Creationists stumped by new hominid fossils

[iouae]

The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla"

Can anyone translate the above which Darwin wrote, into English?

 

[Interplanner]

Can anyone translate the above which Darwin wrote, into English?

The gap between Negro-Australian and gorilla was seen as very narrow. He thought the gap between man and the next closest species would eventually be found to be wider than the currently-conceived gap between the least civilized current man (Caucasian) and a baboon.

Could be one of the best examples of the racism I mentioned in my post just above.

Yet another reason why this kind of science is so poorly done is that they thought the various types were living thousands/millions of years, but separately. They were not. There are piles of human figures from all over the world all over the world. Ie, in Mayan collections there are unmistakable Asian and African feature figures. The denial of Lyell and co. is colossal. Lyell broke knowledge itself, by making way too many declarations about Siccar Point, Scotland, before he knew very much about what was going on geologically. He made evolution "religious" (irrational, 'faith'-based) right from the start.

But biological evolution wanted his stratigraphy so bad, that didn't matter. That's why Hancock calls the whole batch 'science at its worst.'

 

[Interplanner]

You are right that the Pre-Deluge humans had advanced technology, could build like we cannot today etc.

I don't believe there is any evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs, but I am open to evidence along that line. Carl Baugh used to speak of a human footprint in a dinosaur one, but this is not conclusive at all.

I do believe there was a Pre-Genesis 1:2 world with "primitive" proto-humans or hominids. It shows to me God was experimenting in anticipation of creating modern man 6000 years ago.

Hominid fossils are only found in recent strata in the geological record.

re humans and dinosaurs
Mayor's geo-mythology has so many piles of human-beast interaction, it's hard to escape.

Some 3000 rock pictograms from Naszca are so detailed about dinosaurs that the sketches are basically what is used today in modern texts. Yet there are people in them, sometimes in conflict, sometimes using the dinos.

Mountain men on the American frontier who first saw piles of opisthotonic bones commented that the soft tissue was like 'overdried jerky.' There is still soft tissue for lab samples today and one scientist to Montana and collected a wide number of samples and shows why they are recent with the lastest microbiology tests and tools, and used to teach at North Ridge, CA. He was fired.

Uniformitarianism is an authoritarian orthodoxy. You get fired if you differ.

The Hindi epic MAHABHARATA appears to be first hand description of the live actions of the massive creature whose same bones are found in the Siwalik Hills below the Himalayans.

Both legends and fossils of Deinotherium giganteum are found on Crete. That's humans talking about the largest mammal ever to live.

The idea that human-dinosaur activity is down to one Texas footprint is about 20 years behind the research. So is the idea that humans were usually 6 ft tall and lived 80 years.

 

[Interplanner]

You are right that the Pre-Deluge humans had advanced technology, could build like we cannot today etc.

I don't believe there is any evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs, but I am open to evidence along that line. Carl Baugh used to speak of a human footprint in a dinosaur one, but this is not conclusive at all.

I do believe there was a Pre-Genesis 1:2 world with "primitive" proto-humans or hominids. It shows to me God was experimenting in anticipation of creating modern man 6000 years ago.

Hominid fossils are only found in recent strata in the geological record.

re 1:2
The text does not go that 'experimental' direction at all. There are many, many similarities between many, many species human and non-human. That's because there is essentially a good ergonomic and functional design in all cases. Were scientists expecting completely different designs for lungs for each and every mammal?

The 'hominids' look like humans, but so what? Humans are way different. People who believe in millions of years because of the mistaken reasons of uniformitarianism and just looking for various stages they think are there, when the anthro- and geomytho-data is totally different in actuality.

1:2 is about something entirely different. It is about the end of a stage of earth completely unrelated to geology or evolution. The expression 'formless and void' indicates God's judgement on something that was there (like Jer 4:13). Job 38 says God had to shake out the earth like a carpet (to get rid of some kind of evil) before laying its foundations. And 2 Peter 2/Jude refer to the 'blackest darkness' places where evil angels were sent. Well, being limited to just a few clues, guess what condition the earth was when God began creating? Black, dark, deep. The Spirit of God was not at work in it, until creation started, and was withdrawn after evil consumed the earth before the deluge, which is when all magma breaks loose on earth.

