Jump to content


Photo

The Truth About Nebraska Man


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
16 replies to this topic

#1 Richw9090

Richw9090

    BANNED

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Tucson

Posted 14 October 2012 - 09:47 PM

Elsewhere in this forum in an unrelated topic, one of the posters has this as his signature quotation:

**********
"The instant your package arrived, I sat down with the tooth, in my window,
and I said to myself: "It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid." I then took the
tooth into Doctor Matthew's room and we have been comparing it with all the books,
all the casts and all the drawings, with the conclusion that it is the last right upper molar tooth of some higher Primate, but distinct from anything hitherto described." from a letter by Henry Fairfield Osborn to Harold Cook upon receipt of the tooth Osborn subsequently named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii ("Hesperopithecus,the First Anthropoid Primate Found in America,"American Museum Novitates 37:1-5. 1922)

**********

Nebraska Man is a long-time favorite of the Creationists. Scarcely a single Creationist book or website does not contain reference to it. It is commonly claimed that textbooks still refer to Hesperopithecus as a fossil homind. However, the facts of the incident are very different than portrayed by Creationists.

The first tooth was found by Geologist Harold Cook on his ranch in Nebraska in 1917. He sent it in 1922 to Henry Fairfield Osborn, at the American Museum of Natural History. Osborn wrote as quoted above, but his comment didn't end where Bonedigger ended his quotation of it. Osborn goes on to say :

**************
We await, however, Doctor Gregory's verdict tomorrow, but it looks to me as if the first anthropoid ape of America has been found by the one man entitled to find it, namely Harold J. Cook!"

*************

So we see that even in his unbridled initial enthusiasm, Osborn knew his find had to be exposed to careful scrutiny. Osborn, Gregory and their colleague Milo Hellman, studied the tooth publishing it that same year in a series of three papers. (Osborn, 1922; Gregory and Hellman, 1922; Gregory and Hellman 1923).

Now why would Osborn, and Gregory, think that the tooth might be an anthropoid ape? First, it looked like one. Second, recent discoveries in North America had shown that mammals of Asia affinities were appearing in the right time frame - a fossil antelope with African and Asian affinities had been found in the same strata as Hesperopithecus. Hominid fossils (Pithecanthropus) had already been found in Asia at roughly the same time period, making it not impossible that an anthropoid ape could also have migrated to the New World as had the antelope.

But, as we all know now, Osborn and Gregory were wrong. Who discovered that they were wrong, and how? Osborn did not hide his find in a museum drawer, protecting it from all inquiring eyes. In fact, he made and distributed casts of the tooth to 26 institutions in the US and Europe for other experts to examine. Almost immediately disagreements began to appear. Arthur Woodward from the British Museum wrote "The occurrence of a man-like ape among the fossils in North America seems so unlikely that good evidence is needed to make it credible" (Woodward, 1922).

It took just 5 years to discover and correct the error. Gregory published a retraction in 1927 in the prestigeous journal Science entitled "Hesperopithecus Apparently Not an Ape or a Man", and correctly identifying it as being from an extinct peccary (not a pig as is so often claimed by the Creationists). Gregory concludes with this comment: "Thus it seems to me far more probable that we were formerly deceived by the resemblance of the much worn type to equally worn chimpanzee molars than that the type is really a unique token of the presence of anthropoids in North America." (Gregory, 1927).

So, in the brief span of 5 years, Hesperopithecus passed from the scientific stage into relative oblivion - except among the Creationists, who have, year after year for 85 years, continued to talk about Nebraska Man as though it were still considered a human ancestor. They still claim it is in textbooks today; I have challenged them time and time again to provide me with the name and date of publication of just one of these textbooks, but they never can. It is always "I read it when I was in High School, I don't remember the name of the book" or some such subterfuge.

Far from being the embarassment that the Creationists have claimed it is for science, it is a perfect example of how science proceeds, sometimes makes mistakes, but discovers those mistakes for itself and corrects them.

