Creationist draws large crowd

York Daily Record (York, PA) ^ | 18 March 2006 | TERESA MCMINN

[Coyoteman]

Sorry, but you certainly are not a scientist. Your shameless promotion of evolution philosophy proves that.

Your belief has blinded you to the world in which you live.

Belief gets in the way of learning.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

[js1138]

You are certainly not a Christian Scientist.

[b_sharp]

"The mutation that caused feline leukemia virus to infect dogs is an example of a useful mutation."

For a specific definition of useful perhaps. ;->

Actually you got me on this one. As far as I know the virus doesn't affect dogs. You obviously know something *else* I don't know.

[Tokra]

He went on to call evolution the "dumbest and the most dangerous religion in the history of the earth."

I agree with this, and because it is correct you can expect to be attacked by the Truebelievers shortly. A word of advise: don't bother getting into the mud with them. They can use your prayers.

Too late - you're already in the mud. I find it amusing how some people will claim the other side will "attack" them - right after they've "attacked" the other side! Wouldn't a reasonable person say that being called "dumbest and most dangerous" is a kind of attack? I guess only YOUR side can "attack"?

Can you spell hypocrisy?

[b_sharp]

"People are getting fed up with evolution thrust down their throats. When scrutinized it doesn't stand up.

Let me correct that sentence for you.

Creationists are getting fed up with not having their beliefs thrust down our throats. When scrutinized by creationists who have a vested interest in having their belief system given precedence over every other system of thought or scientific process it doesn't stand up.

There, now its more accurate.

[Tokra]

Actually, if evolution were true there would be many millions of transitional fossils of life forms with partially formed limbs, nubs, etc..if that were the case this debate would be over.

You are making the mistake of assuming that nearly every life form has been fossilized. Not so. Very few have been. An extremely small percentage of life forms were in the position to be exposed to water saturated with minerals so the fossilization process of replacing cell structure with mineral deposits could take place. The absence of a particular fossil means nothing.

There are very few examples of existing clothing from the days of the Roman empire. Does that prove that Romans went naked?

[Tokra]

Yeah, I'm sure I can tell evo creationist whacko's to just sit down and STFU until they have positive proof man evolved,was created as-is and stop pointing to conjecturous B.S.Bible passages like it's any proof of evocreationism.

There - fixed your spelling errors.

[DoctorMichael]

Go here!!!!!!!!!!!!!...............

http://www.echoesofenoch.com/hollowearth.htm

The Earth is hollow!!!!!!!!!!!

I read it on the Internet therefore it must be true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Bible says so too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..........

Isa 40:22 "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."

.......and we all know that the Bible is the literal Word of God!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets all get together and get this into our Godless Public School System as a viable alternative to what the Godless Geologists profess!!!!!!!!

Who's with me?

[Doctor Stochastic]

I think that I read (somewhere) that feline leukemia virus had undergone a mutation that allowed it to infect dogs. This would be useful for the virus.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Error! Error! Error!

Upon further checking, it's canine parvo that seems to be derived from a feline infection.

[narby]

Probably less than Evo-nutbags get in grants

Science produces results. Hovind produces entertainment.

I suppose he's dirty because the public pays him instead of the state...

He could always apply for a federal grant as an *artist*. Would probably be better than the lady who smeared herself with feces on stage. Probably.

[Quark2005]

Sad truth: The evolutionists of today were clearly described and predicted a couple thousand years ago. They are the prophesied scoffers, people who choose to be willfully ignorant of the obvious truths about them.

You've got it all backwards. Creationists are the ones that fit that bill (perfectly, to a tee). Evolutionary scientists actually have to back their theories with data and research.

(By the way, none of those skulls have been altered in any way except for a left-right mirror image. We're all still waiting for creationists to classify which skulls human and which are apes, to clear this thing up once and for all...)

[Coyoteman]

We're all still waiting for creationists to classify which skulls human and which are apes, to clear this thing up once and for all...

Here is another one to play with. This little guy is cute! We had the cast in the bone lab in grad school, so I have examined this one personally.

---

Fossil: Taung Child

Site: Buxton Limeworks, Taung, South Africa (1)

Discovered By: M. de Bruyn, 1924 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.3 mya * determined by Faunal & geomorphological data (1, 4, 5)

Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 3, 7, 8)

Gender: Unknown (1)

Cranial Capacity: 405 (440 as adult) cc (1, 3)

Information: First early hominid fossil found in Africa (7, 8)

Interpretation:

• Juvenile (3 years old based on deciduous teeth, first permanent molars) (1, 3, 4, 7)
• Bipedal hominid (based on position of foramen magnum, brain endocast, small canines) (1, 3, 4, 7)
  
• Killed possibly by bird of prey (based on fractures and puncture marks on skull) (1, 10)

See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=27

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Looks like a beat-up juvinile chimpanzee to me. Did they ever find the skullcap or the skeleton to that thing?

