Posted on 02/16/2005 11:01:16 AM PST by Alter Kaker
Standard MO of a creationist with no concept of the facts.
You've found one Christian who supports radiometric dating and who presents a one-sided view of it.
He doesn't acknowledge that there are serious problems with assumptions. He doesn't acknowledge that discordant dates do occur. He doesn't acknowledge that new volcanic rock dated at very old ages because of excess argon that was supposed to have all boiled away. He doesn't acknowledge that Argon gas may seep through the ground contaminating fossils not unlike the way Radon gas seeps into homes. He doesn't acknowledge that all fossils have been found to have more than expected Carbon-14 still in them, which should have been fully depleted.
I'm sure he's not the only Christian who's been sold a bill of goods. But at least he could acknowledge legitimate scientific concerns about radiometric dating. his one sided approach costs him creditiblity.
No, he didn't, although that's certainly the impression your links to creationist sites would misleadingly like to give...
If the creationists have what they claim is a good scientific case, why do they have to lie about it so much?
A more accurate rendering of your falsehood would be: "Leakey found fossils of *early* humans (which were NOT "modern") at a level lower (older) than that of *later* australopithecines".
The earliest australopithecines are still far older than the earliest humans, though, contrary to the false implication the creationist sites are trying mightily to impart.
And I really wish you'd stop parroting creationist twaddle like this without having the ability to validate it yourself first. We've all got better things to do than waste more time correcting the misinformation you're spreading.
Hmmm. Were you one of thoses that admitted sending money to one of those creationists for his book?
tongue in cheek :)
Absolutely. Video tapes so that my kids see there is more than one side to the story. Since evolution is all they are likely to be presented with in school.
And I'm proud of it.
Thank you!
The Smithsonian One is a little more visually appealing, but what would be really nice is a knowledgeable artist's rendition of what these guys looked like. That should set the creationoids a' itchin' and a' scratchin'.
LOL! No he didn't. He found a bunch of stones in a (very rough and incomplete) circle! Here they are:
It's widely doubted that this arrangement of stones is even artifactual. But even if it was, why couldn't Australopithecines put some stones in a (very rough) circle?
TalkOrigins briefly addresses the stone circle here.
Saying everyone before Darwin was a creationist is like saying everyone before Martin Luther was a Catholic.
I think it was even less than that. Judging from the "Impact" he linked he was referring to Tim White's stone circle at Olduvai!
You changed it to...."A more accurate rendering of your falsehood would be: "Leakey found fossils of *early* humans (which were NOT "modern") at a level lower (older) than that of *later* australopithecines". "
Which is not what I said. I said evidence which referred to the stone hut. What's more the talk origins article posted by stultis admits the following:
It's clear that leakey found a circle of stones that he considered made by hominids. And he found it below the level that he found australopithecines.
But if Talk Origins admits that Australopithecines "has never been considered ancestor's of Homo", then why does Patrick Henry keep posting skull line ups that includes Australopithecines as human ancestors?
There were some pre-Darwinian evolutionists, and there were some scientists who were non-pious, irreligious or secular, but it just happens that neither of those states characterize any of the principle figures behind the early development of modern geology and the defining of the major geologic systems. They were observant Christians and creationists to a man.
cretinoid mode on
Man (oops) Woman!
You can't trust this guy. He may be a Christian, but he's an evil SCIENTIST - yuch. Clearly a tool of the devil and we all need to pray for his immortal soul. (mode off)
I have never been attacked so much for being educated and inquisitive and innovative since I showed up at FR. Sometimes it's depressing.
BTW I have been watching your tag line change as you eat books. At first I thought "This lady needs to get a life". Then I thought about the books I've been reading, got confused, scratched my head and got a beer :-].
Australopithecines ARE hominids.
But if Talk Origins admits that Australopithecines "has never been considered ancestor's of Homo",
The ROBUST Australopithecines are not considered ancestral.
"The ROBUST Australopithecines are not considered ancestral."
IOW we're from the "wimp" line?
As an analogy, Queen Elizabeth is a Briton. She came much later than Abe Lincoln. And yet America still "evolved from" (so to speak) England.
It's a more subtle variation of "if humans came from chimps, then why are there still chimps?"
LOL! I happen to be working on a deadline, & I needed those books to finish it. I think it'd be cool if more freepers copied the idea, though.
(Great, now I'll be all self-consious when I decide which book to pull from the pile next. :-)
Well, that is your natural response given you have a belief system. If you were an objective party practicing science, I would expect you could defend the argumentation with other than broad, general statements with no foundation. So far, all we have is broad general statements with the underlying "trust me" element of charlatans.
Yes you did.
You changed it to...."A more accurate rendering of your falsehood would be: "Leakey found fossils of *early* humans (which were NOT "modern") at a level lower (older) than that of *later* australopithecines". "
Yes I did.
Which is not what I said.
I know it isn't. That's why what you said was a falsehood, whereas mine was accurate.
I said evidence which referred to the stone hut.
No you didn't, actually.
What's more the talk origins article posted by stultis admits the following: "The recent discovery of a rough circle of loosely piled stones on the living floor at site D.K. I, in the lower part of Bed I, is noteworthy. ... It seems that the early hominids of this period were capable of making rough shelters or windbreaks, and it is likely that Homo habilis may have been responsible." (Leakey et al. 1964)
Yeah, so? This still doesn't support your claim -- "stones on the living floor" are not a "stone hut", nor is this in any way evidence for your claim that "modern humans" were responsible even if Leakey had been correct that Homo habilis may have pushed the stones into place, since Homo habilis is *not* a "modern human". And finally, Leakey's rash comment notwithstanding, the stones could easily be a natural occurrence anyway, and in fact that is the consensus opinion on them.
First, the australopithecines in question are robust, and have never been considered ancestors of Homo. Even if they were, there is no reason why an ancestor can not coexist with a descendant species.
Yeah, so? This still doesn't support your false claim.
"Louis Leakey claimed that it may have been no more than a windbreak, and so rudimentary that he saw no difficulty in believing that H. habilis could have made it: " It's clear that leakey found a circle of stones that he considered made by hominids.
*Could* have made it. And "hominids" are not "modern humans", which was the substance of your false claim. Care to try again?
And he found it below the level that he found australopithecines.
Yes, you got one right. But again, so? This *still* doesn't support your false claim (nor pose any sort of problem for evolution).
But if Talk Origins admits that Australopithecines "has never been considered ancestor's of Homo",
EERRNNTT!!! Creationist out of context quote alert!
No, what it actually says is: "the australopithecines in question are robust, and have never been considered ancestors of Homo". It's not speaking of *any/all* australopithecines, just the ones "in question" -- the ones found above Leakey's Homo habilis fossils. These are Australopithecus robustus, which are a LATER, and DIFFERENT species of Australopithecines than the ones on the ancestral line of humans.
Please try to learn to read, and try to not take quotes falseley out of context.
then why does Patrick Henry keep posting skull line ups that includes Australopithecines as human ancestors?
Because he, unlike you, is aware that there is more than one type of Australopithecine...
Hmmm... Does that make Queen Elizabeth a robust Briton?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.