References:

Gregory, William King, 1927, HESPEROPITHECUS APPARENTLY NOT AN APE NOR A MAN, Science, Volume 66, No. 1720:578-581

Gregory, William King and Milo Hellman, 1923, Further Notes on the Molars of Hesperopithecus and of Pithecanthropus, Bulletin of the American Museum, Volume 48, Article13:509-530.

Gregory, William King and Milo Hellman, 1923, Notes on the type of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki Osborn, American Museum Novitates Number 53:1-16.

Osborn, Henry Fairfield, 1922, Hesperopithecus, the first Anthropoid Primate Found in America, American Museum Novitates, Number 37: 1-5.

Woodward, Sir Arthur Keith, 1922, "The Earliest Man?", The Times (London) May 22, p. 17.

#2 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 October 2012 - 10:03 PM

Elsewhere in this forum in an unrelated topic, one of the posters has this as his signature quotation:

**********
"The instant your package arrived, I sat down with the tooth, in my window,
and I said to myself: "It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid." I then took the
tooth into Doctor Matthew's room and we have been comparing it with all the books,
all the casts and all the drawings, with the conclusion that it is the last right upper molar tooth of some higher Primate, but distinct from anything hitherto described." from a letter by Henry Fairfield Osborn to Harold Cook upon receipt of the tooth Osborn subsequently named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii ("Hesperopithecus,the First Anthropoid Primate Found in America,"American Museum Novitates 37:1-5. 1922)

**********

Nebraska Man is a long-time favorite of the Creationists. Scarcely a single Creationist book or website does not contain reference to it. It is commonly claimed that textbooks still refer to Hesperopithecus as a fossil homind. However, the facts of the incident are very different than portrayed by Creationists.

The first tooth was found by Geologist Harold Cook on his ranch in Nebraska in 1917. He sent it in 1922 to Henry Fairfield Osborn, at the American Museum of Natural History. Osborn wrote as quoted above, but his comment didn't end where Bonedigger ended his quotation of it. Osborn goes on to say :

**************
We await, however, Doctor Gregory's verdict tomorrow, but it looks to me as if the first anthropoid ape of America has been found by the one man entitled to find it, namely Harold J. Cook!"

*************

So we see that even in his unbridled initial enthusiasm, Osborn knew his find had to be exposed to careful scrutiny. Osborn, Gregory and their colleague Milo Hellman, studied the tooth publishing it that same year in a series of three papers. (Osborn, 1922; Gregory and Hellman, 1922; Gregory and Hellman 1923).

Now why would Osborn, and Gregory, think that the tooth might be an anthropoid ape? First, it looked like one. Second, recent discoveries in North America had shown that mammals of Asia affinities were appearing in the right time frame - a fossil antelope with African and Asian affinities had been found in the same strata as Hesperopithecus. Hominid fossils (Pithecanthropus) had already been found in Asia at roughly the same time period, making it not impossible that an anthropoid ape could also have migrated to the New World as had the antelope.

But, as we all know now, Osborn and Gregory were wrong. Who discovered that they were wrong, and how? Osborn did not hide his find in a museum drawer, protecting it from all inquiring eyes. In fact, he made and distributed casts of the tooth to 26 institutions in the US and Europe for other experts to examine. Almost immediately disagreements began to appear. Arthur Woodward from the British Museum wrote "The occurrence of a man-like ape among the fossils in North America seems so unlikely that good evidence is needed to make it credible" (Woodward, 1922).

It took just 5 years to discover and correct the error. Gregory published a retraction in 1927 in the prestigeous journal Science entitled "Hesperopithecus Apparently Not an Ape or a Man", and correctly identifying it as being from an extinct peccary (not a pig as is so often claimed by the Creationists). Gregory concludes with this comment: "Thus it seems to me far more probable that we were formerly deceived by the resemblance of the much worn type to equally worn chimpanzee molars than that the type is really a unique token of the presence of anthropoids in North America." (Gregory, 1927).

So, in the brief span of 5 years, Hesperopithecus passed from the scientific stage into relative oblivion - except among the Creationists, who have, year after year for 85 years, continued to talk about Nebraska Man as though it were still considered a human ancestor. They still claim it is in textbooks today; I have challenged them time and time again to provide me with the name and date of publication of just one of these textbooks, but they never can. It is always "I read it when I was in High School, I don't remember the name of the book" or some such subterfuge.