[MississippiMan]

You say there are no transitionals? Wrong! Here is a transitional. This individual (note, it is more than "a tiny skull or jawbone fragment")" is a clear transitional as shown by the chart which follows (look about the middle).

Wrong yourself. A Google search on "KNM-ER 3733" returns 720 hits, so anyone can go take a look at the real story behind this "clear transitional." As I'm sure you know, your photo is of a reconstruction of literally DOZENS of bone fragments. In fact, it's just one of many different reconstructions. Later versions (by other evolutionists) take away the flat human-like face and it becomes quite clear that it was merely an ape.

Again, this is one of the most commonly used tools of evolutionist propaganda. Take dozens of bone chips, stick them all together to fit the upfront assumption of ape-man, shoot a picture, and then pretend that it was dug from the ground in exactly that condition.

MM

[blowfish]

Scientists laughing their asses off bump.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Just don't use it for a profit anywhere.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Sorry, thought you meant a different pic.

That photo of Dr. Dino's university is all over the net, just google Hovind and images.

[Quark2005]

Later versions (by other evolutionists) take away the flat human-like face and it becomes quite clear that it was merely an ape.

An ape found with stone tools, wow. That must have been one smart ape. (I guess apes used to be a lot smarter until the Fall and man's sin made them turn into dumb primates.)

Again, this is one of the most commonly used tools of evolutionist propaganda.

Again with the propaganda. Scientists across all disciplines are apparently involved in this massive, deliberate misinformation campaign. Where's the evidence for this massive conspiracy of fraud? We need to know this! Creationists are sitting on the greatest case of deliberate scientific fraud in human history; share the wealth and blow this thing wide open already!!

..then pretend that it was dug from the ground in exactly that condition.

Where did that happen?

[Coyoteman]

Wrong yourself. A Google search on "KNM-ER 3733" returns 720 hits, so anyone can go take a look at the real story behind this "clear transitional." As I'm sure you know, your photo is of a reconstruction of literally DOZENS of bone fragments. In fact, it's just one of many different reconstructions. Later versions (by other evolutionists) take away the flat human-like face and it becomes quite clear that it was merely an ape.

Again, this is one of the most commonly used tools of evolutionist propaganda. Take dozens of bone chips, stick them all together to fit the upfront assumption of ape-man, shoot a picture, and then pretend that it was dug from the ground in exactly that condition.

You should have read more of the 720 hits. This one for instance. Note the addendum at the very bottom.

Malcolm Bowden and ER 3733 (Source)

Here is what creationist Malcolm Bowden has to say about the Homo erectus skull ER 3733:

The Homo erectus skull

We will briefly digress to consider this skull - No. 3733 - (Fig. 57) which was also given considerable publicity. It was found in 1975 in many pieces. Following its reconstruction Leakey said, 'In all its features the cranium is strikingly like that of H. erectus from Pekin' (Leakey 1976). It was found in strata dated 1.3 to 1.6 million years and Leakey said it was about 1.5 million years old.

On the problem of what angle the face-bones should be (which we have met regarding 1470 man, p201), he says:

The facial skeleton is flexed under the calvaria and in the preliminary reconstruction is set at about the same angle as that reconstructed for a female H. erectus by Weidenreich. (Leakey 1976)

Here indeed is a classic example of much supposition being eventually accepted as a fact. As we have shown on p116, Weidenreich's reconstruction of Nellie [the nickname of the reconstructed skull] was from a number of broken pieces of apes skulls from widely different parts of the Pekin site. So despite the grave, scientific aura with which he tries to invest his reconstruction, it is clearly piecemeal and arbitrary. Leakey, seeing that his skull was similar to Weidenreich's, set the face-bones at the same angle.

[There is more in this section, but none of it discusses ER 3733]

It is difficult to tell from this whether Bowden is claiming ER 3373 is a human or an ape. Most people would probably accept that it looks quite human, despite the massive brow ridges and small brain size. But Bowden seems to accept the judgement that it is very similar to the Peking Man skulls (which he considers apes), although the brain size is smaller than any of them.

Bowden's concern about the angle of the facial bones indicates that he may think ER 3733 is an ape which has been incorrectly reconstructed to make it look more human than it really is. In the case of ER 1470, the facial bones attach to the rest of the skull at only one point, and there is some uncertainty about the angle of the facial bones. But ER 3733 is much more complete, and there is little room for adjustment in the angle of the face. We have, therefore, a skull with a human face, attached to a braincase that Bowden thinks belongs to an ape.

March 18, 1998: In email, Bowden confirmed to me that he thinks ER 3733 is human. That does not explain, however, how this can be reconciled with his belief that the similar but larger Peking Man and Java Man skulls are apes.