3.3 million year old child fossil found in Ethiopia - What would a YEC position be? [Archive I]

Magus55

September 22, 2006, 09:03 PM

To be fair, the YEC position is more likely to be, "It's genuine, but it's an ape, and it's less than 6,000 years old."

To which your stated Evolutionist position is both correct and applicable.

We're discussing this on Rapture Ready. Basically they consider it fully ape - a transition only from child to adult with nothing to do with humans.

They did, however, pay close attention to the point in the article about the death of "baby Lucy" being the result of a flood, and of course they agree with that being evidence of a global flood :rolleyes:

A couple points from there:

The evolutionist desperate to vindicate his religion, will overlook the most elementary of scientific clues to further their god.

And when I said too bad the evidence won't phase them:

There is no "evidence", and there never will be. Just futile attempts by atheist evolutionists, to prove there is no God. The pitiful little fools.

It's so frustrating arguing anything over there. I need a vacation. I'm still shocked I used to be like that.

Magus55

September 22, 2006, 09:49 PM

double post

Prof

September 22, 2006, 10:02 PM

It's so frustrating arguing anything over there. I need a vacation. I'm still shocked I used to be like that.

Magus55, I'm freakin' blown away that you have altered your view to the degree you have. Great for you for being wise enough to accept when it's time to modify your position.

For my part (being an atheist) I hang out a lot on a forum for theists, mostly Christians, and have become quite fond of many of the members there (despite our often frank debates). They've completely accepted me into their little community, which is nice. Although I certainly am not persuaded by any of the arguments for Christianity, "hanging out" with various Christians helps keep me from falling back to thinking only in terms of caricatures and I am grateful for that, as well as for the discussions. I've learned here and there when I've been wrong about certain aspects of Christian sects, etc.

Prof.

Nialler

September 22, 2006, 10:03 PM

We're discussing this on Rapture Ready. Basically they consider it fully ape - a transition only from child to adult with nothing to do with humans.

They did, however, pay close attention to the point in the article about the death of "baby Lucy" being the result of a flood, and of course they agree with that being evidence of a global flood :rolleyes:

A couple points from there:

The evolutionist desperate to vindicate his religion, will overlook the most elementary of scientific clues to further their god.

And when I said too bad the evidence won't phase them:

There is no "evidence", and there never will be. Just futile attempts by atheist evolutionists, to prove there is no God. The pitiful little fools.

It's so frustrating arguing anything over there. I need a vacation. I'm still shocked I used to be like that.
Magus, when did this happen? I remember you as a die-hard YEC. Welcome to the side of reason. You know well by know that we have plenty of room for theists, don't you?

Djugashvillain

September 22, 2006, 10:32 PM

Generally, they'll call it either an ape or a fraud.

Her pinkness saves

September 23, 2006, 02:06 AM

offtopic: so Magus, any argument/theory, whathaveyou, that you found worked the best for you to change?

i've been debtaing a friend for months, and arguing for theistic evolution is harder then i thought. ^^ thus far i've only killed his ID side. >.>

Magus55

September 23, 2006, 10:38 AM

Magus, when did this happen? I remember you as a die-hard YEC. Welcome to the side of reason. You know well by know that we have plenty of room for theists, don't you?
Happened maybe a couple months ago. Now I'm a theistic evolutionist debating against creationists and literalists.

Aegeri

September 23, 2006, 07:07 PM

Yeah, the creationists around here have just avoided the issue I find. They'll probably parrot the same predictable crap that the ICR and AIG put out (whenever). Of course, with fossils like Tiktaalik, this one and another couple of really key fossils this year, it's been a pretty terrible year for creationists. Mind, at the same time their perverse logic just means there are now 6 gaps to stick God in that weren't there before.

You can never "win" with literalists no matter what the evidence.

Anat

September 23, 2006, 07:43 PM

I have no idea how many YEC are in the scientific community, and I can't imagine that they would merely dismiss them.
Basically none.
Curiously I once knew a research scientist who was a YEC. Orthodox Jewish in religion. He worked on 3-D imaging of protein structure, and went berzerk whenever anyone implied that sequence and structure similarity between proteins had anything to do with common descent. I suppose he spent much of his mental capacity resolving cognitive dissonance.

buckshot23

September 23, 2006, 07:46 PM

...it's been a pretty terrible year for creationists.
What exactly is new about this? "Lucy" has been known to exist for decades. If a species we call "Australopithecus afarensis" existed then it is reasonable to assume children of said species existed.
Mind, at the same time their perverse logic just means there are now 6 gaps to stick God in that weren't there before.
What gap does this fill?

Aegeri

September 23, 2006, 07:55 PM

More knowledge always fills gaps. Also, the skeleton is fairly complete and is of a child, whereas Lucy was an adult (which in itself, makes it an important find). This tells us a lot more information about the species and clues about development. I also pointed out other examples as well.

Also when you put something like a species name you don't put it in quotes, you are supposed to write it out like this: [i]Australopithecus afarensis.

buckshot23

September 23, 2006, 08:05 PM

More knowledge always fills gaps.
I agree. The gaps that were filled were about a species we already knew existed. The mere discovery of a child version of this species is no more troublesome for creationists as the original discovery of "Lucy". Also when you say...
Mind, at the same time their perverse logic just means there are now 6 gaps to stick God in that weren't there before.
This "logic" applies to fossil gaps not gaps in knowledge.
Also, the skeleton is fairly complete and is of a child, whereas Lucy was an adult (which in itself, makes it an important find). This tells us a lot more information about the species and clues about development. I also pointed out other examples as well.
Oh I see, this doesn't fill a gap in the fossil record it was the other examples that creationists use that "logic" not in this case. Ok fine. I still wonder why you would point out that "logic" with regards to a creationist response to this particular case.
Also when you put something like a species name you don't put it in quotes, you are supposed to write it out like this: [I]Australopithecus afarensis.
Sorry about that, I just love using the quotation marks though.

Aegeri

September 23, 2006, 08:15 PM

I agree. The gaps that were filled were about a species we already knew existed. The mere discovery of a child version of this species is no more troublesome for creationists as the original discovery of "Lucy". Also when you say...

I'm not sure how much creationist tripe you like to read, but some creationists argue that skeletons like Lucy are just deformed children of apes or humans (for example). The fact that clear cut fossils of children of these species can be found is very significant for pointing out this is incorrect.

This "logic" applies to fossil gaps not gaps in knowledge.

No, it also applies to gaps in knowledge as well, this is after all what the entire Intelligent Design Creationism movement argues with the likes of the Flagellum and creationists argued for years before with structures like the knee. There is a reason why "God of the gaps" isn't specific to gaps in the fossil record and has been applied to molecular systems etc as well.

Sorry about that, I just love using the quotation marks though.

I'm just anal retentive about it. I get really annoyed on programs like MSN or similar, when I can't use italics for species names (individually) and it always drives me batty. I was pleased to see the media link (second in the OP) did this correctly.

Clivedurdle

September 24, 2006, 06:19 PM

Happened maybe a couple months ago. Now I'm a theistic evolutionist debating against creationists and literalists.

Slippery slope mate! You are very near the dark side!

Darwin was originally a theistic evolutionist, but his mind led him to the obvious conclusion that god is not necessary for the equations to work!

