Re: Tweedy's Turkana Boy


Ray Martinez wrote:
Richard Clayton wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
Richard Clayton wrote:
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.

No response?


Why would anyone respond to a absurd charge (fleeing) ?

I plainly admitted that I knew nothing about retroviral insertions, ad
hoc arguments (Googling) are not my style. You should have made your
point in support of human evolution.

I thought you were a Gestaltist who knew everything about evolution.
How can you falsify something when you don't even understand the
evidence for it?



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.

No response here either?


A BIG negative, Richard. Dana NEVER posted an argument about Turkana.

Well, on Oct 12, 2005 You said that Darwinists deduce evolution from
obscure fossil scraps. Dana posted the counter argument that Turkana
Boy was not obscure, to which you responded that you never said Turkana
Boy was obscure, but refused to answer any further.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/90c9828fd3d39191/1951c1e593a5cfe2?lnk=st&q=%22what+is+the+purpose+of+Rayy+martinez+posting%22&rnum=1#1951c1e593a5cfe2

All he did was repeatedly bring it up WHILE never actually making a
claim or argument EXCEPT to say that it represented evidence of human
evolution (which, of course, I knew the generic claim).

And yet you've never explained why the fact that it fits the ToE's
predictions for a hominid transitional isn't a problem for your point
of view.

In turn, I
repeatedly told Dana that I did not want to discuss hominid fossils
until my paper was released. I am only doing so now to be a good sport.

Actually, Dana continued to post the question from October to February
and you failed to respond to any of his posts. Finally, on Feb 2, you
asked why he kept posting it and what the argument was about. He
responded, and you disappeared.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/6553b5a9c695758e/03545058dec70293?lnk=gst&q=KNM+WT+15000+Ray&rnum=71#03545058dec70293

Did Dana ever start a topic ? No.

Why should he have to? He brought it up no fewer than 50 times, and
you never responded. And in fact, you started a topic on March 16, and
when you were challenged on it, you disappeared. You posted twice in
the thread after your initial posting (which was a "wait till my paper
is done" argument), neither of which addressed any of the points
brought up.

You have no point. You ought not go
around calling people liars over a (misunderstanding) drop of a hat.
You owe me an apology.

No, I don't think so. Are you prepared to apologize for going back on
your word that you wouldn't return until 1 week before your paper was
due to be published?



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.

And none here?


Again, there was no reply because your response was SO absurd.

You make both of those assumptions - its not a matter of opinion.
Anyone who denies is lying, that is why I did not respond. Go ahead and
tell the Group that you do not assume special creation false ?

It's possible that special creation is true, but if there was a literal
biblical creation event that took place over 6 days in 4004 BC, then
why do there exist hominid fossils which paint a picture of an
evolutionary relationship between modern man and other primates?


Appearance of genius design, which the human body is = work of
invisible Designer = falsification of claims about Turkana - claims
that require an inadequate amount of "argument from authority" trust.

There's no argument from authority. The argument is about the fossil,
not who supports it.

In other words, the validity of the worldview of the authorities that
make the claim rides on each identification. Also, a skeleton does not
prove that modern humans slowly evolved from an ape ancestor.

On its own, no it doesn't, but with the many other hominid fossils and
genetic evidence, we have a very compelling picture.

The claim
requires an assumption that human evolution did happen. Once the
assumption is made it says human evolution IS TRUE. The only thing left
is to interpret evidence in favor of the assumption.

So how can we interpret the Turkana Boy fossil so that it doesn't
support evolution. Turkana Boy supports evolution because it is
confirmation of a prediction made by the ToE. And if the evidence is
merely interpreted in favor of evolution, then where is the counter
evidence?

The initial
assumption is falisfied by the absurdity of the claim and the
overwhelming evidence of design seen in nature and the human body.

In addition, the facts of ultra-intelligence seen in the GP cannot be
hand-waved away. Advanced math and technology and knowledge built
therein, the same which Europeans did not have until after the
Renaisssance falisifies the existence of a Stone Age. What we see and
confirm in the GP is impossible for persons living in 3000 BC. to
accomplish.