We should also note, like Hebrew scholars Waltke (DTS, Regent) and Wakefield, that the defeat of a massive sea-monster by the creator is found all around the world in cosmologies. Gen 1:2 employs this. Something has been destroyed because it was horrible and hostile, and from it the creator makes a beautiful, human-friendly world. The sea-monster is the closest thing to the reality that world legends can get. Compare the ancient Greek 'Hydra' which, of course, is simply 'water.' They are all varying departures from Genesis. But the frequency of it should be kept in mind, and so should the similarities between that kind of geo-hydrological event and the deluge. If Genesis suggests repetition (that the deluge repeats things about creation, see below), why wouldn't other written material? Some do; many simply refer to the end of the deluge as creation, which is perfectly sensible.

Next, we should notice what 'the image of God' means. This is not the physical appearance, and it is not just a 20th century conception of human dignity. A human sovereign would place images of himself around his territory to 'mark' what he owned. Those were usually wood, stone, metal. The text is saying that whatever was going on before, the Lord God was now owner and humans were his 'image' (to whom?) to show that the Lord God was the sovereign of this earth.

So I find that both of these things suggest something horrible and hostile was made into the kind of human-suited world for fellowship between God and man, and that we don't get to find out very much about what was there. The debate between 6 days and 6000 million years pretty much doesn't matter, if you are being honest about the text. Those are not the corners you'd back into. It has much more to do with the supernatural, with legend-clues, with evil angels. There is no reason at all why the Lord God 'needs' millions of years for anything about creation.

Finally, it seems the 'problem' that is behind the very dark (!) Genesis 1:2 repeats. Those evil 'sons of God' show up again (we don't know why), seek out human women for sex, and those offspring make the world a horrible place. We don't know how 'they got loose' but that's life on earth. It is what it is.

But it is extremely different from uniformitarianism. There is no meshing, synchronizing, etc., that comes to mind. On the recent NOVA special "Making North America," the best the writer could do was an asteroid that sprayed a layer of metal particles all over earth X million years ago and dinos perished while underground mammals survived. He didn't say whether evolution was to be reset to start from a 'Noah's ark' of underground mammals, but what other conclusion can a person make? They don't seem concerned to make any sense of that for a national TV special. It's pretty rank nonsense.

 

[iouae]

Thank you for that fascinating food for thought Interplanner !

I can see I am going to have to do some reading on the geological time scale to see in which strata hominid remains have been found.

My real interest is whether any hominids were found, under that worldwide layer of iridium which marks the KT boundary.

 

[Jonahdog]

Thank you for that fascinating food for thought Interplanner !

I can see I am going to have to do some reading on the geological time scale to see in which strata hominid remains have been found.

My real interest is whether any hominids were found, under that worldwide layer of iridium which marks the KT boundary.

my best guess is that they have not. If you find otherwise please post the citation to the literature

 

[6days]

The expression 'formless and void' indicates God's judgement on something that was there (like Jer 4:13).* Job 38 says God had to shake out the earth like a carpet (to get rid of some kind of evil) before laying its foundations.

Interplanner.....once again you pervert what God says in order to corrupt the gospel (inserting death before sin *and destroying the purpose of Christ's physical death).

Job 38 does NOT say God had to shake out the earth to get rid of evil before laying its foundations. *Are you fabricating this yourself? Or are you simply gullible believing heretical teachings? *Most commentaries say something like this... "The idea here is, that God causes the light of the morning suddenly to spread to the remotest parts of the world, and to reveal everything which was there.