Try Darwin and the Barnacles.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Darwin-Barnacle-Historys-Spectacular-Breakthrough/dp/0393057453/ref=sr_11_1/026-4881894-2035661?ie=UTF8

Stott brings Darwin to life! An extraordinary story, so well crafted it brings a wonderful sense of humanity to the history of science. Primarily, 'Darwin and the Barnacle' brings into focus the central essence of Darwin as a human being. It presents Darwin's raw excitement with life, seemingly ignited while strolling studiously (almost romantically) along the foreshores. Which in turn encouraged him to undertake his famous tour of discovery upon the Beagle.
The sensitivity of the author helped develop in me an understanding of and interest in Charles Darwin as a person. I was moved by learning more about the man and how he lived his life; by the grief he experienced as his beloved daughter died, how his wife and he read to one another, about his ill health, his day to day activities and about his dedication if not dogged determination of his scientific observations.

In reading this book I came to understand how much time and energy Darwin dedicated in undertaking his labourious investigations into barnacles, how this hard work paved the way for honing his monumental work on the 'Origin of the Species'. Yet for me it is not a defence of evolution, but rather its Darwin who is placed under the microscope. It was literally as if Stott breathed life back into Darwin - which suddenly took on more importance than the revolutionary achievements that he is so well regarded for. 'Darwin and the Barnacle' is a great book I only wish I had read this book when I was a geological student.

buckshot23

September 24, 2006, 09:29 PM

I'm not sure how much creationist tripe you like to read, but some creationists argue that skeletons like Lucy are just deformed children of apes or humans (for example).
Like who? I haven't heard that one.
The fact that clear cut fossils of children of these species can be found is very significant for pointing out this is incorrect.
Yes it would.
No, it also applies to gaps in knowledge as well, this is after all what the entire Intelligent Design Creationism movement argues with the likes of the Flagellum and creationists argued for years before with structures like the knee. There is a reason why "God of the gaps" isn't specific to gaps in the fossil record and has been applied to molecular systems etc as well.
Sure but I have never heard this "logic" used for anything other than gaps in the fossil record.
I'm just anal retentive about it. I get really annoyed on programs like MSN or similar, when I can't use italics for species names (individually) and it always drives me batty. I was pleased to see the media link (second in the OP) did this correctly.
I appreciate that, really. "Thank" you. :Cheeky:

FatherMithras

September 24, 2006, 10:29 PM

Like who? I haven't heard that one.

Try googling it. The results are H I L A R I O U S.

Sure but I have never heard this "logic" used for anything other than gaps in the fossil record.

I'm sure if you think of the arguments used in intelligent design, you'll think "Oh wait...nm"

TheBear

September 24, 2006, 10:43 PM

My question is how do YEC proponents feel about aged archaeological finds?The scientists are being fooled by Satan!

RBH

September 25, 2006, 12:47 AM

The scientists are being fooled by Satan!Nope. Wrong. You must have missed the memo. We're in league with Satan! :devil3:

RBH

Aegeri

September 25, 2006, 02:42 AM

Try googling it. The results are H I L A R I O U S.

Yes, yes they are.

I'm sure if you think of the arguments used in intelligent design, you'll think "Oh wait...nm"

Again, exactly.

Ezkerraldean

September 25, 2006, 03:49 AM

buckshot23

September 25, 2006, 09:41 AM

Yes, yes they are.
Who makes that claim? Please support your assertion.

Aegeri

September 25, 2006, 08:19 PM

Who makes that claim? Please support your assertion.

Who makes this claim? Which idiots would you want first?

For example, this site quote mines a bunch of things about Neanderthal skeletons and such, as well as being generally filled with stupid. (http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k95.htm)

There are a lot of sites that make this claim and I have several creationist tracts that claim Lucy is just a deformed human child (I can't recall if it was the ricketts one or if it was the other one, osteoporosis one).

But 5 minutes of googling can reveal a large number of these sites.

Also yes, I do know that site displays utterly no regard for any kind of thought about web design.

TheBear

September 25, 2006, 11:49 PM

Nope. Wrong. You must have missed the memo. We're in league with Satan! :devil3:

RBHThat was last year's memo. This week's memo has updated the status of Satan - a deconvert. He now works in concert with God, to fool scientists.

Brace yourselves! :eek:

buckshot23

September 26, 2006, 12:16 AM

For example, this site quote mines a bunch of things about Neanderthal skeletons and such, as well as being generally filled with stupid. (http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k95.htm)
I appreciate you looking that up for me. However I could find nothing about a deformed Australopithecus theory. Where do they make this claim? They say something about neandertals being deformed but not Australopithecus.
There are a lot of sites that make this claim and I have several creationist tracts that claim Lucy is just a deformed human child (I can't recall if it was the ricketts one or if it was the other one, osteoporosis one).
This one doesn't make that claim, at least that I could see. I think you are conflating neandertals with australopithecus.
But 5 minutes of googling can reveal a large number of these sites.
What ones that don't support your claim?
Also yes, I do know that site displays utterly no regard for any kind of thought about web design.
This I can agree with you on.

Oolon Colluphid

September 26, 2006, 04:19 AM

do we have any of the details on how it was dated? ash layers above and below it? i remember one example from here where only an upper age limit was given for a fossil (gannsus yummensis bird thing?), allowing YECs to bang on about how it could actually just be 6000 years old etc. etc. etc.
"It derives from sediments of the Sidi Hakoma Member of the Hadar Formation, which span the age of 3.31 to 3.35 million years on the basis of stratigraphic scaling and known chronostratigraphy." (Alemseged et al.)

All that is laid out in the Nature letter, Wynn et al (2006), 'Geological and palaeontological context of a Pliocene juvenile hominin at Dikika, Ethiopia' (443, 332-336) that accompanies the main article.
Since 1999, the Dikika Research Project (DRP; initiated by Z.A.) has conducted surveys and excavations in badlands that expose Pliocene and Pleistocene sediments south of the Awash River in Ethiopia, between surrounding hominin localities at Hadar, Gona and the Middle Awash region. Here we report our geological mapping and stratigraphic measurement of the DRP area, and the context of a remarkably well-preserved skeleton of the earliest known juvenile hominin at the Dikika DIK-1 locality. Our mapping of the DRP area permits a complete definition of the hominin-bearing Hadar Formation and provides a cohesive structural and tectonic framework defining its relationships to adjacent strata. Our findings reveal the basin-scale tectonic, depositional and palaeoenvironmental history of the area, as well as a clear taphonomic and palaeontological context for the juvenile hominin. Such data are crucial for understanding the environmental context of human evolution, and can be integrated into larger-scale tectonic and palaeoenvironmental studies. Our basin-scale approach to palaeoenvironments provides a means to elucidate the complex geological history occurring at the scale of temporally and geographically controlled fossil point localities, which occur within the rich tectonic and depositional history of the Awash Valley.
The paper is more than a bit technical, but my untrained reading indicates that they usd the usual methods: bracketing the strata with firm upper and lower dates. But I've been away the last few days, so will need to try to get my head around the maps and diagrams.

rlogan

September 26, 2006, 04:37 AM

Happened maybe a couple months ago. Now I'm a theistic evolutionist debating against creationists and literalists.

Wow. This is more significant than the 3.3 million year old fossil.

Geez Magus55 - you were in my first thread ever. On the technical impossibility of feeding all the animals on Noah's Ark. Back in '03.

