MormonFreeThinker Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) I think I can identify all of those skulls. Good, there is only one modern human. I wonder how "No Death before the Fall" theorists can explain that. Edited June 18, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Tiki Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Can someone find the modern human skull? The one without the missing links.
Zakuska Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) How's this? (Sorry, I've never learned how to post a full sized picture...but you can find one at: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/10/pictures/111013-shark-albino-one-eyed-fetus/#)One-Eyed AnomalyPhotograph courtesy Marcela Bejarano-ÁlvarezTalk about a one-of-a-kind discovery—an extremely rare cyclops shark (pictured) has been confirmed in Mexico, new research shows.The 22-inch-long (56-centimeter-long) fetus has a single, functioning eye at the front of its head—the hallmark of a congenital condition called cyclopia, which occurs in several animal species, including humans.Earlier this year fisher Enrique Lucero León legally caught a pregnant dusky shark near Cerralvo Island (see map) in the Gulf of California. When León cut open his catch, he found the odd-looking male embryo along with its nine normal siblings. "He said, That's incredible—wow," said biologist Felipe Galván-Magaña, of the Interdisciplinary Center of Marine Sciences in La Paz, Mexico.Once Galván-Magaña and colleague Marcela Bejarano-Álvarez heard about the discovery—which was put on Facebook—the team got León's permission to borrow the shark for research. The scientists then x-rayed the fetus and reviewed previous research on cyclopia in other species to confirm that the find is indeed a cyclops shark.Cyclops sharks have been documented by scientists a few times before, also as embryos, said Jim Gelsleichter, a shark biologist at the University of North Florida in Jacksonville. The fact that none have been caught outside the womb suggests cyclops sharks don't survive long in the wild.Overall, finding such an unusual animal reinforces that scientists still have a lot to learn, Gelsleichter added."It's a humbling experience to realize you ain't seen it all yet."(See "Cyclops Myth Spurred by 'One-Eyed' Fossils?")—Christine Dell'Amoreimage.jpgI heard the cyclops myth came from people misidentifying Elephant skulls.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0205_030205_cyclops.html Edited June 19, 2014 by Zakuska
bcuzbcuz Posted June 19, 2014 Author Posted June 19, 2014 I heard the cyclops myth came from people misidentifying Elephant skulls.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0205_030205_cyclops.htmlI've read that the skulls in question were those of wooly mammoths, and that nasal passages were mistaken as eye sockets. The pictures I've seen, at least, lend credence to that theory.But the picture and article I posted are from a fetus of a shark. Are far as I know the fetus with such a mutation is stillborn. Surviving would probably be most difficult since one eye doesn't lend itself to binocular vision. (although, if attacked by such a shark, maybe the prey would be frozen in flight, much like being in front of the single light from an approaching train. lol)
ERayR Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 The one without the missing links. Nope its the one that is full of mush.
thesometimesaint Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Nope its the one that is full of mush. That would be the last one.
katherine the great Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 Good, there is only one modern human. I wonder how "No Death before the Fall" theorists can explain that. Its a mystery to me as well.
Tiki Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) Is this human?http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/giant-human-skeletons-discovered-in-wisconsin/ Edited June 21, 2014 by Tiki
Anijen Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) Is this human?http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/giant-human-skeletons-discovered-in-wisconsin/image.jpgIt is a hoax. Seriously are people this gullible? I would advise to do a little research. If it looks like it could be fake then use the rule of Occams razor Edited June 21, 2014 by Anijen
katherine the great Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 Is this human?http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/giant-human-skeletons-discovered-in-wisconsin/image.jpgSeriously?
