herring you repeat as an ad nauseam fallacy. (repeating a false argument).[/font]
 
We don't expect to find hominens there, because our flood model doesn't say that humans were underwater fish that should be found in the Cambrian. Our models says that whatever organisms you find, happen to be the ones buried in that zone.
It is you who continues with the ad nauseum responses that are already refuted. This geographical separation idea does not hold water when you look at the fossil record. As I've told you before, and you will continue to ignore, dinosaur bones have been found on every continent. Many dinosaurs have been found here in England. Were humans and all modern mammals all living entirely separately from dinosaurs with no overlap, and the catastrophic currents of the Flood never mixed them up ? By the way, no modern fish are in Cambrian (or earlier) rock, why is that ? (I'm sure I've asked you that before as well - will he respond this time ?)
 

However we do have enough push-backs now to show how arguing-from-silence is a rather obtuse fallacy silly people make.
 
They said the same about grass and mammals, that they evolved much later, but now we find them with dinos.

It is inevitable there will be pushbacks, the earliest fossils are unlikely to be found first, logically. Grass remains have been found in late Cretaceous coprolites, after previously thought to have arisen a geologically short time later in the Eocene, so what ?
When was it said that (early) mammals never existed with dinosaurs ? That is another strawman you insist on peddling.
 

So what are you going to do, repeat the fallacy? That's like declaring that stupidity is the new wisdom.

If so, then you are very wise ;)


"No, BK's only aim, as usual, was to throw mud around with another post full of wild eyed vitriol but no substance"

Speaking of "Throwing mud around" these are NOT my words.. They are from a recent article in Newscientist"..

I suggest that you read the words that are written Slowly and Carefully and realize just what they are saying..

Here... Read again..


Who are you? How the story of human origins is being rewritten
The past 15 years have called into question every assumption about who we are and where we came from. Turns out our evolution is more baffling than we thought.

Think again, because over the past 15 years, almost every part of our story, every assumption about who our ancestors were and where we came from, has been called into question.
The new insights have some unsettling implications for how long we have walked the earth, and even who we really are.

https://www.newscien...eing-rewritten/

#18 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 31 August 2017 - 08:27 PM

 

We seldom here about these "out of place" fossils (and they do exist) because they go against the evolution narrative.

We seldom hear about them because the people claiming they are out of place fossils seem to universally be amateur crackpots.
 

Why haven't more paleontologists taken a look at this particular fossil? Has it been properly evaluated?

If the skull is the same one mentioned in this blog post, it has been repeatedly evaluated by paleontologists, who determined it's a rock.
https://bipedalia.wo...’s-just-a-rock/
 

You attempt to discredit this author based on other "out of the mainstream views" that he appears to have written about.

I think the one about lead curing high blood pressure and the one about ancient humans on mars speak to the fact that this guy is a compete crackpot, but I'll grant they aren't directly related. The ones where he claims to have found other human or organic remains are relevant because they speak to his ability to (mis)identify the remains of organic tissue. Given that and his apparent lack of formal education or training, I can't see much reason to take any of his claims very seriously.
 

What do you think would be Lin's mistakes causing a misinterpretation of this skull cap?

He seems to interpret anything that is even vaguely similarly shaped to organic material as definitely fossilized organic material.
 

Interestingly, it appears that this particular author also studied a similar aged human femur. He has offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who can falsify his work. I wonder if he has had any takers? http://www.centerfor...ptical_article/

It looks like a few people did respond to the claim: http://dinosaurmaili...n/msg00395.html(tl;dr: it's actually a rock) 
 

It appears that anthropologist Wilton Krogman (now deceased) also believed this fossil to be legitimate.

One such expert is Mr. Wilton Krogman. He has physically examined the calvarium fossil. His broad smile in the photo (Fig. 1) says that he confirmed it was a human calvarium fossil.

No citation, not even a quote, just a claim and a photo that's not accessible. Given that the man died in 1987 and isn't around to explain things, I am deeply suspicious of the claim of his endorsement.

 

 

Wibble wanted "a hominid fossil in the Mesozoic or something." , so I presented this fossil as "food for thought". Whether or not it is actually a hominid skull, I too am skeptical. But the bigger point that I was trying to make is what happens when these kinds of fossils are found. They are often not reported, or under reported. They are quickly discounted, either rightly or wrongly, if they don't fit the evolutionary narrative. The discoverer is subject to great ridicule. Etc. Etc. 

 

Look, I too often have "fossils" brought in for identification. More often than not, they are of little importance. We get pseudo fossils rather frequently. But then we get the pleasant surprises when the finder, does have an important find. 

 

Popoi, just a quick note on your links. Which ones are by someone who has actually looked at this fossil? As I read this: "Over the next decade or more Mr. Conrad contacted a variety of geologists, biologists, and anthropologists to examine his rocks, including PZ Myers. In every case, the answer was the same: it’s just a rock,"

 

I take this to read that he requested geologists to look at the fossil but did not get them to actually look at it BEFORE discounting it. 

 

Here is about the author of  Bipedalia:

 

"About Bipedal Tetrapod

My background is in evolutionary biology – specifically paleontology, but also evo devo, ecology,  functional morphology, and physiology."

 

So he does have a background that is relevant, but where does he actually say that he saw the fossil? Is he being objective? It seems to me that he is passing judgement without actually examining the specimen. This is common. 

 

As for the other article, it states, "The microscoped cross section doesn't look like any I've

ever seen. Looks very mineralogical, like it's composed of flat, thin crystals. "

 

​The process of fossilization converts bone material to minerals, so some re-crystallization would be expected. Did this person actually examine the specimen itself or just look at a photo? Are other structures visible? Others have claimed Haversian cell structures are present. This line of inquiry (microscopic study) is valid but is not conclusive in and of itself. Have any other tests been done on it?

 

Rightly or wrongly, you can be sure that this specimen, as well as others, will be discounted, suppressed, or ridiculed because it doesn't fit the expected evolutionary narrative. 

 

 



#19 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 01 September 2017 - 12:14 AM

"No, BK's only aim, as usual, was to throw mud around with another post full of wild eyed vitriol but no substance"

Speaking of "Throwing mud around" these are NOT my words.. They are from a recent article in Newscientist"..

I suggest that you read the words that are written Slowly and Carefully and realize just what they are saying..

Here... Read again..


I'm fully aware that you copy pasted some header text from the article but you did not read the content because it requires a subscription. Don't forget that New Scientist, although useful as a roundup of scientific research is a magazine not a journal and so will sensationalize to a certain extent.

I haven't read it either, being a weekly publication the following edition is now in the shops but I expect it talks about the complexity of human evolution which is not some linear progression but has many side branches with multiple ancestors that may have been contemporary. It also probably mentions the recent find of a 7 million year old tooth with primate characteristics in Greece that some researchers think throws the African origin of our species into question.

So in summary, you haven't evaluated the actual article at all, you're just leaping on a headline and frantically waving it without any knowledge of what it's about.



#20 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 01 September 2017 - 12:19 AM

[size=4][font=tahoma, geneva, sans-serif]Look, I too often have "fossils" brought in for identification. More often than not, they are of little importance. We get pseudo fossils rather frequently. But then we get the pleasant surprises when the finder, does have an important find.


People bring fossils to you for identification ? You must be an expert then and therefore must have great experience out in the field combing through the rocks. Have you ever found anything 'out of place' ?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users