That the wicked might be shaken out of it - Out of the earth; that is, by the light which suddenly shines upon them. The sense is, that the wicked perform their deeds in the darkness of the night, and that in the morning light they flee away. The effect of the light coming upon them is to disturb their plans, to fill them with alarm, and to cause them to flee. The idea is highly poetic. The wicked are engaged in various acts of iniquity under cover of the night. Robbers, thieves, and adulterers, go forth to their deeds of darkness as though no one saw them. The light of the morning steals suddenly upon them, and they flee before it under the apprehension of being detected.

Also..formless and void in Genesis 1 does not speak of judgement. It simply is saying that in the initial stages / day 1 of creation, the earth was formless ( it was all water), and the earth was void / empty, of life. Over the following few days, God formed and filled the earth.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Again...you are partly correct.
Some Christians made that mistake and justified sinful actions, but the Mark of Cain in God's Word says nothing about it being black skin nor a different race.

It was a hardcore evolutionist who admitted that racism increased by orders of magnitude after Darwins first book...and comments from Darwin such as "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla"

Okay so let me get this straight: you just admitted that more than a few Christians championed racism by using the bible, but only one "evolutionist" you can think of championed racism? And somehow you think that this one "evolutionist" outweighs the hundreds of Christian slave owners who used the bible as justification?

 

[Greg Jennings]

I had said this before. ..
"Lets look at the first one air mentioned. Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin in 'Origins' called Aegyptopitithecus zeuxis the ancestor that humans share with all living apes. That's simply is a statement of faith and nothing to do with science. This 6Kg creature is simply an extinct ape. Evolutionists acknowledge that this creature is simply an ape.

6, I'd like a citation corroborating anything you said about the "embellishments" by scientists. Sorry, but your say-so isn't good enough

 

[Right Divider]

Ouch!!

I don't think the churches have a glorious history in promoting equality of the races. Or even equality of the sexes. This is not an area where religious folks can claim any superiority over evolutionists.

These 'religions' that you speak of are all man-made silliness.

The Bible shows that there is ONE race of humans and it didn't get here by accident. It also show equality of the men and women, but not that they have identical roles.

Though you probably don't care what it says.

 

[Greg Jennings]

These 'religions' that you speak of are all man-made silliness.

This isn't meant to tick you off, but I know it probably will anyway.

How do you KNOW that your religion (or any for that matter) is the right one? Can you prove it?

 

[Right Divider]

This isn't meant to tick you off, but I know it probably will anyway.

How do you KNOW that your religion (or any for that matter) is the right one? Can you prove it?

I have an idea, you answer that question first.

 

[Greg Jennings]

I have an idea, you answer that question first.

Okay. I don't know what religion is correct. Your turn

 

[Right Divider]

Okay. I don't know what religion is correct. Your turn

And yet you preach this religion of yours every chance you get.

Your religion of "nobody can really know anything for sure, but evolution* is true".

* - Evolution as in, goo to you.

 

[Greg Jennings]

And yet you preach this religion of yours every chance you get.

Your religion of "nobody can really know anything for sure, but evolution* is true".

* - Evolution as in, goo to you.

Ah, I see the disconnect here. You are unaware that science doesn't fall under the umbrella of religion.

However, let's pretend it does. I would know this "religion" to be correct because it has overwhelming evidence gathered over the course of 200 years to support it, as well as evidence from other fields of science that support an Earth far far older than 6000 years.

Now, where is your evidence that allows you to know that Christianity is correct?

 

[Right Divider]

Ah, I see the disconnect here. You are unaware that science doesn't fall under the umbrella of religion.

Typical mindless response. The old 'false dichotomy' gets 'em every time.

However, let's pretend it does. I would know this "religion" to be correct because it has overwhelming evidence gathered over the course of 200 years to support it, as well as evidence from other fields of science that support an Earth far far older than 6000 years.

Indeed, you think that you know far more than you actually do. BTW, I'm not one that claims to know the age of the universe and YOU don't know either. But you claim that you do. Pretty arrogant considering that "science" keeps changing it. Oh, that's right.... "science" is "self correcting". So those earlier things that where known to be true are even MORE true now.

Now, where is your evidence that allows you to know that Christianity is correct?

LOL, with "science" as your "god", you can't lose... can you?