Far from being the embarassment that the Creationists have claimed it is for science, it is a perfect example of how science proceeds, sometimes makes mistakes, but discovers those mistakes for itself and corrects them.

References:

Gregory, William King, 1927, HESPEROPITHECUS APPARENTLY NOT AN APE NOR A MAN, Science, Volume 66, No. 1720:578-581

Gregory, William King and Milo Hellman, 1923, Further Notes on the Molars of Hesperopithecus and of Pithecanthropus, Bulletin of the American Museum, Volume 48, Article13:509-530.

Gregory, William King and Milo Hellman, 1923, Notes on the type of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki Osborn, American Museum Novitates Number 53:1-16.

Osborn, Henry Fairfield, 1922, Hesperopithecus, the first Anthropoid Primate Found in America, American Museum Novitates, Number 37: 1-5.

Woodward, Sir Arthur Keith, 1922, "The Earliest Man?", The Times (London) May 22, p. 17.


Umm it demonstrates the over-eagerness and lack of verification evolutionists have for their work.. yes it was found out, however you should consider what other "evidences" are in fact wrong but just haven't been found out yet?

I'd place my trust in someone or something that has not needed to change its story, rather than someone or something that keeps on being proven wrong....

This isn't "how science works", its how pseudoscience works... ad hoc hypothesises go look up what they mean.
  • Bonedigger likes this

#3 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 14 October 2012 - 11:03 PM

Elsewhere in this forum in an unrelated topic, one of the posters has this as his signature quotation:

**********
"The instant your package arrived, I sat down with the tooth, in my window,
and I said to myself: "It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid." I then took the
tooth into Doctor Matthew's room and we have been comparing it with all the books,
all the casts and all the drawings, with the conclusion that it is the last right upper molar tooth of some higher Primate, but distinct from anything hitherto described." from a letter by Henry Fairfield Osborn to Harold Cook upon receipt of the tooth Osborn subsequently named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii ("Hesperopithecus,the First Anthropoid Primate Found in America,"American Museum Novitates 37:1-5. 1922)

**********

Nebraska Man is a long-time favorite of the Creationists. Scarcely a single Creationist book or website does not contain reference to it. It is commonly claimed that textbooks still refer to Hesperopithecus as a fossil homind. However, the facts of the incident are very different than portrayed by Creationists.

The first tooth was found by Geologist Harold Cook on his ranch in Nebraska in 1917. He sent it in 1922 to Henry Fairfield Osborn, at the American Museum of Natural History. Osborn wrote as quoted above, but his comment didn't end where Bonedigger ended his quotation of it. Osborn goes on to say :

**************
We await, however, Doctor Gregory's verdict tomorrow, but it looks to me as if the first anthropoid ape of America has been found by the one man entitled to find it, namely Harold J. Cook!"

*************

So we see that even in his unbridled initial enthusiasm, Osborn knew his find had to be exposed to careful scrutiny. Osborn, Gregory and their colleague Milo Hellman, studied the tooth publishing it that same year in a series of three papers. (Osborn, 1922; Gregory and Hellman, 1922; Gregory and Hellman 1923).

Now why would Osborn, and Gregory, think that the tooth might be an anthropoid ape? First, it looked like one. Second, recent discoveries in North America had shown that mammals of Asia affinities were appearing in the right time frame - a fossil antelope with African and Asian affinities had been found in the same strata as Hesperopithecus. Hominid fossils (Pithecanthropus) had already been found in Asia at roughly the same time period, making it not impossible that an anthropoid ape could also have migrated to the New World as had the antelope.

But, as we all know now, Osborn and Gregory were wrong. Who discovered that they were wrong, and how? Osborn did not hide his find in a museum drawer, protecting it from all inquiring eyes. In fact, he made and distributed casts of the tooth to 26 institutions in the US and Europe for other experts to examine. Almost immediately disagreements began to appear. Arthur Woodward from the British Museum wrote "The occurrence of a man-like ape among the fossils in North America seems so unlikely that good evidence is needed to make it credible" (Woodward, 1922).