So many have come and gone. And you stuck with it.

Aegeri

September 26, 2006, 08:09 AM

I appreciate you looking that up for me. However I could find nothing about a deformed Australopithecus theory. Where do they make this claim? They say something about neandertals being deformed but not Australopithecus.

Again, www.google.com. Essentially all over the place and I stated the principal for fossils in general. I found a site with said claim being expressed.

There you go.

You can now knock yourself out finding further idiotic 'debunkings' for yourself. I just showed one example in particular and they are immensely easy to find.

This one doesn't make that claim, at least that I could see. I think you are conflating neandertals with australopithecus.

Uhhh...

For example, this site quote mines a bunch of things about Neanderthal skeletons and such, as well as being generally filled with stupid.

That's why I stated it was Neanderthals. I'm rather noted for directly stating that what I'm talking about is a slightly different example, but the principal still remains the same and here it is. Admittingly, it was the first wingnut site I came across. There is only so much stupid I can take in per day now as paying for new irony meters nearly rendered me bankrupt.

What ones that don't support your claim?

Yeah it does. If you want more examples find them yourself. I established that some creationists write fossils off like lucy (or Neanderthals or whatever) by claiming they are deformed humans or apes (or similar insanity, depending on whichever group of idiots it is). I have since established that with around 2 seconds of google work. I am sure you can do the same if you're truly curious in what the stupid have to say. I am not so much anymore.

Also I said this:

I'm not sure how much creationist tripe you like to read, but some creationists argue that skeletons like Lucy are just deformed children of apes or humans (for example).

I noted as an example that one claim that has been made is claiming skeletons are just deformed apes or humans (sometimes of deformed ape or human children as well, again, these can vary a lot). I spent 2 seconds of googling and pulled the first creationist-whacko like site I saw and, surprise surprise, I found a site that argued that Neanderthal remains are just deformed humans (with Ricketts I believe was the theme there, but again, there are others). Point has been proven and for further confirmation, you can just look them up for yourself and probably find a ton of variations on it as well! Some I've not even heard of I would bet.

Oolon Colluphid

September 26, 2006, 08:51 AM

There is only so much stupid I can take in per day now as paying for new irony meters nearly rendered me bankrupt.
I've given up on irony meters. They break too easily. I now use one of these:

http://razd.evcforum.net/Pictures/SIMeter.jpg

buckshot23

September 26, 2006, 09:40 AM

Again, www.google.com (http://www.google.com/). Essentially all over the place and I stated the principal for fossils in general. I found a site with said claim being expressed.
We were talking about lucy and THIS find. I see no reference to lucy being a deformed individual.
There you go. Where is Lucy being a deformed individual?
You can now knock yourself out finding further idiotic 'debunkings' for yourself. I just showed one example in particular and they are immensely easy to find. Which had nothing to do with your original claim. Which I will repeat here for your convenience.
I'm not sure how much creationist tripe you like to read, but some creationists argue that skeletons like Lucy are just deformed children of apes or humans (for example). The fact that clear cut fossils of children of these species can be found is very significant for pointing out this is incorrect. Where has anybody made that claim about lucy? Not about neandertals. Let's keep the goal posts firmly attached in one place.

Uhhh...

[/b][/i]

That's why I stated it was Neanderthals. I am aware of that particular idea but not with regard to Lucy. This is totally irrelevant to what we were talking about. The significance of finding a child lucy. Not any other species. Lucy.
I'm rather noted for directly stating that what I'm talking about is a slightly different example, but the principal still remains the same and here it is. Ok but what is the significance of THIS find? Who makes the claim about LUCY. I know about the neandertal claim. Not lucy.
Admittingly, it was the first wingnut site I came across. There is only so much stupid I can take in per day now as paying for new irony meters nearly rendered me bankrupt. Sorry to be all over you about this but we weren't talking about neandertals and that is why I found it confusing as to why you would bring that up. Maybe because you can't support your claim?:huh:

Yeah it does. If you want more examples find them yourself. I want one example. One example of a creationist putting forward that lucy is nothing but a deformed child of an ape. Not neandertal or any other species. Instead of responding with endless excuses, spend the time and produce a link.
I established that some creationists write fossils off like lucy (or Neanderthals or whatever) by claiming they are deformed humans or apes (or similar insanity, depending on whichever group of idiots it is). You established that some creationists put forward that idea about neandertal. Not "like" lucy. About neandertal. Which was not in dispute.
I have since established that with around 2 seconds of google work. Which is irrelevant. Everybody knows that about neandertal. Lucy however I don't. There could be a site out there that states this but I am unaware of it. That is why I wanted a link.
I am sure you can do the same if you're truly curious in what the stupid have to say. I am not so much anymore.
I am curious as to what you said. How you can conflate the two with seemingly no evidence. Maybe you should have spent more time looking at your source.
Also I said this:
I noted as an example that one claim that has been made is claiming skeletons are just deformed apes or humans (sometimes of deformed ape or human children as well, again, these can vary a lot). If "like lucy" means not lucy at all but neandertal then we can agree. However I don't think that is what you meant.
I spent 2 seconds of googling and pulled the first creationist-whacko like site I saw and, surprise surprise, I found a site that argued that Neanderthal remains are just deformed humans (with Ricketts I believe was the theme there, but again, there are others). Which was not in dispute. I know the neandertal argument but I hadn't heard it argued for lucy. From all I have seen lucy is accepted as a real species. Not deformed.
Point has been proven and for further confirmation, you can just look them up for yourself and probably find a ton of variations on it as well! Some I've not even heard of I would bet. I haven't been able to do so for Lucy however. Neither have you. We all know this about neandertal but not for lucy.

Oolon Colluphid

September 26, 2006, 10:12 AM

Bucky, if one overlooks the 'deformed' bit, it is clear that creationists do claim that "A afarensis" is 'merely' an ape (and whether an unusual, different or deformed one is beside the point).

As I see it, Aegeri may have been a bit lax in his word order perhaps, but the point still stands. Creationists regard hominin fossils as odd, deformed, diseased etc humans, or as some variety of ape (abnormal or not). This, of course, they must do, in order to deny the fossils' clearly intermediate characters. They seem to miss how comic that is: not only that all these fossils are of abnormal humans or unusual apes (never any 3Ma normal humans), but that all these unusual-nesses are of just the sort evolution predicts.

Aegeri

September 26, 2006, 10:24 AM

We were talking about lucy and THIS find. I see no reference to lucy being a deformed individual.

I thought I was very clear when I stated I used the Neanderthal example. Regardless, it proves my point anyway and if you want to find more just search for them yourself.

I am curious as to what you said. How you can conflate the two with seemingly no evidence. Maybe you should have spent more time looking at your source.

Ok, this is why I clearly said:

For example, this site quote mines a bunch of things about Neanderthal skeletons and such, as well as being generally filled with stupid.

Yes, I know what a fucking Neanderthal skeleton is and that it's different to a fucking Australopithecas skeleton. Would you like a fucking diagram or am I getting simple enough things now for you to understand? Yes, it supported and made my point for me. No, I can't be bothered arguing with you any further if you evidentally can't read my posts. Obviously I am aware it was talking about Neanderthal skeletons, I am quite capable of reading believe it or not and I even not-so subtly hid the fact IN THE GOD DAMN LINK I GAVE. What a genius at being deceptive I am.