Your "science" pumps up your ego to the size of the universe.

Your "science" is omnipotent ..... eventually.... maybe..... no, wait.

I think that it's really funny that you atheistic materialists use a calendar which has years that are based on a man that was raised from the dead, but you reject Him.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Typical mindless response. The old 'false dichotomy' gets 'em every time.

Stop projecting. It's unbecoming of someone with your level of undeserved self-worth

Indeed, you think that you know far more than you actually do. BTW, I'm not one that claims to know the age of the universe and YOU don't know either. But you claim that you do. Pretty arrogant considering that "science" keeps changing it. Oh, that's right.... "science" is "self correcting". So those earlier things that where known to be true are even MORE true now.

Well I never mentioned the universe, but whatever. That won't stop you from projecting your insecurities onto others, I get it. But yes, from different methods of radiometric dating converging on the same result, we can absolutely know the age of the Earth, and from observing distant galaxies combined with knowing the speed of light, we can roughly estimate the age of the universe.

If you want a good link to help you learn about this, let me know and I'll give you it

LOL, with "science" as your "god", you can't lose... can you?

Your "science" pumps up your ego to the size of the universe.

Your "science" is omnipotent ..... eventually.... maybe..... no, wait.

Science isn't omnipotent. It's the method by which we can understand and learn about the natural world. If it was omnipotent, there would be no need for the scientific method because everything already be known.

You, otoh, simply substitute "goddidit" for experimentation, which is just lazy.

I think that it's really funny that you atheistic materialists use a calendar which has years that are based on a man that was raised from the dead, but you reject Him.

Smh. AD doesn't mean "after death." It means Anno Domini, translated as "the year of our Lord." That's why the AD starts at Jesus' birth, not his death. Nothing about AD has anything to do with a potential resurrection.

See how much you just don't know?

I take it you have no way to KNOW your religion is correct, as you've dodged three times. Is THAT correct?

 

[Right Divider]

Stop projecting. It's unbecoming of someone with your level of undeserved self-worth

Did you think of that yourself or did you look it up?

You see Greg, I'm not going to fall for your the slight of hand. These are the same old worn out ploys that are just childish banter and don't get to the real issue.

You'll have to use real arguments if you want to discuss real life with me.

Well I never mentioned the universe, but whatever. That won't stop you from projecting your insecurities onto others, I get it. But yes, from different methods of radiometric dating converging on the same result, we can absolutely know the age of the Earth, and from observing distant galaxies combined with knowing the speed of light, we can roughly estimate the age of the universe.

If you want a good link to help you learn about this, let me know and I'll give you it

That's a hoot! I guess that's why these dates are open to debate and are continually changing as the "science" gets better or the "old" dates were not long enough to suit those that needed more "time".

You do know that space and time are not independent of each other, right? Ever heard of time dilation?

Science isn't omnipotent. It's the method by which we can understand and learn about the natural world. If it was omnipotent, there would be no need for the scientific method because everything already be known.

Since you think that the material world is all that there is, you have to say this. You are an atheistic materialist imposing YOUR view of all things on the rest of us.

YOU have decided that this is the ONLY acceptable choice.

This is YOUR religion, whether you like calling it that or not.

You, otoh, simply substitute "goddidit" for experimentation, which is just lazy.

Just another of your straw-men that you can so easily tip over. God did it didn't stop the NUMEROUS founder of the various branches of modern science (real science).

Go do your research and get back to me when you can name a few.

Smh. AD doesn't mean "after death." It means Anno Domini, translated as "the year of our Lord." That's why the AD starts at Jesus' birth, not his death. Nothing about AD has anything to do with a potential resurrection.

I didn't say that it started at His death. I also didn't say that AD is ABOUT His resurrection. But this is the way what we speak about the years. In reference to the God/Man Jesus Christ. Doesn't that just beat all? What a superstitious world that we live it! Why can't you and Richard Dawkins get this all fixed?

See how much you just don't know?

I know that you don't know much and like to think that you do.

