On atheists and those with weak faith. [Gandhi]

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how do you account for these statements,

Dates please.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how do you account for these statements,

Newsweek: “‘You could put all the fossils on the top of a single desk,’ Elwyn Simons of Duke University.”

The New York Times: “The known fossil remains of man’s ancestors would fit on a billiard table. That makes a poor platform from which to peer into the mists of the last few million years.”

Scien ...[text shortened]... se conflicting views with your assertion that there are thousands of so called humanoid fossils?

The vast majority are fragments. You can't expect entire skeletons to be complete after thousands of years of earthquakes and erosion. Aside from that, your quotes are inaccurate.

Newsweek: “‘You could put all the fossils on the top of a single desk,’ Elwyn Simons of Duke University.”

I tried searching for this and only found it from the page you clearly got this from (and other creationist sites), along with the others (http://www.facethefacts.co.za/?p=6001).

When was this actually said and in what context? What fossils exactly was he referring to?

The New York Times: “The known fossil remains of man’s ancestors would fit on a billiard table. That makes a poor platform from which to peer into the mists of the last few million years.”

From what I found, this was true in 1974, but now grossly out of date.

Science Digest: “The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! . . . Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.”

In response, I found this (http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/revised-quote.html):

This statement by Dr. Watson was not drawn from a research paper in a refereed scientific journal, it is from a minor opinion piece in a popular science magazine. The writer of the piece was arguing in favor of the "aquatic ape" theory of human origins, over and against the "savanna ape" theory, and he thought that by downplaying the amount of actual fossil evidence, in journalistic fashion, he might be able to make the "aquatic ape" theory sound more credible. However, the author's intentions aside, even creationists have acknowledged the folly of citing this quotation as if it presented a true statement concerning "all the physical evidence we have for human evolution." See the following admissions recently made by two creationists, below:

`I was surprised to find that instead of enough fossils barely to fit into a coffin, as one evolutionist once stated [in 1982], there were over 4,000 hominid fossils as of 1976. Over 200 specimens have been classified as Neandertal and about one hundred as Homo erectus. More of these fossils have been found since 1976.

Michael J. Oard [creationist], in his review of the book, Bones of Contention -- A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 30, March 1994, p. 222

New Scientist: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”

You will find that this quote is from a source that is 30 years old:

http://tinyurl.com/66lf7rs

Originally posted by Rajk999
Good Luck... 🙂

By that I assume you mean something like that has never been done before?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Before I can believe in evolution I will have to see an ape become
a man. To me evolution is just nonsense.

Of course it is nonsense to you, this is a prime example of cognitive dissonance, you cannot hold two contradictory concepts at once in your brain, so you dismiss what 200 years of science has discovered to desperately hold on to your irrational beliefs.

You cannot be rational and irrational at the same time which is the underlying basis of your rejection of evolution. You accept the idea of adaptation which is just semantics.

Your brain is a cauldron of irrationality vs the rational.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how do you account for these statements,

Newsweek: “‘You could put all the fossils on the top of a single desk,’ Elwyn Simons of Duke University.”

The New York Times: “The known fossil remains of man’s ancestors would fit on a billiard table. That makes a poor platform from which to peer into the mists of the last few million years.”

Scien ...[text shortened]... se conflicting views with your assertion that there are thousands of so called humanoid fossils?

Genius!!

Sweep the molecular evidence under the carpet because you don't have an answer for that, and then pull out the JW favourite..............quote mining!!!!

Rob, you're too predictable.

Originally posted by lausey
The vast majority are fragments. You can't expect entire skeletons to be complete after thousands of years of earthquakes and erosion. Aside from that, your quotes are inaccurate.

Newsweek: “‘You could put all the fossils on the top of a single desk,’ Elwyn Simons of Duke University.”

I tried searching for this and only found it from the page yo d that this quote is from a source that is 30 years old:

http://tinyurl.com/66lf7rs

so what, you have as i suspected not answered the question except with the usual platitudes and diversionary attempts, indeed i can produce articles from nineteen 1995, what would your arguments amount to then, absolutely nothing, and it will be noted that you have stated that there are thousands of humanoid fossils which is simply an inaccuracy, there are not thousands and no attempts to construe the details will make it so. Darwins book was written in the 1800s, does that mean its also codswallop?

You have offered nothing but mere opinion, and a creationists at that and then chide me for providing contrary opinions from others that are not even creationists, soooo, lets get this straight, in the 1980s there were hardly enough fossil evidence of transitionairy beings to fill a coffee table, now thirty years later there are thousands? what is that, a case of punctuated equilibrium? it is to laugh!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Genius!!

Sweep the molecular evidence under the carpet because you don't have an answer for that, and then pull out the JW favourite..............quote mining!!!!

Rob, you're too predictable.