Oh yes, I so wonderfully conflated the two without reading it!!! I only CLEARLY STATED what the link was and I CLEARLY THINK it establishes my point. So very evidentally you've either not read what I wrote or misinterpreted it or both. But yes, I'm the master of deception when I post a link to a website full of garbage and clearly note the contents that I think are applicable. You've clearly taken internet debating 101 there buckshot and defeated me with your clever detective work :rolleyes: I would never have thought anyone would ignore the link title, which clearly states my link is about an example in Neanderthals and instead look at the site and find that it's about...Neanderthals! MY INTERNET DECEPTION IS CLEARLY EXPOSED!!!!

(Is this sarcasm obvious enough?)

If "like lucy" means not lucy at all but neandertal then we can agree. However I don't think that is what you meant.

Good, what you think I meant and what I did, because to me writing "like Lucy" means a wide range of hominid skeletons that need to have magic excuses to explain them away has led to a wide variety of creative (and not so creative) explanations. I demonstrated this with an example by pointing out I had read accounts where some creationists

Which was not in dispute. I know the neandertal argument but I hadn't heard it argued for lucy. From all I have seen lucy is accepted as a real species. Not deformed.

You see this is a departure for me now because originally you said:

Like who? I haven't heard that one.

And I interpreted this statement to mean you hadn't heard of fossil hominids being written off as just 'deformed' apes or humans, which I've encountered semi-often throughout my time debating this on a variety of fossils. As far as I'm concerned, I've demonstrated this position to be correct with my above link. If you require further stupid, you've got the same tools everyone else has.

But whatever, I've remembered who you are since my hiatus in general and I've remembered why you aren't worth bothering to argue with. This is my last response to you period.

As I see it, Aegeri may have been a bit lax in his word order perhaps, but the point still stands. Creationists regard hominin fossils as odd, deformed, diseased etc humans, or as some variety of ape (abnormal or not). This, of course, they must do, in order to deny the fossils' clearly intermediate characters. They seem to miss how comic that is: not only that all these fossils are of abnormal humans or unusual apes (never any 3Ma normal humans), but that all these unusual-nesses are of just the sort evolution predicts.

I have no idea what he originally thought I said, quite frankly I don't particularly care but this is the essential point. I merely added in the fact that I've heard even more comical sites/tracts/speeches/internet posters claim that fossil skeletons belonging to human ancestors are either apes, deformed humans (Ricketts!) and sometimes even apes with deformities/diseases (which was admittingly, plain hillarious). I have one such tract somewhere, which is where I got the original fun (Published by a Mormon group in New Zealand 2 years ago).

patchy

September 26, 2006, 11:39 AM

<snip>... because to me writing "like Lucy" means a wide range of hominid skeletons that need to have magic excuses to explain them away has led to a wide variety of creative (and not so creative) explanations.

<shrug>

For that matter, Lucy herself is postulated as a possible "deformed person" at the following creationist site:

Given the possibilities side by side. I say that it is easier to believe that we came from Adam and Eve and not “Lucy” and Steve. Either way it requires faith because we did not see Adam created from the earth and we did not see Lucy as it was and not able to know for sure if she was a monkey, deformed person or what. We did not then or now see evolution <chop.>

(my bold.)

Aegeri's real, (and unmistakable) point was that one of the standard creationist excuses for early hominid fossils is to wave them off as (among other things) simply deformed humans. He made it clear enough that he meant "LIKE" Lucy, but...if someone wanted to be particularly anal about challenging it, LUCY HERSELF is postulated above as possibly a deformed person...by a creationist.

In short, the claim that

some creationists argue that skeletons like Lucy are just deformed children of apes or humans (for example).

...has been supported both indirectly and now directly. Some creationists have argued that Lucy herself could simply be a "deformed person."

I'm sure there are more, but plowing through TOO many creationist sites makes my brain hurt. Besides...all it takes is one to support the claim. :)

buckshot23

September 26, 2006, 11:45 AM

Bucky, if one overlooks the 'deformed' bit, it is clear that creationists do claim that "A afarensis" is 'merely' an ape (and whether an unusual, different or deformed one is beside the point).
The deformed bit is the entire point. Aegeri made a claim about creationist "idiot" claims about lucy. Then he showed an example of a neandertal. Which is besides the point.
As I see it, Aegeri may have been a bit lax in his word order perhaps, but the point still stands.
The point is that he makes a specific claim then demonstrates it by siting an entirely unrelated example as proof. I asked what the significance of THIS find is. Aegeri then proceeds this claim...
I'm not sure how much creationist tripe you like to read, but some creationists argue that skeletons like Lucy are just deformed children of apes or humans (for example). The fact that clear cut fossils of children of these species can be found is very significant for pointing out this is incorrect.
Again if "like lucy" means "not lucy at all" then we have nothing to talk about. If it includes lucy then he should tell us where this claim is made. Instead of insulting the people he appears to being misrepresenting.

Ezkerraldean

September 26, 2006, 11:51 AM

...has been supported both indirectly and now directly. Some creationists have argued that Lucy herself could simply be a "deformed person."

funny then, the deeper you go and the further back you go the more deformed people (australopithecines) you find - and yet, people were supposed to be pure and perfect before the Fall - it contradicts, doesnt it?

buckshot23

September 26, 2006, 11:53 AM

I am not saying it hasn't been said or argued that lucy is a deformed individual just that I am not aware of it. If it has been said then fine. I wanted to be aware of it.
For that matter, Lucy herself is postulated as a possible "deformed person" at the following creationist site:

Which is entirely different than what he claimed!
I'm not sure how much creationist tripe you like to read, but some creationists argue that skeletons like Lucy are just deformed children of apes or humans (for example). The fact that clear cut fossils of children of these species can be found is very significant for pointing out this is incorrect. Who is arguing anything about lucy being a deformed
(my bold.) This isn't an argument in the sense aegeri makes it seem above. All this quote is saying that we do not know if it is a deformed person or not. Not that it is a deformed person.
Aegeri's real, (and unmistakable) point was that one of the standard creationist excuses for early hominid fossils is to wave them off as (among other things) simply deformed humans. He made it clear enough that he meant "LIKE" Lucy, but...if someone wanted to be particularly anal about challenging it, LUCY HERSELF is postulated above as possibly a deformed person...by a creationist. I asked about THIS find. Not "like lucy" finds. Then he proceeds to give a source that doesn't say anything about Lucy being deformed.
In short, the claim that

...has been supported both indirectly and now directly. Some creationists have argued that Lucy herself could simply be a "deformed person." Not quite. The author didn't argue that lucy was a deformed person anymore than he argued that lucy was a monkey.
I'm sure there are more, but plowing through TOO many creationist sites makes my brain hurt. Besides...all it takes is one to support the claim. :) in which you failed.:huh:

buckshot23

September 26, 2006, 11:55 AM

funny then, the deeper you go and the further back you go the more deformed people (australopithecines) you find - and yet, people were supposed to be pure and perfect before the Fall - it contradicts, doesnt it?
Funny that nobody has said australpithecines are in fact deformed people. Not from what has been shown here. Keep looking.