I take it you have no way to KNOW your religion is correct, as you've dodged three times. Is THAT correct?

Once again Greg, we ALL have a religion (i.e., a world-view) that is how we perceive and believe the world around us. You AM's (atheistic materialists) love to make the FALSE claim that "we" have a religion but you don't. That just another of the many falsehoods that make up your religion.

So the bottom line is that NOBODY "knows that their religion is correct" in the WAY that YOU want to frame it. But you don't get to make the rules.

 

[6days]

6, I'd like a citation corroborating anything you said about the "embellishments" by scientists. Sorry, but your say-so isn't good enough

You are confusing a few things, and making a bit of a strawman.
What I had mentioned is "fossils of apes that evolutionists tried to make more human like" with descriptions trying to sell their belief system.
Notice, I did not say 'scientists'..I said 'evolutionists'. The word scientists would be incorrect in my statement because it is only some scientists who do that.

Also... without giving you citations, you already KNOW of numerous examples where evolutionists tried to make human fossils more apelike.....or ape fossils appear more human like.
Example... Neandertals were portrayed as stooped over hairy beasts. Evolutionists claimed these 'beasts' were inarticulate. ..no culture...didn't bury dead with ceremony...couldn't breed with humans....unintelligent...etc.
Science has proven all of those evolutionary claims to be false. Science has proven the humanity of Neandertals and is one more evidence for the truth of God's Word. We are all one blood...one race...all descendants of the original created humans, Adam and Eve.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Did you think of that yourself or did you look it up?

Found it on the ground. Sounded nice.

You see Greg, I'm not going to fall for your the slight of hand. These are the same old worn out ploys that are just childish banter and don't get to the real issue.

You'll have to use real arguments if you want to discuss real life with me.

Slight of hand? Do you know what that means?

That's a hoot! I guess that's why these dates are open to debate and are continually changing as the "science" gets better or the "old" dates were not long enough to suit those that needed more "time".

The age of Earth hadn't been up for debate for a long time, buddy. It's about 4 billion years old. Research much?

You do know that space and time are not independent of each other, right? Ever heard of time dilation?

:rotfl:
Surprisingly, it was something we covered in theoretical physics. But please, I'm begging you to tell me how time dilation would affect light speed (hint: it doesn't) Time dilation only exists because the speed of light is constant, dummy!

Feel free to demonstrate your brilliance here by explaining time dilation and how it supports your claim.

Since you think that the material world is all that there is, you have to say this. You are an atheistic materialist imposing YOUR view of all things on the rest of us.

YOU have decided that this is the ONLY acceptable choice.

This is YOUR religion, whether you like calling it that or not.

Look up the word "agnostic" for me. Then you'll feel really stupid.

God did it didn't stop the NUMEROUS founder of the various branches of modern science (real science).

Go do your research and get back to me when you can name a few.

You mean the various of branches of modern science that all agree on an old Earth and much older universe?

I didn't say that it started at His death. I also didn't say that AD is ABOUT His resurrection. But this is the way what we speak about the years. In reference to the God/Man Jesus Christ. Doesn't that just beat all? What a superstitious world that we live it! Why can't you and Richard Dawkins get this all fixed?

Somebody want to clarify what is being asked here?

I know that you don't know much and like to think that you do.

Got me! I'm an idiot, but still making you look dumb. What does that say about you?

Once again Greg, we ALL have a religion (i.e., a world-view) that is how we perceive and believe the world around us. You AM's (atheistic materialists) love to make the FALSE claim that "we" have a religion but you don't. That just another of the many falsehoods that make up your religion.

Religion:
1. the belief in a god or in a group of gods
2. an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

So remind us all, how exactly is science a religion again?

QUOTE=Right Divider;4527517]So the bottom line is that NOBODY "knows that their religion is correct" in the WAY that YOU want to frame it. But you don't get to make the rules.[/QUOTE]
You're right, I don't. The rest of the world does, and I'm afraid it disagrees with you in favor of my "framing." But at least you came to the right conclusion that you can't know which religion is correct.