It took just 5 years to discover and correct the error. Gregory published a retraction in 1927 in the prestigeous journal Science entitled "Hesperopithecus Apparently Not an Ape or a Man", and correctly identifying it as being from an extinct peccary (not a pig as is so often claimed by the Creationists). Gregory concludes with this comment: "Thus it seems to me far more probable that we were formerly deceived by the resemblance of the much worn type to equally worn chimpanzee molars than that the type is really a unique token of the presence of anthropoids in North America." (Gregory, 1927).

So, in the brief span of 5 years, Hesperopithecus passed from the scientific stage into relative oblivion - except among the Creationists, who have, year after year for 85 years, continued to talk about Nebraska Man as though it were still considered a human ancestor. They still claim it is in textbooks today; I have challenged them time and time again to provide me with the name and date of publication of just one of these textbooks, but they never can. It is always "I read it when I was in High School, I don't remember the name of the book" or some such subterfuge.

Far from being the embarassment that the Creationists have claimed it is for science, it is a perfect example of how science proceeds, sometimes makes mistakes, but discovers those mistakes for itself and corrects them.

References:

Gregory, William King, 1927, HESPEROPITHECUS APPARENTLY NOT AN APE NOR A MAN, Science, Volume 66, No. 1720:578-581

Gregory, William King and Milo Hellman, 1923, Further Notes on the Molars of Hesperopithecus and of Pithecanthropus, Bulletin of the American Museum, Volume 48, Article13:509-530.

Gregory, William King and Milo Hellman, 1923, Notes on the type of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki Osborn, American Museum Novitates Number 53:1-16.

Osborn, Henry Fairfield, 1922, Hesperopithecus, the first Anthropoid Primate Found in America, American Museum Novitates, Number 37: 1-5.

Woodward, Sir Arthur Keith, 1922, "The Earliest Man?", The Times (London) May 22, p. 17.


The problem is that Osbourn was aware of the problems with an anthropoid identification long before Gregory published the correction. But, for the sake of underming William Jennings Brian for the upcoming Scopes trial, he maintained it. Only after the hype of the trial died down did the retractions come. For a full response to the Talk-Origins page you seem to be mirroring, see Fresh Look at Nebraska Man.

#4 Richw9090

Richw9090

    BANNED

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Tucson

Posted 15 October 2012 - 06:58 AM

The Talk Origins page I seem to be mirroring, eh? That's funny. I wrote that post above without referring to anything other than the original reports, and the London Times articles. I have all the original literature. I have examined the specimens of Hesperopithecus, including the type tooth. I have examined one of the casts which Osborn had made and distributed. And I've compared them myself to Prosthenops to verify what others have published.

The point is, in the mistakes which science has made, who is it that had discovered those mistakes, and corrected them? Has it ever been a Creationist? Nebraska Man? No, that was found and corrected by scientists. Piltdown Man? No, that too was found and corrected by scientists.

Tell me, Gilbo, the next time you or one of your family members is critically ill, will you be seeking out the help of a Creation Scientist to treat your loved one? You certainly wouldn't want to go to a surgeon - after all, surgeons sometimes make mistakes, and that has occassionally resulted in the death of a patient. So we had better reject all of modern medical science, then, using your philosophy.

BoneDigger - you know better than to compound the error Creationists make in citing Nebraska Man by promulgating yet another bit of misinformation. You know very well that Bryan's argument with Osborn began before the Hesperopithecus tooth came in to Osborn's hands, and that the part of Hesperopithecus in that argument ended prior to the Scopes trial even begining. He did not testify in person, nor did he submit a written statement. Osborn went silent when he did because it had been, by then, recognized what Hesperopithecus really was, and Hesperopithecus was not a critical part of the argument.

But that is really beside the point. Nebraska Man is still an example of an honest mistake in science, the discovery of that mistake by other scientists, and the correction of the record. Science is not about absolute certainty, but it is about a preponderance of the evidence.

Didn't want to tackle the Creationists' claims of Nebraska Man appearing in modern textbooks, eh? I don't blame you for that.