Tiki Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) Seriously?It's a hoax. But so was Piltdown Man. But Evolutionists believed in it for decades.http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_prim_suspects/hinton/hinton_prosecution/pilthoax_whodunnit.htmlHere are more references to Piltdown Man:http://www.bgs.ac.uk/piltdownman/PiltdownBibliography.pdfA partial human skull with a jaw from an orangutan - and he was made out to look like one swanky dude!Aren't those Evolutionists clever? Edited June 21, 2014 by Tiki 1
Anijen Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) It's a hoax. But so was Piltdown Man. But Evolutionists believed in it for decades.http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_prim_suspects/hinton/hinton_prosecution/pilthoax_whodunnit.htmlimage.jpgMany also believed the earth was flat for thousands of years. Belief either for something or not does not make the truth of that belief change. Did you know it was a hoax? If so why did you ask if it was human? Edited June 21, 2014 by Anijen
Tiki Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) Many also believed the earth was flat for thousands of years. Belief either for something or not does not make the truth of that belief change. Did you know it was a hoax? If so why did you ask if it was human?I knew the pic of the giant skeleton was a hoax. (And it's not Piltdown Man.) I set it up to trap you and other readers, knowing it was a fraud.Piltdown Man only consisted of a partial human skull and jaw from a monkey - a fraud.Evolutionists fell for the Piltdown Man for four decades, because it fit their philosophical paradigm. Edited June 21, 2014 by Tiki
Anijen Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 I knew the pic of the giant skeleton was a hoax. (And it's not Piltdown Man.) I set it up to trap you and other readers, knowing it was a fraud.Piltdown Man only consisted of a partial human skull and jaw from a monkey - a fraud.Evolutionists fell for the Piltdown Man for four decades, because it fit their philosophical paradigm.You don't need to explain it to me, I knew long ago of the piltdown hoax. People believed in evolution long before piltdown man. The man reason for the hoax was not to support evolution, but to claim Western Europe particularly to place Great Britain as one of the places of evolution beginnings (before this it was eastern Africa where the skulls were being dug up). It was more for nationalism than for evolution, because again the scientist who did accept piltdown man already believed in evolution. So it is your style then to try to trap us? Why do you offend our intelligence with such an obvious hoax and then lecture us on piltdown man. Kathryn the Great and I are way past this type of dialogue. Please if you want to make a logical argument then just do so, you do not need to try to throw us off. Next if you use Lucy or Lucy's baby (they are not related) then the argument for evolution is much stronger, plus it shows there was death before 6000 years ago, and finally they are not hoaxes, but the real deal.
ERayR Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) So it is your style then to try to trap us? Why do you offend our intelligence with such an obvious hoax and then lecture us on piltdown man. Kathryn the Great and I are way past this type of dialogue. Please if you want to make a logical argument then just do so, you do not need to try to throw us off. How does it feel to be in the rarefied air of certainty Edited June 21, 2014 by ERayR
Anijen Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 How does it feel to be in the rarefied air of certaintySorry my hubris is having trouble fitting through the door. I didn't mean to come across that way. My point being he [Tiki] does not have to try to trap me or Kathryn the Great just plain simple debate works best.
Anijen Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 I believe it is possible for man to evolve from the hominid chimpanzee to the hominid homo sapiens (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My© Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern I do not know if this was how our Heavenly Father did it or not. My trust in science does not nullify my faith in God nor in the plan of salvation or in my belief in modern day Prophets. Yes I believe in Adam as the first man. One might ask how can I believe in Adam and in hominids that pre-date Adam? I believe that Adam was the first covenant man made in the Garden of Eden and then after the fall (I like to think of it as a progressive fall forward) he was exiled from the garden to exist with all the creation that was not part of the garden i.e. thorns, thistles, and the ancestors of other hominids such as the Neanderthal. I could be wrong and I probably am in many areas of this working and changing theory of mine. Either way Tiki (I love the name by the way), Rob Osborne and others I am confident my love for learning pleases the Lord. If I learn some of the errors of men and some of the things are wrong I believe the Lord will correct me in my errors. We are brothers and we will disagree with a few things Im sure. Again I apologize if I come across as a blowhard who cant fit his head through the doorway. The church is true and one day in Heaven we will be like; " hey you remember when you believed that... what a goofball..." 1