Aegeri

September 26, 2006, 12:01 PM

Aegeri's real, (and unmistakable) point was that one of the standard creationist excuses for early hominid fossils is to wave them off as (among other things) simply deformed humans. He made it clear enough that he meant "LIKE" Lucy, but...if someone wanted to be particularly anal about challenging it, LUCY HERSELF is postulated above as possibly a deformed person...by a creationist.

Exactly.

Also, I completely missed that from the site because I only skipped over that section because the stuff about the neanderthals was much more prominent and matched the point I was making anyway.

Edit: Haha, it's a sister site! Good times.

Given the possibilities side by side. I say that it is easier to believe that we came from Adam and Eve and not “Lucy” and Steve. Either way it requires faith because we did not see Adam created from the earth and we did not see Lucy as it was and not able to know for sure if she was a monkey, deformed person or what.

This is exactly the sort of argument that I have seen and that I've had bought up a few times in the past. As well as one for Homo habilis where it's just a man with osteoporosis (similarish to the Neanderthal/Ricketts argument actually). There are a lot of variations on these however.

buckshot23

September 26, 2006, 12:15 PM

I thought I was very clear when I stated I used the Neanderthal example. Regardless, it proves my point anyway and if you want to find more just search for them yourself.
Sorry but I can't accept that. You have been caught in these type of generalizations before. Remember the flat earth? I asked what point THIS find has and you spout drivel about neandertals not about THIS find.
Ok, this is why I clearly said:
Yes you did. Which had NOTHING TO DO WITH LUCY or THIS FIND. How hard is this?
Yes, I know what a fucking Neanderthal skeleton is and that it's different to a fucking Australopithecas skeleton.
Which is why I found it wierd that you would list this as supporting your assertion.
Would you like a fucking diagram or am I getting simple enough things now for you to understand?
I understand just fine. You make a claim and support it with evidence that has nothing to do with it. Am I making it simple enough for you to understand?
Yes, it supported and made my point for me. No, I can't be bothered arguing with you any further if you evidentally can't read my posts.
I read them just fine. That is why I have these questions.
Obviously I am aware it was talking about Neanderthal skeletons, I am quite capable of reading believe it or not and I even not-so subtly hid the fact IN THE GOD DAMN LINK I GAVE. What a genius at being deceptive I am.
I didn't call you deceptive. This is merely being sloppy or irrelevant. Admit it that you do not know of a case where someone argues that lucy is a deformed person.
Oh yes, I so wonderfully conflated the two without reading it!!!
I think you quote mined.
I only CLEARLY STATED what the link was and I CLEARLY THINK it establishes my point.
Which nobody disputes, about neandertal that is. How about lucy?
So very evidentally you've either not read what I wrote or misinterpreted it or both.
I read it perfectly well. Apparently you haven't read it.
But yes, I'm the master of deception when I post a link to a website full of garbage and clearly note the contents that I think are applicable.
In which do NOT support your original claim. Which was about lucy and THIS find not anything else. Not neandertal or any other species.
You've clearly taken internet debating 101 there buckshot and defeated me with your clever detective work :rolleyes: I would never have thought anyone would ignore the link title, which clearly states my link is about an example in Neanderthals and instead look at the site and find that it's about...Neanderthals! MY INTERNET DECEPTION IS CLEARLY EXPOSED!!!!
Well I never called you deceptive I merely said this doesn't substantiate your claim. Thats all. Sorry for you getting up in arms but you were sloppy and I would like you to retract that bit about lucy being deformed.

Good, what you think I meant and what I did, because to me writing "like Lucy" means a wide range of hominid skeletons that need to have magic excuses to explain them away has led to a wide variety of creative (and not so creative) explanations. I demonstrated this with an example by pointing out I had read accounts where some creationists

How on earth does that have anything to do with THIS FIND? I asked you the significance of THIS find.

You see this is a departure for me now because originally you said:

And I interpreted this statement to mean you hadn't heard of fossil hominids being written off as just 'deformed' apes or humans, which I've encountered semi-often throughout my time debating this on a variety of fossils.
No I hadn't heard of lucy being classified as deformed. Neandertal yes.
As far as I'm concerned, I've demonstrated this position to be correct with my above link. If you require further stupid, you've got the same tools everyone else has.
I want a link about lucy being deformed.

But whatever, I've remembered who you are since my hiatus in general and I've remembered why you aren't worth bothering to argue with. This is my last response to you period.
Fine. You clearly have a problem in supporting assertions as the "flat earth" debacle demonstrated. Remember?

Aegeri

September 26, 2006, 12:31 PM

Admit it that you do not know of a case where someone argues that lucy is a deformed person.

I know I said to Oolon that if I gave you any further attention to your <edit> I would have myself self-banned and indeed, I will shortly do so. This makes this my last post on this forum. What good times.

Given the possibilities side by side. I say that it is easier to believe that we came from Adam and Eve and not “Lucy” and Steve. Either way it requires faith because we did not see Adam created from the earth and we did not see Lucy as it was and not able to know for sure if she was a monkey, deformed person or what.

You lose. QED.

I understand just fine. You make a claim and support it with evidence that has nothing to do with it. Am I making it simple enough for you to understand?

Two posters have both indicated they understood my point but evidentally you did not (somehow). <edit> The point was supported the first time and now has rock solid support from another creationist source, though I disagree that Patchy has done the work for you that you should have done yourself.

<edit>

You sir, need to seriously work on your reading comprehension skills. When I say for example it means "For example" (seeing as you're a fan of "" aren't you maybe you'll get that) and that there are a multitude of variations. I also pointed out that there were numerous skeletons LIKE lucy, I meant the general scheme of explaining hominid fossils by unusual or bizzaire means by invoking 'deformities' of apes or humans. This point was grasped by two other members but evidentally not you...somehow. Even after it was explained to you several times by myself, one by Oolon and then again by Patchy. Evidentally, something about the original concept was too difficult for you to grasp, whatever that was.

In any event, I am a man of my word.

<edit>

buckshot23

September 26, 2006, 12:32 PM

To review the events of this blow up. I asked this of Aegeri...
The gaps that were filled were about a species we already knew existed. The mere discovery of a child version of this species is no more troublesome for creationists as the original discovery of "Lucy".
He responds with this...
I'm not sure how much creationist tripe you like to read, but some creationists argue that skeletons like Lucy are just deformed children of apes or humans (for example). The fact that clear cut fossils of children of these species can be found is very significant for pointing out this is incorrect.
I then say this...
Like who? I haven't heard that one.
In this I probably should have been more clear but I thought it was obvious that I was talking about the lucy bit.
After some pleading I get this...
Who makes this claim? Which idiots would you want first?

For example, this site quote mines a bunch of things about Neanderthal skeletons and such, as well as being generally filled with stupid. (http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k95.htm)
Which has nothing to do with the lucy bit. I point this out...
I appreciate you looking that up for me. However I could find nothing about a deformed Australopithecus theory. Where do they make this claim? They say something about neandertals being deformed but not Australopithecus. At this point it should have been painfully obvious that I was talking about the "lucy bit". I then get this....
Again, www.google.com (http://www.google.com/). Essentially all over the place and I stated the principal for fossils in general. I found a site with said claim being expressed.

There you go.