Bonedigger, you seem a bit confused about the nature of science and pseudoscience. And Gilbo, your comment about ad hoc hypotheses is irrelevant in this case. It appears that you would be well served by looking up the definition and figuring out how it is correctly applied, and why it has nothing to do with the present case.

#5 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 October 2012 - 09:39 AM

1. The point is, in the mistakes which science has made, who is it that had discovered those mistakes, and corrected them? Has it ever been a Creationist? Nebraska Man? No, that was found and corrected by scientists. Piltdown Man? No, that too was found and corrected by scientists.

2. Tell me, Gilbo, the next time you or one of your family members is critically ill, will you be seeking out the help of a Creation Scientist to treat your loved one? You certainly wouldn't want to go to a surgeon - after all, surgeons sometimes make mistakes, and that has occassionally resulted in the death of a patient. So we had better reject all of modern medical science, then, using your philosophy.


1. And? That still doesn't change the fact that the presumed evolutionary "evidences" have been shown to be either false, misinterpreted or complete frauds... It doesn't matter who exposed the problems, the fact there are problems at all speaks measures on its own.

2. I certainly won't be going to an evolutionary "scientist" since he or she would probably say that my family member will adapt and evolve resistance to the disease over time.... :D

I don't see how your "argument" here has any merit pertaining to what was being discussed. As I said, go research ad hoc hypothesises, then you will see that your claims of "this is how science works" is actually how pseudoscience works... Since according to the scientific method once a hypothesis has been shown to be wrong it is dropped... You admitted in another thread that experiments done on fruit flies do not bring about new species, rather just different variants of the same species... Therefore the hypothesis that organisms "evolve" into new organisms is not supported by this experiment.. Therefore the hypothesis SHOULD be dropped, but its not....
  • usafjay1976 likes this

#6 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 15 October 2012 - 06:01 PM

I don't understand the purpose of this thread as it does not address how hasty scientists are to accept evidence without properly examining it which is the point of the creationist argument.

Rich, your tone is very condescending. I suggest you be a bit nicer. I see that you have already been given a warning. Consider this your last.

#7 Richw9090

Richw9090

    BANNED

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Tucson

Posted 15 October 2012 - 08:13 PM

Specter, don't you dare lecture me about my tone. Recall that the name of your Forum is "Evolution Fairytale Forum". YOU have set a very snide, condescending tone; if you can't take the heat, then you shouldn't turn on the oven. Your real problem is, of course, that you and a few of your Creationist buddies simply can't keep up with or successfully defend your views when confronted with an actual evolutionary biologist. Condescending tone, indeed! Your buddy Calypsis, for one, has been nothing but condescending from the get-go.

I don't give a fig about your warnings, my friend. When you cancel my membership, you will have deprived your Forum of a rare opportunity to discuss evolution with someone who actually knows what he is talking about. It will be your loss, not mine. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of other Creationist websites with which to occupy my time.

I am amazed at the cowardice of some Creationists. You exceed the norm. And note, it is not all of your members. Quite a few have answered me in a civil tone, as I have addressed them. I apologized to Gilbo when I mistyped his screenname and didn't catch it in the proofreading. But I will answer incivility with an equal measure of incivility.

You really have no justification for what you are about to do other than your own fear of the truth.

Sad, that.

Rich

#8 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 15 October 2012 - 09:33 PM

Specter, don't you dare lecture me about my tone. Recall that the name of your Forum is "Evolution Fairytale Forum". YOU have set a very snide, condescending tone; if you can't take the heat, then you shouldn't turn on the oven. Your real problem is, of course, that you and a few of your Creationist buddies simply can't keep up with or successfully defend your views when confronted with an actual evolutionary biologist. Condescending tone, indeed! Your buddy Calypsis, for one, has been nothing but condescending from the get-go.

I don't give a fig about your warnings, my friend. When you cancel my membership, you will have deprived your Forum of a rare opportunity to discuss evolution with someone who actually knows what he is talking about. It will be your loss, not mine. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of other Creationist websites with which to occupy my time.

