Re: Tweedy's Turkana Boy

Ray Martinez wrote:
Richard:

I do not know anything about your retroviral insertions.

Really? That's odd, because it was one of the points I raised in the
very first post of our debate. If you couldn't be bothered to even read
up on what endogenous retroviral insertions are, then I'm not surprised
you dodged the issue and then eventually fled the debate altogether.

I have asked
Dana to post an argument about his boy but it has never materialized.

Another lie. Dana has repeatedly pointed to "Turkana Boy" as an
excellent example of a transitional fossil between humans and non-human
apes.

Here is the Creationist position about Turkana Boy:

It does not actually prove anything UNLESS two earth shattering
assumptions are made.

1. Assume special creation is false.

2. Assume design seen in nature does not indicate work of invisible
Designer.

Neither of those assumptions are required to see that many fossils
(including Turkana Boy) show a striking intermediacy between humans and
other apes.

What kind of persons would make such assumptions (atheists) ?
Regardless though, assumptions are not evidence.

Another lie. Many biologists, paleontologists, and other scientists are
strongly religious, ranging from Christians to Hindus to Unitarians. So
once again you're back to claiming that everybody who disagrees with
you is an atheist with a secret agenda.

A skeleton, does not, in itself, prove that apes are in the human
lineage because apes bones and anatomy are very similar from the
get-go. If a person rejects special creation and design then you have
no other alternative and the view loses all objectivity, much like a
third world country going to the polls with only one person on the
ballot.

So what's YOUR scientific explanation? Oh, wait, I asked you THAT in
our debate too-- and you fled.

The next reason: extreme credulity.

The next reason: Dr. Scott: "Only morons would even consider such
obvious nonsense."

Quotes are not evidence-- particularly not quotes from a flake like
Doctor Scott. Have you ever considered citing primary sources instead?

All of the above is physically supported by the amount of CLAIMED
fossil evidence, which we know is so scarce that it is held in bank
vaullts. If human evolution was true, then there would be a
commensurate amount of evidence for this extraordinary claim.

Another lie. You can walk into any major museum and take a look at the
fossils. I've been to LA, and it has some great museums-- you're
cheating yourself if you don't check them out.

Apes morphing into men ?

The Bible reports a lot of miracles but this is not one of them.

The Bible is not a science text and is not evidence of anything.

May I also remind that the Stone Age ends anywhere from 100,000 to
4,000 BC.

We know the Great Pyramid was built anywhere between 12,000 and 3,000
BC. The facts of ultra-intelligence that the monument possesses falsify
the existence of a Stone Age, and prove the Biblical claim that man
began ultra-intelligent, and not as evolution claims: progressing from
an ape ancestor. No person in 3,000 BC knew advanced math, the shape of
the Earth and its EXACT dimensions, especially some cave dwelling wife
beater with a dunce IQ. The GP (physical evidence) falsifies human
evolution in its tracks.

Ahhh, once again you're back to your pyramid magic rants? Ray, does
your vaunted paper include pyramidology, Atlantis, astrology, and other
occult nonsense? If so, even other creationist organizations won't
touch it with a ten-foot pole; it makes them look even sillier than
they already do. (Well, except Kent Hovind, who already believes in
astrology. Atlantis myths wouldn't be a big leap for him.)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: paleontology
    ... Humans are fallible, and we don't have all the answers. ... nature of reality drift further and further from the known evidence. ... fossil data that he's showing, I just don't know where to look to get it ... Evolution Oops! ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: paleontology
    ... Humans are fallible, and we don't have all the answers. ... nature of reality drift further and further from the known evidence. ... fossil data that he's showing, I just don't know where to look to get it ... Evolution Oops! ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: paleontology
    ... Humans are fallible, and we don't have all the answers. ... nature of reality drift further and further from the known evidence. ... fossil data that he's showing, I just don't know where to look to get it ... Evolution Oops! ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: paleontology
    ... Humans are fallible, and we don't have all the answers. ... nature of reality drift further and further from the known evidence. ... fossil data that he's showing, I just don't know where to look to get it ... Evolution Oops! ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: paleontology
    ... Humans are fallible, and we don't have all the answers. ... nature of reality drift further and further from the known evidence. ... fossil data that he's showing, I just don't know where to look to get it ... Evolution Oops! ...
    (talk.origins)