You can now knock yourself out finding further idiotic 'debunkings' for yourself. I just showed one example in particular and they are immensely easy to find.
I suppose not obvious enough.
Also...
That's why I stated it was Neanderthals. I'm rather noted for directly stating that what I'm talking about is a slightly different example, but the principal still remains the same and here it is. Admittingly, it was the first wingnut site I came across. There is only so much stupid I can take in per day now as paying for new irony meters nearly rendered me bankrupt.

Through all of this all I wanted was a link were a creationist is making a positive assertion that lucy was a deformed anything. I was and am not aware of any such cases.

Aegeri

September 26, 2006, 12:37 PM

Through all of this all I wanted was a link were a creationist is making a positive assertion that lucy was a deformed anything. I was and am not aware of any such cases.

Yeah, maybe you missed this deliberately or you're just plain ignorant:

Given the possibilities side by side. I say that it is easier to believe that we came from Adam and Eve and not “Lucy” and Steve. Either way it requires faith because we did not see Adam created from the earth and we did not see Lucy as it was and not able to know for sure if she was a monkey, deformed person or what.

Patchy quoted it. You ignored it.

I've quoted it. You ignored it.

I've quoted it again. You'll ignore it again.

This is a perfect example of why I've decided to get myself banned. Certain individuals on this sub-forum turn threads into a complete cesspool of stupidity. Everyone else in this thread got my point first time except you. I'll leave that to you to decide what it means.

GilgameshEnkidu

September 26, 2006, 12:38 PM

JaclChick's tract "Big Daddy", he describes Lucy as an 'unusual' chimpanzee..

buckshot23

September 26, 2006, 12:40 PM

]I know I said to Oolon that if I gave you any further attention to your trollish idiocy I would have myself self-banned and indeed, I will shortly do so. This makes this my last post on this forum. What good times.
:wave:

Two posters have both indicated they understood my point but evidentally you did not (somehow).
You spoke in generalities and I was speaking in specifics. I wanted to know what significance THIS find has.:huh:
Evidentally, you are either clearly a troll or a dumbass or both. In fact, I pick both as the most likely candidate.
Thanks:blush:
The point was supported the first time and now has rock solid support from another creationist source, though I disagree that Patchy has done the work for you that you should have done yourself.
Yes support your claims!:huh:
Your continual obtuse ridiculousness has derailed and destroyed many discussions on this forum that I thought were interesting topics originally.
I wanted to know the significance of THIS find.

You sir, need to seriously work on your reading comprehension skills. When I say for example it means "For example" (seeing as you're a fan of "" aren't you maybe you'll get that) and that there are a multitude of variations. I also pointed out that there were numerous skeletons LIKE lucy,
But not lucy or this find. If it existed I wanted to see it. If it doesn't I wanted you to admit it.
I meant the general scheme of explaining hominid fossils by unusual or bizzaire means by invoking 'deformities' of apes or humans.
I meant specifically THIS find.
In any event, I am a man of my word.

I will not regret being banned from this forum. Many interesting threads being turned into cesspools of stupidity by the likes of you Buckshot have seen to that.
:wave:

buckshot23

September 26, 2006, 12:42 PM

Patchy quoted it. You ignored it.

I've quoted it. You ignored it.

I've quoted it again. You'll ignore it again.
I didn't ignore it.
This is a perfect example of why I've decided to get myself banned. Certain individuals on this sub-forum turn threads into a complete cesspool of stupidity. Everyone else in this thread got my point first time except you. I'll leave that to you to decide what it means.

What are you waiting for?

Boro Nut

September 26, 2006, 12:46 PM

3.3 million year old child fossil found in Ethiopia - What would a YEC position be?

Foetal, with the eyes tight shut and the hands cupped over the ears.

Boro Nut

patchy

September 26, 2006, 12:58 PM

Through all of this all I wanted was a link were a creationist is making a positive assertion that lucy was a deformed anything. I was and am not aware of any such cases.

Why this level of ridiculous quibbling? What is your point to this--would you have us believe that creationists accept the scientific explanations for Lucy and other hominid fossils? Of course not. So why the word-wrangling? His meaning was very clear. You weren't genuinely "confused"--none of us were-- you just saw a chance to play "beat the sentence to death."

The only point was, "creationists explain away early hominids like Lucy with any number of excuses. One of them is to postulate that they are merely deformed humans." Period.

What part of that do you find fault with?

You asked for, and were shown, an example of a creationist site postulating exactly that--that Lucy, herself, could be merely a "deformed person."

But, really...so what? Is this news to you that a creationist, somewhere on the web, might make this claim? So what?

If I spent the next hour (which ain't gonna happen) tracking down some creationist who said even more explicitly that "Lucy was a deformed person" as a positive statement of fact, so what? Any number of weirdo positions are stated authoritatively on the net, by anyone with a keyboard. I know of a French site that definitively "proves" that an airliner didn't hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001; do you honestly think that NOWHERE on the net someone somewhere claims that "Lucy is simply a deformed person"? Jeez, there are probably outright claims that she's a fraud, too...but that doesn't mean I want to waste my time proving that someone, somewhere, said that.

The point is...the "deformed person" excuse IS a standard creationist excuse for early hominid fossils. So is labelling them "an ape" out of hand. You already know this. So why go to the mat over semantics so vehemently?

You're acting like creationists would never go so far as to publically offer a less-than-airtight excuse for an early hominid fossil--Lucy or not Lucy. Your only debate tactic of late seems to be, "drag the discussion down into a microscopic wrangling over every letter in every word, rather than discuss the bigger, and glaringly obvious, main point."

Do you deny that "it's a deformed person" is a standard creationist answer to some hominid fossils, or are you just trying to score a semantic point with Aegeri that the specific A. afarensis skeleton known as Lucy hasn't yet been googled as a definitive fact to have been deformed? :huh:

And so what if it WAS shown to you? Would that make it true? Or false? No. It would only prove that someone somewhere said it.

patchy

September 26, 2006, 01:03 PM

yikes

Oolon Colluphid

September 26, 2006, 01:12 PM

double. triple? Can a mod blow all these duplicates out? Thank you

No. Boro's post is too damned funny.

Oh, okay...

buckshot23

September 26, 2006, 02:48 PM

Why this level of ridiculous quibbling? What is your point to this--would you have us believe that creationists accept the scientific explanations for Lucy and other hominid fossils? Of course not. So why the word-wrangling? His meaning was very clear.

The only point was, "creationists explain away early hominids like Lucy with any number of excuses. One of them is to postulate that they are merely deformed humans." Period.

What part of that do you find fault with?

You asked for, and were shown, an example of a creationist site postulating exactly that--that Lucy, herself, could be merely a "deformed person."

But, really...so what? Is this news to you that a creationist, somewhere on the web, might make this claim? So what?

If I spent the next hour (which ain't gonna happen) tracking down some creationist who said even more explicitly that "Lucy was a deformed person" as a positive statement of fact, so what? Any number of weirdo positions are stated authoritatively on the net, by anyone with a keyboard. I know of a French site that definitively "proves" that an airliner didn't hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001; do you honestly think that NOWHERE on the net someone somewhere claims that "Lucy is simply a deformed person"? Jeez, there are probably outright claims that she's a fraud, too...but that doesn't mean I want to waste my time proving that someone, somewhere, said that.

The point is...the "deformed person" excuse IS a standard creationist excuse for early hominid fossils. So is labelling them "an ape" out of hand. You already know this. So why go to the mat over semantics so vehemently?