I am amazed at the cowardice of some Creationists. You exceed the norm. And note, it is not all of your members. Quite a few have answered me in a civil tone, as I have addressed them. I apologized to Gilbo when I mistyped his screenname and didn't catch it in the proofreading. But I will answer incivility with an equal measure of incivility.

You really have no justification for what you are about to do other than your own fear of the truth.

Sad, that.

Rich

Your attitude is absolutely horrendous. You may think that you know a lot about the Creation Vs Evolution controversy but your false bravado does you no favors. You are on our website and you must adhere to the rules that you indicated you'd agreed on before signing on this page. It would help you if you take the time to do a little more reading in the future.

That being said, my warning to you was civil, but your responses to these gentlemen were not. I see that someone already did my work for me and banned you. It's likely that you are against God for the same reason that you got angry at me, you have a problem with authority. Farewell and good luck on your search for truth!

P.S. Learn how to spell my screen name correctly.

#9 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 15 October 2012 - 10:09 PM

Wow! You guys banned him before I could even finish typing my response to his condescending post. (Not surprising though) Anyway, here's my response.

The Talk Origins page I seem to be mirroring, eh? That's funny. I wrote that post above without referring to anything other than the original reports, and the London Times articles. I have all the original literature. I have examined the specimens of Hesperopithecus, including the type tooth. I have examined one of the casts which Osborn had made and distributed. And I've compared them myself to Prosthenops to verify what others have published.


Notice that I said you seem to be mirroring, not seem to be parroting. Let's compare and see.

You said:
First, it looked like one.


Talk-Origins said:
Thirdly, the morphology of the fossil tooth itself was extremely deceptive. Even if one examines the tooth after reading all the literature about it, the tooth bears a compelling resemblance to human or hominid molar teeth, both in overall size and shape, and in the mode of wear on the tooth (the latter being the result of an abrasive diet and tooth-on-tooth contact)


You said:
Second, recent discoveries in North America had shown that mammals of Asia affinities were appearing in the right time frame - a fossil antelope with African and Asian affinities had been found in the same strata as Hesperopithecus.


Talk-Origins said:
First, the circumstantial evidence of some of the other fossil specimens associated with Hesperopithecus made the existence of a North American Pliocene hominid a distinct possibility. A fossil antelope, an animal otherwise native to Africa and Asia, was discovered in the same strata that produced Hesperopithecus. If an antelope could migrate from the Old World tropics to North America in the Pliocene, why not a hominid?


Now, why would I say that your response "seemed to mirror" the Talk-Origins page? I assume that the similarities are due to common source references, and I'll leave it at that. By the way, with regard to the fact that Prosthenops is a peccary, rather than a pig, I have made the same point to other creationists, ad nauseum. Anyone not from the SW US either doesn't usually understand the difference, or doesn't care.

The point is, in the mistakes which science has made, who is it that had discovered those mistakes, and corrected them? Has it ever been a Creationist? Nebraska Man? No, that was found and corrected by scientists. Piltdown Man? No, that too was found and corrected by scientists.


Sigh. The same old phony dichotomy where creationists and scientists are falsely defined as mutually exclusive. Given the monopoly that evolution has had on VP since Leidy, who else but evolutionists could correct the mistakes?

BoneDigger - you know better than to compound the error Creationists make in citing Nebraska Man by promulgating yet another bit of misinformation. You know very well that Bryan's argument with Osborn began before the Hesperopithecus tooth came in to Osborn's hands, and that the part of Hesperopithecus in that argument ended prior to the Scopes trial even begining. He did not testify in person, nor did he submit a written statement. Osborn went silent when he did because it had been, by then, recognized what Hesperopithecus really was, and Hesperopithecus was not a critical part of the argument.

(Emphasis added)

I know nothing of the kind! According to the sources cited by both articles I linked to above, two months before the Scopes trial Osbourn taunted Bryan and again referred to Hesperopithecus as a man-ape. Bryan responded five days before the trial, and Osbourn reprinted Bryan's response in the New York Times on the day the trial started, but didn't refer to Nebraska Man in his own comments. The fact that Osbourn did not testify in the trial is irrelevant to the pre-trial politics involved that were designed to shape the opinion of the "common man."

