Tas Wlker rejects 2.8 million year old Jawbone.

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Tas Wlker rejects 2.8 million year old Jawbone.

Postby Peter Henderson » Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:09 pm

Because scientists "weren't there"

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/crea ... sts-there/

“Every dating method is based on assumptions about the past, and so you choose the dating method to get the date the sort of date to fit in with where it is and you select the results that fit in with your research program,” Walker said.

Besides, the creationist said, there is only one scientific authority.

“The only way to reliably know the age of something is by eyewitness reports,” Walker explained. “That’s how I know my age, that’s how you know your age, and basically the Bible gives us an eyewitness report — people who were there from the beginning that’s recorded down, and it’s about 6,000 years old.”

Walker said he acknowledges the jawbone’s discovery, but he disputes scientific conclusions about its significance.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Tas Walker rejects 2.8 million year old Jawbone.

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:47 pm

His hypotheses might be slightly more plausible if all these early Homo and other similar non-ape fossils kept being found close to Ararat.

It's simple hardline dogmatic science DENIAL.

No doubt AiG will take a similar line and insist that this individual was 'fully human'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Tas Wlker rejects 2.8 million year old Jawbone.

Postby cathy » Sat Mar 07, 2015 12:45 pm

Just out of interest how do Tas and his pals deal with court cases? Do they rely solely on witness testimony to the exclusions of forensic evidence in which case do they accept that every criminal could just get a pal to give a false witness testimony saying I was there, I saw it and he didn't do it? So stuff all the DNA and fingerprinting stuff that says he did?

Regarding my birth and it's relation to my age! I might have been there but I don't think I'd be any sort of reliable witness given my extreme youth and lack of counting, or indeed any other skills beyond wailing, at the time. So I'm sort of reliant on others to tell me when I was born. I guess had it been a few hundred years earlier that wouldn't have been reliably recorded either!

Looks like National Geographic for March is doing a whole piece on the war against science including creationism. Glimpsed briefly in WH Smith if anyone is minded to buy it.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Tas Wlker rejects 2.8 million year old Jawbone.

Postby Peter Henderson » Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:44 pm

Must have a look in the local Easons store Cathy (similar to WH Smith) although there is a WH Smith store in town.

I noticed on Facebook National Geographic had said AiG and Ken Ham were anti science. This no doubt wont go down well with the AiG heavyweights.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Tas Wlker rejects 2.8 million year old Jawbone.

Postby cathy » Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:39 pm

If you can get it Peter would be interested in what it said as only glimpsed at it. Never seen it for sale there before. But its illustration for evolution denial was the Adam, Eve and Dino tableaux from the Kentucky creation museum ha ha. Ridiculous.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Tas Wlker rejects 2.8 million year old Jawbone.

Postby Brian Jordan » Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:55 pm

cathy wrote:Regarding my birth and it's relation to my age! I might have been there but I don't think I'd be any sort of reliable witness given my extreme youth and lack of counting, or indeed any other skills beyond wailing, at the time. So I'm sort of reliant on others to tell me when I was born. I guess had it been a few hundred years earlier that wouldn't have been reliably recorded either!
I'm probably old enough to have been there, and made a note, when you were born but that's still no good. Being alive at the time doesn't mean you can have observed everything that happened then. So Ham`s relying on all those Old Testament people to have been omnipresent. Except that he's bypassing them too and claiming supernatural authoring rather than inspiration.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Tas Wlker rejects 2.8 million year old Jawbone.

Postby jon_12091 » Mon Mar 09, 2015 12:18 pm

I've got the National Geographic article interesting, but not really anything we haven't heard or read before (and its pretty much entirely from the US persepctive).

As for the Bible being an eyewitness acount my understanding is that the first five books are generally taken by 'fundamentalists' to have been written by Moses, and they get cross if you suggest otherwise, so if I'm right we're in 'inspired word' rather than eye-witness territory?
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Tas Wlker rejects 2.8 million year old Jawbone.