You're acting like creationists would never go so far as to publically offer a less-than-airtight excuse for an early hominid fossil--Lucy or not Lucy. Your only debate tactic of late seems to be, "drag the discussion down into a microscopic wrangling over every letter in every word, rather than discuss the bigger, and glaringly obvious, main point."

Do you deny that "it's a deformed person" is a standard creationist answer to some hominid fossils, or are you just trying to score a semantic point with Aegeri that the specific A. afarensis skeleton known as Lucy hasn't yet been googled as a definitive fact to have been deformed? :huh:
I thought I made myself clear. I wanted to know the significance of finding this speciman. This speciman being a child australpithecines afarensis. I specifically asked about this find and why a creationist should feel threatened by this find. Creationists as far as I know accept lucy as a real species and finding a child version wouldn't be anymore significant than the original finding 34 years ago. There is nothing significantly new about this find and that is the point. Aegeri made claims that creationists argue that 'like lucy' species are merely deformed versions of something else. I have not heard that claim before. I have heard that about neandertal but not lucy.

Put yourself in my shoes. Everyday I read about misrepresentations made by creationists. In my mind this is a misrepresentation of creationist claims about lucy. I asked for a reference to substantiate what I thought Aegeri was saying. I model these "anal exams" from the treatment creationists get on this board. One of them, funny enough, was from Aegeri against me a couple weeks ago. He thought I was saying something I wasn't and challenged me on it. I however did provide substantiation of a direct case of my claim. Aegeri rambled on about neandertals. I ask you, what do neandertals have to do with this case?

Dr.GH

September 26, 2006, 07:00 PM

3.3 million year old child fossil found in Ethiopia - What would a YEC position be?

We are all just still apes!

Well, they say that about flies.

patchy

September 26, 2006, 09:44 PM

I thought I made myself clear. I wanted to know the significance of finding this speciman. This speciman being a child australpithecines afarensis. I specifically asked about this find and why a creationist should feel threatened by this find.

OK, for starters, how 'bout that it's been dated to 3.3 million years ago.

As a YEC who thinks the earth is some 6 to 10 thousand years old, specifically how and where do you think science got the dating "wrong?" Assuming you do, of course. If you accept the dating of 3.3 million years as accurate, a thousand pardons.

buckshot23

September 26, 2006, 10:59 PM

OK, for starters, how 'bout that it's been dated to 3.3 million years ago.

As a YEC who thinks the earth is some 6 to 10 thousand years old, specifically how and where do you think science got the dating "wrong?" Assuming you do, of course. If you accept the dating of 3.3 million years as accurate, a thousand pardons.
That is hardly a new problem, now is it? Many things have been dated much earlier than that. I think the point of this thread was not only the date of this finding but the content of it.

patchy

September 27, 2006, 07:12 AM

That is hardly a new problem, now is it? Many things have been dated much earlier than that. I think the point of this thread was not only the date of this finding but the content of it.

I didn't say or imply it was a new problem.

The title of the thread is, "3.3 million year old child fossil found in Ethiopia - What would a YEC position be?"

So asking a YEC what their position is, in this thread, hardly "misses the point of this thread."

Now, then. Instead of a dodge, how 'bout answering the relevant, stated question as asked?

If the dating of this child's remains was conducted reliably, the earth can't be 6-10k years old. Not by a looooooong shot. On its own, these remains give lie to a young earth--but as you say, they don't represent a new problem. The problem came in the last century, when curious investigators (predominantly creationists, it bears reminding) set out to date the earth using empirical methods.

So this young A. afarensis is just one more "on the pile" so to speak.

Reading back over the links as to how they dated "Lucy's baby", can you tell us on what rational grounds you reject it? (If indeed you do; you still haven't come out with a committment to your position there.)

Now, then. Are you going to participate in a thread tailor-made for your position to be discussed meaningfully, or are you going to "point way over there" at something else for us to look at, while you slip out the back door and leave?

Jet Black

September 27, 2006, 07:28 AM

JaclChick's tract "Big Daddy", he describes Lucy as an 'unusual' chimpanzee..

and his tract was based on hovind. the problem with saying what creationists say, is that there are an awful lot of them that are just bloody stupid, like Hovind and Chick. I have found a few sites that go on about lucy just being a patchwork of bones from different apes (they take the already incorrect argument about the knee and then inflate it some more), but they are uneducated idiot sites. groups like AIG are much careful. I'll give it to buckshot that I have not found anywhere the claim that Lucy is a deformed individual, they just say something along the lines of "ape like creature"

buckshot23

September 27, 2006, 10:19 AM

I didn't say or imply it was a new problem.
So?
The title of the thread is, "3.3 million year old child fossil found in Ethiopia - What would a YEC position be?"
That the dating is wrong.:huh: That is the position in regards to the date.
So asking a YEC what their position is, in this thread, hardly "misses the point of this thread."
I just answered it.
Now, then. Instead of a dodge, how 'bout answering the relevant, stated question as asked?
Just did.

Do we agree that this finding is no more troublesome for a creationist than the original find of lucy 34 years ago? That this new finding has no bearing upon the supposed evolution of man when considering we already knew this species existed? When it existed is unimportant in this regard. If I grant you the date how does this support that this is our ancestor?

buckshot23

September 27, 2006, 10:21 AM

I'll give it to buckshot that I have not found anywhere the claim that Lucy is a deformed individual, they just say something along the lines of "ape like creature"
I appreciate that.:thumbs:

patchy

September 27, 2006, 12:24 PM

I just answered it.

No. You didn't. Let me tee it up for you again:

First it was
As a YEC who thinks the earth is some 6 to 10 thousand years old, specifically how and where do you think science got the dating "wrong?"

...further clarified with
Reading back over the links as to how they dated "Lucy's baby", can you tell us on what rational grounds you reject it?

If the entirety of your answer to that question is truly

That the dating is wrong.:huh:

...then your understanding of the phrase "specifically how and where" (science got the dating wrong) needs some work. You were pretty demanding that Aegeri stick precisely to the letter of the words earlier in this thread; you seem to favor a little looser interpretation at the moment. ;)

Here is the question still in search of an answer:

Q: Having read the links as to how they dated "Lucy's baby", which specific faults do you find with those methods which lead you to conclude they got the dating wrong?

It's really not a difficult question--or at least, shouldn't be, if you in fact DO have a specific error you've detected in the way the scientists did it.

If, on the other hand, you simply "know" the dating must be wrong, because it came up with an answer that's incompatible with the ancient writings of a bunch of superstitious goatherds who explained everything around them in terms of magic and fairy tales, well...yeah, that's not gonna sound very good.

So how 'bout it? Earlier you were a stickler for very tight adherence to words and their meanings, when you were wrangling over every vowel with Aegeri, over his claim that "some" creationists dismiss fossils "like" Lucy by saying they're really just deformed people.

Now, you want to act like you've answered a question asking you specifically what about the dating methods seems procedurally flawed to you, by shrugging it off, "Duhh..it's just...wrong." :huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh:

Where's that stickler Buckshot when we need him?

If you really don't HAVE a rational, specific, fact-based flaw in the dating, and the real reason is simply "it doesn't match what the bible's telling me", just say that. Then we know we can safely ignore any questions you have about the empirical evidence, because now we've established it isn't really about that, and you can go ask your pastor, or pray, or consult AiG.com, or do whatever you do that tells you the answer you want to hear about the age of these remains.