But that is really beside the point. Nebraska Man is still an example of an honest mistake in science, the discovery of that mistake by other scientists, and the correction of the record. Science is not about absolute certainty, but it is about a preponderance of the evidence.


Yes, Nebraska Man is an example of a mistake. Given Osbourn's pre-trial taunting, I would not presume to characterize it as honest or dishonest. However, it is also an example of how the more fragmentary or ambiguous the material, the more extravagant the claim. Hence, my subsequent quote in my signature of Mark Twain regarding "such wholesale returns of conjecture...from such a trifling investment of fact." My signature is a warning against taking any extravagant initial claim (like feathered dinosaurs or cold fusion) with anything less than a pound of salt. I used Osbourn's initial description of Hesperopithecus because it was published in a formal journal, and is accessible by anyone with an internet connection. The point is, I used a journal publication to illustrate how even peer-reviewed journals (as opposed to popular media) should be subjected to the same degree of skepticism regarding extravagant initial claims.

Didn't want to tackle the Creationists' claims of Nebraska Man appearing in modern textbooks, eh? I don't blame you for that.


Why would I defend a claim I've never made? If you want to debate the claim that Nebraska Man is still in the textbooks, take it up with someone who actually makes the claim. Don't pretend like you've scored a point because I won't embrace and defend the straw man you present. You seem to have a "one size fits all" view of creationism, where any claim made by any creationist is automatically endorsed by all others. You should know or learn better. Or is it that it's just conducive to battling "straw-men" rather than contemporay creationist arguments?

Bonedigger, you seem a bit confused about the nature of science and pseudoscience.


Confused? I think not. I have no problem discerning the difference between the sciences of comparative anatomy and taxonomy on the one hand, and the pseudoscience of evolutionary storytelling on the other hand. As you pointed out, the sciences of anatomy and taxonomy eventually corrected the misidentification of Hesperopithecus as an anthropoid. The pseudoscientific politics of using such things for the promotion of evolution, however, does not involve self-correction. It just moves on to the next candidate when the previous one falls by the wayside.

Edit: Put the "emphasis added" outside the quote box.

#10 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 16 October 2012 - 05:07 AM

Specter, don't you dare lecture me about my tone. Recall that the name of your Forum is "Evolution Fairytale Forum". YOU have set a very snide, condescending tone; if you can't take the heat, then you shouldn't turn on the oven. Your real problem is, of course, that you and a few of your Creationist buddies simply can't keep up with or successfully defend your views when confronted with an actual evolutionary biologist. Condescending tone, indeed! Your buddy Calypsis, for one, has been nothing but condescending from the get-go.

I don't give a fig about your warnings, my friend. When you cancel my membership, you will have deprived your Forum of a rare opportunity to discuss evolution with someone who actually knows what he is talking about. It will be your loss, not mine. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of other Creationist websites with which to occupy my time.

I am amazed at the cowardice of some Creationists. You exceed the norm. And note, it is not all of your members. Quite a few have answered me in a civil tone, as I have addressed them. I apologized to Gilbo when I mistyped his screenname and didn't catch it in the proofreading. But I will answer incivility with an equal measure of incivility.

You really have no justification for what you are about to do other than your own fear of the truth.

Sad, that.

Rich

I saw that coming. I even warned you about it. Most people who believe that the use of the scientific method is the best way to determine what is true will claim that they would throw out the Theory of Evolution if the evidence is truly against it. So, why get emotional about it, especially to the point where you run afoul of the rules of the formum in which you are writing?

I'm sorry you got banned. It looked like you knew more about evolution than I did.

It doesn't matter if you know the truth if you alienate the people to whom you are trying to communicate it.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#11 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1917 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 16 October 2012 - 08:31 AM

Your attitude is absolutely horrendous. You may think that you know a lot about the Creation Vs Evolution, but your false bravado does you no favors. You are on our website and you must adhere to the rules that you indicated you'd agreed on before signing on this page. It would help you if you take the time to do a little more reading in the future.