thesometimesaint Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 I knew the pic of the giant skeleton was a hoax. (And it's not Piltdown Man.) I set it up to trap you and other readers, knowing it was a fraud.Piltdown Man only consisted of a partial human skull and jaw from a monkey - a fraud.Evolutionists fell for the Piltdown Man for four decades, because it fit their philosophical paradigm. Chera A Bomba for -Ko Muvakidzani. Actually it was science that falsified the Piltdown Man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man From the outset, some scientists expressed skepticism about the Piltdown find (see above).G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together."[10] In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere.[1] Skeptical scientists only increased in number as more fossils were found.[citation needed]In November 1953, Time published evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner proving that the Piltdown Man was a forgery[11] and demonstrating that the fossil was a composite of three distinct species. It consisted of a human skull of medieval age, the 500-year-old lower jaw of a Sarawak orangutan and chimpanzee fossil teeth. Someone had created the appearance of age by staining the bones with an iron solution and chromic acid. Microscopic examination revealed file-marks on the teeth, and it was deduced from this that someone had modified the teeth to a shape more suited to a human diet.The Piltdown man hoax succeeded so well because, at the time of its discovery, the scientific establishment believed that the large modern brain preceded the modern omnivorous diet, and the forgery provided exactly that evidence. It has also been thought that nationalism and cultural prejudice played a role in the less-than-critical acceptance of the fossil as genuine by some British scientists.[6] It satisfied European expectations that the earliest humans would be found in Eurasia, and the British, it has been claimed,[6] also wanted a first Briton to set against fossil hominids found elsewhere in Europe, including France and Germany. 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) I knew the pic of the giant skeleton was a hoax. (And it's not Piltdown Man.) I set it up to trap you and other readers, knowing it was a fraud.Piltdown Man only consisted of a partial human skull and jaw from a monkey - a fraud.Evolutionists fell for the Piltdown Man for four decades, because it fit their philosolphical paradigm. The Piltdown man was exposed by Evolution scientists, not creationists. The hoax unraveled when the fossils could not be reconciled with other hominid fossil finds.I don't think creationists were saying that it was a hoax back then, they were probably saying that the piltdown man was just a deformed human . They never say, "we told them"http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piltdown.html ID creationists have believed in many hoaxes, so you don't want to go there.Meldrum believes in artifacts that are likely forgeries Edited June 21, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Tiki Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 Elder Talmage addressed the Piltdown Man in his writings. So, yes it was accepted by the Evolutionists as evidence for the Theory, along with Peking Man, etc. or Elder Talmage would not have addressed it for the members of the Church or the World at large as to the Church's position on Evolution.But I'm sure there were members then, just like those currently here who don't believe our leaders, who thought Elder Talmage was wrong about Piltdown Man."I do not regard Adam as related to—certainly not as descended from—the Neanderthal, the Cro-Magnon, the Peking or the Piltdown man. Adam came as divinely directed, created and empowered, and stands as the patriarchal head of his posterity—a posterity, who, if true to the laws of God are heirs to the Priesthood and to the glories of eternal lives.""By the theories mentioned man was said to have risen from tree-climbing ape-like ancestors. In his address as retiring president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, December, 1929, Dr. Osborn affirms the untenability of the views he had so long and aggressively advocated. He regards the human [p.249]bones unearthed at Piltdown, Sussex, England, as typical of the “Dawn Man” who was in every distinguishing characteristic, a man not part man and part ape, but as to brain capacity and other evidences of mentality equal to some races now living. Yet Osborn holds to a communal origin of man and anthropoids related in structure, away back in the late Tertiary age of geologic history.Thus theories come, endure for a season and go, like the fungi of the night; nevertheless they serve their purpose as temporary aids in human thought and endeavor."http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=14288The fungi of the night. Ha! Reminds one of crickets of the night in Hawaii eaten by maggots which allegedly proves Adam evolved from a tree-swinging ape.
Tiki Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 The Piltdown man was exposed by Evolution scientists, not creationists. The hoax unraveled when the fossils could not be reconciled with other hominid fossil finds.I don't think creationists were saying that it was a hoax back then, they were probably saying that the piltdown man was just a deformed human . They never say, "we told them"http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piltdown.html ID creationists have believed in many hoaxes, so you don't want to go there.Why shouldn't I go there? This hoax was believed in for 40 years.Elder Talmage pointed out:"Among the living no anthropologist has been more pronounced in upholding the theories of Darwin and Lamarck than Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn." http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=14288Dr. Osborn was a firm believer in Piltdown Man, as I quoted earlier.Piltdown Man had hippopotamus and elephant teeth and a jaw of an orangutan, and Dr. Osborn the preeminent anthropologist of his day, believed Pitldown Man was accurate. p.s. There were discoverd two Piltdown skulls, which proved in the minds of Evolutionists it was true.