That sounds fair, does it not?

Do we agree that this finding is no more troublesome for a creationist than the original find of lucy 34 years ago?

We do, absolutely. It's no less troublesome, either, but...the answer to your question is "yes." It's simply another specimen of a species we already knew existed, so...not a smoking gun in and of itself.

If I grant you the date how does this support that this is our ancestor?

We''ll worry about that once you grant the dating--until then, it's irrelevant. As long as you reject the dating, I guarantee you the support for it being our ancestor isn't going to sound any more appealing or acceptable to you. You really can't examine the dating and the ancestral connections in isolation...they're integral to each other.

The real question is, since neither the dating OR the ancestry match your bible (at least the Buckshot23 interpretation of that bible...umm...what does it matter? Why ask a question you already KNOW you won't believe the answer to?

buckshot23

September 27, 2006, 10:03 PM

No. You didn't. Let me tee it up for you again:

Hey look I don't need to answer every question posed to me. The hard fact is this find has no more weight than the original find 34 years ago. That is my point.

...then your understanding of the phrase "specifically how and where" (science got the dating wrong) needs some work. You were pretty demanding that Aegeri stick precisely to the letter of the words earlier in this thread; you seem to favor a little looser interpretation at the moment.;)
I hadn't made any statements of fact or assertions. Aegeri had. He was unable to substantiate it. My beliefs are one thing but asserting it in an environment like this is another. I do not need to justify my beliefs to anyone. Especially anyone on this board. If I make a statement of fact that is a different story.
Q: Having read the links as to how they dated "Lucy's baby", which specific faults do you find with those methods which lead you to conclude they got the dating wrong?
Google is your friend.:p I kid. You can search for this answer in some other place as I am not going to provide one for you. Sorry.

If, on the other hand, you simply "know" the dating must be wrong, because it came up with an answer that's incompatible with the ancient writings of a bunch of superstitious goatherds who explained everything around them in terms of magic and fairy tales, well...yeah, that's not gonna sound very good.
It would serve you well to show a little more respect for ones beliefs. Get off your soapbox and let us talk like men.
So how 'bout it? Earlier you were a stickler for very tight adherence to words and their meanings, when you were wrangling over every vowel with Aegeri, over his claim that "some" creationists dismiss fossils "like" Lucy by saying they're really just deformed people.
You really can't see the difference? Aegeri made an assertion which turned out to be a gross overgeneralization at best. He once claimed that early church teaching consensus was that of a flat earth all the way up until 1100 AD. He was called out on that and he was called out on this. He provided zero evidence to support these claims of fact. If I make an assertion then it is fair to ask for documentation or some type of substantiation. In this case my beliefs are the assertion of fact.

Now, you want to act like you've answered a question asking you specifically what about the dating methods seems procedurally flawed to you, by shrugging it off, "Duhh..it's just...wrong." :huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh:
Well I did answer this question...
The title of the thread is, "3.3 million year old child fossil found in Ethiopia - What would a YEC position be?"
This is what I quoted when saying I answered the question. That is the position.
Where's that stickler Buckshot when we need him?
:wave: Right here. I answered the question I quoted.
We do, absolutely. It's no less troublesome, either, but...the answer to your question is "yes." It's simply another specimen of a species we already knew existed, so...not a smoking gun in and of itself.
Absolutely agreed.

We''ll worry about that once you grant the dating--until then, it's irrelevant.
Consider it granted. Now what?
As long as you reject the dating,
Granting something is not accepting something.
Why ask a question you already KNOW you won't believe the answer to?
Slightly ironic.

FatherMithras

September 27, 2006, 10:31 PM

Come on people, if we're going to criticize someone's scientific literacy, insulting their religion isn't the best way to do it.

flashbaby

September 28, 2006, 02:31 AM

Why not? They insult our science by using their religion in place of scientific literacy.

Oolon Colluphid

September 28, 2006, 04:47 AM

Bucky, if you trust me with your email address, I'll send you the two Nature papers. You may find the second one on DIK-1-1's geological and palaeontological context especially interesting. :)

patchy

September 28, 2006, 09:14 AM

Surprise, surprise. Once again Buckshot concedes that he can't support his beliefs. He responds to the direct question, "what do YOU find fault with in the dating that allows YOU to dismiss it" with, "google it."

He seems to KNOW that if he tries to sneak any weak-ass apologetics past this crowd, they will be thoroughly dismantled right in front of him. Safer just to hide behind one's faith, and not even TRY to defend it rationally. It gets old, but...if that is one's schtick, that is one's schtick.

"I don't have to answer no questions, from you or anybody here."

Yet from the other side of his mouth he wants us to "talk like men." Well, Buckshot, men (or adult women) don't just "take their ball and go home" because the questions become a little too pointed, a little too hard to answer. Whether you want to admit it or not, you ARE making an assertion when you dismiss this or any fossil's dating. You are saying, "it isn't really that old. If science says it is, science has made a mistake." You can act like you aren't really saying that, but...you're really saying that.

This habit of making assertions that "challenge" evolutionary findings, either directly or by inference, and then refusing to support them...isn't lost on any of us. Or the lurkers.

Just for kicks, you might want to try something a bit more novel, a bit more "manly", and maybe, oh, I dunno, have the balls to actually support one of your positions.

Why do YOU find the dating to be in error, Buckshot?

Googling "errors in dating A. afarensis fossil" + "Buckshot23's own reasoning" returned zero results. Probably easier for you just to tell us.

Oolon Colluphid

September 28, 2006, 09:20 AM

Now now. Give Bucky a chance. He'll need the Wynn et al paper if he's to deny the dating of DIK-1-1, and he's not asked for it yet.

gagundathar

September 28, 2006, 09:46 AM

Nope. Wrong. You must have missed the memo. We're in league with Satan! :devil3:

RBH

No, no, no. You're both wrong!
We are being deceived that we are in league with Satan. :devil:

buckshot23

September 28, 2006, 10:25 AM

I'm sorry but I am not going to get into a debate about that. You know the arguments and you don't accept them. Why go through this excercise when at the end nothing is changed? If you want to discuss the significance of this find granting the time scale then please lets. As it stands I am "taking my ball home". :Cheeky:

Oolon Colluphid

September 28, 2006, 10:52 AM

How? Looks from here that you don't have any balls. :Cheeky:

If you'd like to see a bit of science and how it's done for things like this, still do feel free to pm your email and I'll forward the paper.

Varecia

September 30, 2006, 04:42 PM

I for one am interested in the finger bones, as it would be informative to see how the degree of phalangeal curvature in a juvenile A. afarensis compares to that of adults. That might provide some insight into the effect of limb usage on bone shape over time, and address some questions regarding the behavioral/locomotor repertoire of A. afarensis. And it would be interesting to compare this juvenile to the Taung child skull. There are many questions that can be investigated with a juvenile A. afarensis skeleton.
One interesting thing I noticed is that the publicity blurbs on this new A. afarensis find did not seem to acknowledge that there are advocates of A. africanus out there who view afarensis as less relevant to human evolution than africanus. I'm thinking of South African researchers such as Lee Berger who have done australopithecine limb proportion studies.