That being said, my warning to you was civil, but your responses to these gentlemen were not. I see that someone already did my work for me and banned you. It's likely that you are against God for the same reason that you got angry at me, you have a problem with authority. Farewell and good luck on your search for truth!


Good for you, spectre. I agree.

But in addition to that, I think he was frustrated that he couldn't counter what we laid in front of him. He never answered the issue concerning origins and evolution though I posted the same listing of books that proved that Darwinian authors have written repeadtedly about 'the evolutionary origins of life'. So this website wasn't a 'piece of cake' like he so obviously thought it would be. I've been here long enough to see that if they come here with such an attitude, they don't last.

God bless you, friend.
  • gilbo12345 and Spectre like this

#12 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 16 October 2012 - 04:39 PM

^Absolutely! Thanks friend.

#13 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 993 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 17 October 2012 - 12:12 AM

Umm it demonstrates the over-eagerness and lack of verification evolutionists have for their work.. yes it was found out, however you should consider what other "evidences" are in fact wrong but just haven't been found out yet? I'd place my trust in someone or something that has not needed to change its story, rather than someone or something that keeps on being proven wrong.... This isn't "how science works", its how pseudoscience works... ad hoc hypothesises go look up what they mean.

Are those really evidences anyway? Even if the reconstruction is accurate, and I often doubt it is, the conclusions are non-sequitur. If Y is similar to X that doesn't mean that X is the ancestor of Y. Even if that would be the case you can not extrapolate and make it "the truth".

#14 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 October 2012 - 02:48 AM

Are those really evidences anyway? Even if the reconstruction is accurate, and I often doubt it is, the conclusions are non-sequitur. If Y is similar to X that doesn't mean that X is the ancestor of Y. Even if that would be the case you can not extrapolate and make it "the truth".


Yes exactly however you'd be surprised how many people actually believe this as "evidence", I had a chat with some people in the lab I've been assigned for my project, and that is what they believe.

Its an argument from what seems "logical", it seems logical to them so they think its sufficient evidence ... that may be ok for them however such a thing doesn't classify it as scientific evidence. Which is the big problem, just because X amount of people claim its scientific doesn't mean it is.

#15 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 18 October 2012 - 07:09 PM

Yes. They are fooled by their own inability to understand science and assume that scientists know the truth; Therefore, it is.

I tried to have a discussion with some OE creationists and showed them how predictions validate the YEC model. They were so obsessed with the consensus view that they ignore predictions and scrambled directly to talkorigins, which told them that Russel Humphreys is wrong, which justifies brushing it aside.

It's kind of hard to talk science with a person who uses talkorigins as an escape from peer review. If Humphreys was wrong, then I'm sure every peer reviewed geology journal in the world would have tons of papers to reference.

#16 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 21 October 2012 - 01:54 PM

The point is, in the mistakes which science has made, who is it that had discovered those mistakes, and corrected them? Has it ever been a Creationist? Nebraska Man? No, that was found and corrected by scientists. Piltdown Man? No, that too was found and corrected by scientists.


Interesting. I just received the latest issue of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, and Dr. Kevin Anderson has an editorial titled "There Can Be Only One" where he discusses The Mindset of evolutionists. I found his statements below to be particularly relevant to the attitude shown by Rich in the quote above.

Most reviled of all are biblical creationists, who typically find themselves ridiculed, regardless of their scientific credentials or achievements. The Mindset concludes that a creationist cannot possibly be a scientist. The very act of being a creationist suddenly negates any and all scientific accomplishments. Many of us creationists who are practicing scientists (research, publications, conferences, and all that) are well aware of the "you can't possibly be a scientist" type response (distorted facial expressions included)...The Mindset says that neither education, nor publications, nor research success makes someone a scientist. That can be achieved only through a dedicated embracing of evolution.

Emphasis added.

Enjoy

#17 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 21 October 2012 - 05:58 PM

Interesting. I just received the latest issue of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, and Dr. Kevin Anderson has an editorial titled "There Can Be Only One" where he discusses The Mindset of evolutionists.


By the way, there is an excellent interview of Dr. Kevin Anderson by Bob Enyart on the subject of Epigenetics available here.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users