ERayR Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 I believe it is possible for man to evolve from the hominid chimpanzee to the hominid homo sapiens (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My© Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern I do not know if this was how our Heavenly Father did it or not. My trust in science does not nullify my faith in God nor in the plan of salvation or in my belief in modern day Prophets. Yes I believe in Adam as the first man. One might ask how can I believe in Adam and in hominids that pre-date Adam? I believe that Adam was the first covenant man made in the Garden of Eden and then after the fall (I like to think of it as a progressive fall forward) he was exiled from the garden to exist with all the creation that was not part of the garden i.e. thorns, thistles, and the ancestors of other hominids such as the Neanderthal. I could be wrong and I probably am in many areas of this working and changing theory of mine. Either way Tiki (I love the name by the way), Rob Osborne and others I am confident my love for learning pleases the Lord. If I learn some of the errors of men and some of the things are wrong I believe the Lord will correct me in my errors. We are brothers and we will disagree with a few things Im sure. Again I apologize if I come across as a blowhard who cant fit his head through the doorway. The church is true and one day in Heaven we will be like; " hey you remember when you believed that... what a goofball..." A question: If humans (that became God's children) evolved from common descent to what resurrection will all those predecessors be resurrected?
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) Why shouldn't I go there? This hoax was believed in for 40 years. Evolutionist believed it, but Evolutionists later exposed it when they realized that it was a hoax. Creationists have believed in many hoaxes for many years, hypocrisy. You don't want to go there. Quoting Elder Talmage doesn't help your case, because Elder Talmage did not believe the Cro-Magnon was a modern human. Elder Talmage did believe in Pre-Adamites, but he simply didn't believe they were our ancestors. When Elder Talmage wrote that, Evolution was not yet 100% proven at the time. p.s. There were discoverd two Piltdown skulls, which proved in the minds of Evolutionists it was true. Creationists were probably saying that the Piltdown skull was just deformed human. Name one Creationist that proved (with evidence) that the Pittdown man was a hoax. Edited June 21, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Tiki Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 Evolutionist believed it, but Evolutionists later exposed it when they realized that it was a hoax. Creationists have believed in many hoaxes for many years, hypocrisy. You don't want to go there. Quoting Elder Talmage doesn't help your case, because Elder Talmage did not believe the Cro-Magnon was a modern human. Elder Talmage did believe in Pre-Adamites, but he simply didn't believe they were our ancestors. When Elder Talmage wrote that, Evolution was not yet 100% proven at the time. Creationists were probably saying that the Piltdown skull was just deformed human. Name one Creationist that proved (with evidence) that the Pittdown man was a hoax.Are you serious? You obviously are.Elder Talmage wasn't addressing some Crypto-UFO-BigFoot-Chupacabra-ologist.He was addressing a preeminent scientist of his day who made statements before the American Association for the Advancement of Science who believed in Piltdown Man. Piltdown Man was considered the truth by the scientific community.
bcuzbcuz Posted June 21, 2014 Author Posted June 21, 2014 Are you serious? You obviously are.Elder Talmage wasn't addressing some Crypto-UFO-BigFoot-Chupacabra-ologist.He was addressing a preeminent scientist of his day who made statements before the American Association for the Advancement of Science who believed in Piltdown Man. Piltdown Man was considered the truth by the scientific community.I can't believe the turn in this discussion. Piltdown man is a STRAW MAN argument by very definition. A typical set-em-up, knock-em-down type of argument. Someone stated that science believed in the Piltdown man for over 40 years. No, science did not believe that for 40 years. It took scientific evidence to factually PROVE it wrong, more than 40 years. But most scientists had long since ignored anything to do with the forgery, and just couldn't be bothered with spending time and money to examine scratch marks on teeth and chemically stained jaw bones.In science, and in religion, it is not difficult to find people who believe and champion opinions that are later proven to be totallly false. This is nothing new and it maybe speaks more to the person than anything else.If evolution was dependent upon claims like the Piltdown man to prove its worth, then I, as someone who believes that evolutionary theory explains so much about all animals and plants on the earth, then I, would reject the theory without hesitation. If you, Tiki, want to put a dent into evolutionary theory, you're going to have to come up with something better than dead-end forgeries and straw-man arguments. Find just one example of a modern mammal skeleton, such as a rabbit, amongst any pre-Cambrian layers. I'd even spend some time reviewing the information if you could find a rabbit skeleton amongst any triassic or jurassic layers.But I won't hold my breath.
Recommended Posts