This is an argument from incredulity. What is more, the pyramid was
built in 2500 BC, about 3500 years after the Egyptians exited the Stone
Age.


I SAID 3000 BC !

And you said it incorrectly.


The GP is the single piece of physical evidence that destroys the
existence of a Stone Age and everything built on that "fact".

Congratulations, you've destroyed the fact that the GP was built in the
stone age. Except that no one claims it was built during the stone
age.


Ultra-advanced built in ultra-primitive era of time and history = proof
of the Biblical claim that man was specially created ultra-intelligent.
And you offer a skeleton - go figure. If you took the time to study the
GP you would see physical evidence of the invisible Genesis Creator.

The GP isn't Ultra advanced. It requires some basic engineering
knowledge and a lot of manual labor.



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.


There is no lie, except by so called "Christians" who support the fraud
of Darwinian evolution. Darwin was an apostate as early as 1837. How is
it that an apostate is right about origins and the source for God and
Christianity is not ? True Christians support the Bible, logical litmus
test wouldn't you say ?

The only issue is, if these persons are Christians, then why are they
supporting the atheist version of origins ?

Answer: Because they are atheists.

How do we explain their belief about themselves ("we are Christians") ?

Judas kissing Jesus explains it perfectly. Christians are still
betraying Christ = Bible corresponds to reality.

In John chapter 6 Jesus said He chose Judas knowing that he was a son
of the devil from the beginning. Everything is now explained.


Your silence is deafening, Ray. So I'll just skip down to the part you
actually DID answer.

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?


Stanford Ph.Ds are not flakes. Dr. Scott's fact is the official
position of Creationists. Thats how absurd your foot locker full of
bones is. Can't you see how absurd apes morphing into men is ? What the
hell is wrong with you ? Since you are an atheist it is understandable.

So why does Scott's doctorate trump the millions of PhDs (even Stanford
PhDs) that support evolution? This is true special pleading, Ray.


Listen carefully: On outward appearance Dr. Scott's fact looks like an
insult (primarily). But it is an insult secondarily, that is, my paper
will prove that it is an objective fact describing the true state of
all Darwinists.

Save this post for future reference. Dr. Scott is NEVER wrong.

What about the JPL vapor canopy?



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.

I've been to them more times than I can remember. What I actually saw
were fake plaster casts and reproductions.

Why ?

Because the total amount of genuine hominid fossils that Darwinists
claim to actually support human evolution is very low in volume and
numbers.

Why the paucity ?

Because the claim is not true ?

Ahh, so you're back to the "obscure scraps" and "all human fossil
remains can fit in a small box" claims? Perhaps you've forgotten that
you were soundly spanked on that one, as well.


Pure evasion. Again, tell the Group why there is a paucity of physical
evidence purporting to demonstrate the extraordinary claim of human
evolution, and tell the Group why jaw and teeth scraps are enough to
identify a transitional monster.

Back to pretending that Turkana doesn't exist, I see. As you well
know, the fossils that exist are far more than jaw and teeth scraps.


How do we know that Turkana is not a young gibbon or fully human ?

Because Turkana displays neither the traits of a full human, nor of a
full gibbon. It displays a unique set of traits consistent with other
fossils of the same species. Turkana is a hominid.

Why
haven't you volunteered the answers to these obvious questions ? Why
haven't you made an argument that exceeded 2 or 3 sentences ?

Answer: Because your "argument" is pure assumption based on veiled
coercion.

Richard: How did ape-men escape extreme sickness after eating fresh
animal kills ?

Surely there must have been a stage where the carcass was not roasted
and ate immediately like animals do ?

The same way that all animals escape illness after eating fresh kills.
Unless an animal is diseased to begin with, then a fresh kill is
reasonably sterile at least to the point where eating it raw won't
cause any deleterious side effects. You can still get steak tartare at
good restaurants, yet people don't keel over dead immediately after
eating it.

<snip the mica giant>

.