He stated that there were thousands of humanoid fossils, it was a false statement. You people cannot get away with that type of sensationalistic jingoism, look at his feeble attempts to dodge the scientific facts. As i suspected, he attempted to undermine the credibility of the testimony on the basis of the articles dates, which in itself is a nonsense, unless of course what Darwin also wrote in the 1800s is a nonsense as well, due to the date?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so what, you have as i suspected not answered the question except with the usual platitudes and diversionary attempts, indeed i can produce articles from nineteen 1995, what would your arguments amount to then, absolutely nothing, and it will be noted that you have stated that there are thousands of humanoid fossils which is simply an inaccuracy, the ...[text shortened]... ils will make it so. Darwins book was written in the 1800s, does that mean its also codswallop?

Here you go -

This list includes fossils that are important for either their scientific or historic interest, or because they are often mentioned by creationists. One sometimes reads that all hominid fossils could fit in a coffin, or on a table, or a billiard table. That is a misleading image, as there are now thousands of hominid fossils. They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

On a side note, how do you account for the voluminous evidence for humans existing on this planet before your Adam & Eve date? Also, how do you rectify that all the genetic evidence doesn't support your view of humanities history in anyway shape or form?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Darwins book was written in the 1800s, does that mean its also codswallop?

A claim about the number of fossils present today is codswallop if the claim is based on an article from 1974.
Darwins book makes no claims about what is present today.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Here you go -

[quote]This list includes fossils that are important for either their scientific or historic interest, or because they are often mentioned by creationists. One sometimes reads that all hominid fossils could fit in a coffin, or on a table, or a billiard table. That is a misleading image, as there are now thousands of hominid fossils. The ...[text shortened]... l the genetic evidence doesn't support your view of humanities history in anyway shape or form?

so lets get this straight, you build an entire skeletal structure from a jaw bone and two teeth? mmm, interesting like finding a wheel nut and building a car. No i dont think its a misleading image at all, what i think is misleading is presenting half men and half ape in science text books on the basis of a lower jaw bone and two teeth! we are not talking of so called molecular evidence, you have asserted that as recently as 80 thousand years ago humans evolved from apes, there should be at least, one or two fully preserved skeletons of these transitional beings and look, you are deviod of anything. where did they go? At least you have admitted that they are fragmentary single bones and teeth, its honest if nothing else, very sketchy science dear Noobster, these things are like religious relics for you guys. Adam and eve, so lets get this straight, Bible declares humans started say five thousand years ago and what do we actually observe, the emergence of humans around five thousand years ago into villages and encampments, the oldest known civilisations date to when, eighty thousand years ago, or four thousand years ago, mmm, interesting.

Originally posted by twhitehead
A claim about the number of fossils present today is codswallop if the claim is based on an article from 1974.
Darwins book makes no claims about what is present today.

pile of bilge, in the nineteen eighties they were scant and now thirty years later there are thousands, where did they all appear from, as if you know anything about it. fact remains your vain attempts to undermine the scientific data on the basis that it was produced in nineten seventy is pure balls, why? not one single skeleton, look at Noobsters post, single bones and fragments, like teeth and jaw bones, would you construct a car on the basis of finding a wheel nut? nope, so get over it, your so called transitional fossils are nothing of the sort, more evolutionary dogma, postulation, conjecture and a host of other adjectives that i cannot type!

This is hard to watch. In all the time you guys have engaged in discussion with RC, have you ever known RC to demonstrate intellectual honesty? Do you believe he ever will so long as he remains a JW?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
This is hard to watch. In all the time you guys have engaged in discussion with RC, have you ever known RC to demonstrate intellectual honesty? Do you believe he ever will so long as he remains a JW?

Quick capsule answers -

1. Very rarely.

2. Very unlikely.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
pile of bilge, in the nineteen eighties they were scant and now thirty years later there are thousands, where did they all appear from, as if you know anything about it. fact remains your vain attempts to undermine the scientific data on the basis that it was produced in nineten seventy is pure balls, why? not one single skeleton, look at Noobsters ...[text shortened]... e evolutionary dogma, postulation, conjecture and a host of other adjectives that i cannot type!

not one single skeleton, look at Noobsters post, single bones and fragments, like teeth and jaw bones,

Did you read what i quoted? Read again -

They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare.

How on earth can you extrapolate that no complete skeleton has ever been found from that text. Answer, you can't. Your making it up.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so lets get this straight, you build an entire skeletal structure from a jaw bone and two teeth? mmm, interesting like finding a wheel nut and building a car. No i dont think its a misleading image at all, what i think is misleading is presenting half men and half ape in science text books on the basis of a lower jaw bone and two teeth! we are not ...[text shortened]... lisations date to when, eighty thousand years ago, or four thousand years ago, mmm, interesting.

First point - there are numerous sites around the world that have been inhabited longer than your 4,000 year fairy tale would lead us to believe.

Settlements in the Barada basin near Damascus have been dated to 9000 BC. The walls of Jericho have been dated to nearly 7000 BC. Byblos in Lebanon has settlements dated to 7000 BC. And on and on..................

The rest will have to wait.