Postby cathy » Mon Mar 09, 2015 5:51 pm

So if Genesis was written by Moses not God than there is no eye witness testimony to that ha ha. Rather blowing that argument out of the water.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Ken Ham - anti-science - again

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Mar 09, 2015 11:50 pm

I have sent the following message to an anti-YEC blogger, known to others here, who frequently deals with anthropological topics in his blog:


http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... onal-form/
More fun from the place with all those 'qualified researchers' (with a promise of even more to follow).
"They are calling some of the Ledi jaw’s features “primitive” and others “advanced” because they assume that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors along this timeline."
That's a caricature of how scientists operate and Ham knows it (if all the features were primitive/advanced - based on what their theory predicts - they would have to own up to that):
http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/ ... 0000-years
Ham's worldview forces him to be anti-science whenever the evidence falsifies biblical creation and the apparent date of 'creation week'.
I have already predicted at the BCSE community forum (in a thread about Tas Walker) that AiG will feel compelled to insist that this jaw belonged to an animal which was 'fully human'. Though of course perhaps the most ape-like 'fully human' creature they have yet had to acknowledge the existence of.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ken Ham - anti-science - again

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:13 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:I have sent the following message to an anti-YEC blogger, known to others here, who frequently deals with anthropological topics in his blog:


http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... onal-form/
More fun from the place with all those 'qualified researchers' (with a promise of even more to follow).
"They are calling some of the Ledi jaw’s features “primitive” and others “advanced” because they assume that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors along this timeline."
That's a caricature of how scientists operate and Ham knows it (if all the features were primitive/advanced - based on what their theory predicts - they would have to own up to that):
http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/ ... 0000-years
Ham's worldview forces him to be anti-science whenever the evidence falsifies biblical creation and the apparent date of 'creation week'.
I have already predicted at the BCSE community forum (in a thread about Tas Walker) that AiG will feel compelled to insist that this jaw belonged to an animal which was 'fully human'. Though of course perhaps the most ape-like 'fully human' creature they have yet had to acknowledge the existence of.



Now there's this blog post: http://www.evoanth.net/2015/03/10/human ... that-mean/
(And the jawbone and Ham's denials have also been discussed at Sensuous Curmudgeon.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Answers in Genesis struggling for their latest answer

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:58 am

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... onal-form/ (9 March)
"I encourage you to check back next week to learn more about what the Ledi jaw IS ...".

So what kind of creature did this jawbone belong to, Answers in Genesis? A member of 'our' species? Or some kind of extinct ape?

I should have thought your experts should be easily able to determine which of those two - sole - options (according to your worldview) you need to go for.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Answers in Genesis recycling old lies to dismiss an old jaw

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Mar 22, 2015 1:15 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/03/09/jawbone-found-in-ethiopia-is-not-a-transitional-form/ (9 March)
"I encourage you to check back next week to learn more about what the Ledi jaw IS ...".

So what kind of creature did this jawbone belong to, Answers in Genesis? A member of 'our' species? Or some kind of extinct ape?

I should have thought your experts should be easily able to determine which of those two - sole - options (according to your worldview) you need to go for.



I spoke slightly too soon! AiG's considered response has appeared on 21 March. And it's a veritable LIE FEST. All designed to reassure Christians that the jaw almost certainly belonged to a member of the human race (albeit an 'archaic' one whatever that means - EDIT it of course doesn't mean what real scientists mean by the term ie other past Homo species).
https://answersingenesis.org/human-evol ... sing-link/

I have robustly expressed my opinion on the new AiG article HERE:
http://www.evoanth.net/2015/03/10/human ... mment-3663


PS at 3.24 am. Informative:
http://anthropology.net/2014/07/02/why- ... w-of-lucy/
http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse ... ew/304/528
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Answers in Genesis recycling old lies to dismiss an old

Postby Brian Jordan » Sun Mar 22, 2015 9:58 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:I spoke slightly too soon! AiG's considered response has appeared on 21 March. And it's a veritable LIE FEST. All designed to reassure Christians that the jaw almost certainly belonged to a member of the human race (albeit an 'archaic' one whatever that means
As it happens, Prof. Alice Roberts may have answered what "archaic" means in her Darwin Day lecture. She said, quoting approximately, "We are so closely related to chimps that an impartial alien might label us pan sapiens rather than homo sapiens". So "archaic" might well just mean "a bit nearer troglodytes than sapiens is."
I'm thinking of using the quote for my sig, once I can quote her precisely,
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm


Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron