One of the books I read last weekend was a YEC book by Ron Rhodes, _The 10 Things You Should KNow About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate_ (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2004).

This book has some amazingly silly statements about fossil man. Since I actually took anthro classes in college and have found this subject fascinating for many years, I just had to comment on some of the antics I have seen from the YEC side.

Ron Rhodes, _The 10 Things You Should KNow About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate_ (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2004), p. 81

"The evidence shows that Neanderthal man, when in good health, stood fully erect and walked in a normal fashion with a normal posture like modern humans. He certainly had a fully human brain capacity. The evidence shows that he sewed clothes from animal skins, built shelters, had a form of writing, practiced religious ceremonies, played musical instruments, made and used various tools (including axes, borers, scrapers, points, and knives), fashioned stone arrowheads, used fire for cooking, painted pictures, used language to communicate, buried the dead and even placed flowers upon graves."

---

© source where applicable

Like most YEC nonsense, truth is mixed with fiction to produce an overall inaccurate picture. Neanderthals are some of my favorite people and I think some on earth are descended from them. But truth must be told. The didn't sew anything. There is no evidence of needles in their tool kit. The earliest evidence of needles is from 30,000 years ago in Kostenki Russia with anatomically modern man. (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-eie032102.php)

And the claim that Neanderthals had writing is extremely laughable. Writing didn't begin until around 6600 BC in China--about 20,000 years after Neanderthals were last seen on earth. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2956925.stm )

The earliest paintings were not by Neanderthals, although I believe them capable of it, there is no evidence that they did it. The earliest paintings seem to be made by anatomically modern humans. Yet this YEC claims, using his total ignorance of anthropology, that Neanderthals painted.

Of Java man he writes:

Ron Rhodes, _The 10 Things You Should KNow About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate_ (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2004), p. 82

"today, most experts in the field consider the Pithecanthropus erectus to be an extinct, giant gibbon-like creature (an arboreal ape) that bears no relation to humans."

---

© source where applicable

First off, the guy doesn't realize that Pithecanthropus erectus is an outdated taxonomic category and isn't used any longer. Java man is now categorized as Homo erectus, not a gibbon. But, ignorance prevails in this amazing book.

Oh when the Ignorant, go marching in... Rhodes continues his parade of ignorance.

Ron Rhodes, _The 10 Things You Should KNow About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate_ (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2004), p.84

"Davidson Bolack discovered Peking man in 1912 near Peking, China. The discovery consistent of over a hundred teeth, thirty skulls, and some tools. Again, many people hoped that this would be a significant ape-man discovery. Mysteriously, however, by the end of World War II all the skulls disappeared. Meanwhile Bolack died of a heart attack.
"Many scholars who have studied the discovery have now concluded that the skulls and teeeth represent the remains of monkeys or baboons that had been killed and eaten by lime quarry workers."

---

© source where applicable

Now, the ignorace and lack of research is shown by the amazing source for this information by this young-earth creationist. Rhodes didn't bother to actually read an anthropology book. He got the information from Dr. H. L. Wilmington, Wilmington's Guide to the Bible

Dr. H. L. Wilmington, Wilmington's Guide to the Bible, (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1984

Peking man—Found near Peking, China, in 1912 (and 1937) by Davidson Bolack. Find consisted of the fragments of thirty skulls and 147 teeth. This find disappeared in 1941 when it was moved from Peking by a U.S. Marine detachment to escape the oncoming Japanese invasion. It is now believed by some that this find was simply the remains of some large monkeys or baboons killed and eaten by workers in an ancient lime-burning quarry!

---

© source where applicable

One must ask, at what point does one require a YEC to have personal responsibility for the mis-information they write?

The plain fact is that the first evidence of Peking man was NOT in 1912 but in 1926 when J. Gunnar Andersson was informed that some of the material he had sent to Stockholm earlier was human. That lead to the excavation of Zhoukoudian.

Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution,
Genetics and Man, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1955), p.
328

Between 1929 and 1940 Black and Weidenriech found in cave near
Peking the remains of 40 individuals of Peking man called
Sinanthropus pekinensis.

---

© source where applicable

These are now categorized as Homo erectus, not as monkeys and apes as these two gentlemen erroneously claim.

And then there is their big screw up on Bolack. It was not Davidson Bolack, but Davidson Black. One might charitably give Wilmington the typo, but Rhodes, in not checking up on the stuff he was putting in his book, and only using non-anthropological sources is definitely at fault. This is what YEC research is made of.

This is like Sarfati's error with Simon Conway Morris. Sarfati, who chides lots of other people for their lack of credentials, makes a novice mistake on Conway Morris' name.

Jonathon Sarfati, Refuting Evolution 2, (Green Forest, AZ: Master Books 2002), p. 143-144

“During his appearance on PBS 2, Cambridge University paleontologist Simon Conway Morris explained that the Cambrian explosion was ‘one of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of life.’ Essentially all the different animal phyla (major groups) appeared abruptly, without any known transitional forms preceding them. According to evolutionary dating methods, this was about 500 million years ago. Morris acknowledged that Darwin recognized this as a problem for his theory, with animals appearing out of nowhere. Morris said, ‘To a certain extent that is still a mystery.’”

---

© source where applicable

The last name is "Conway Morris". Only those who don't know the players and haven't studied the area of paleontology would make such a mistake. I have had the pleasure of meeting this christian gentleman in person and discussing young-earth creationism in the US with him. I was also able at that conference to ask him some useful questions in the Q&A sessions. But I digress. Back to the anthropology antics.

Ron Rhodes, _The 10 Things You Should KNow About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate_ (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2004), p. 85

"Louis S. B. Leakey discovered East African ape, also known as Zinjanthropus, in 1959 in Olduvia, Tanzania. The discovery consisted of a skull cap and some fragments of bone. This ape-man link, dated at two to four million years old, was featured in National Geographic Magazine as a support for evolution.

---

© source where applicable

Well, for starters, it isn't Olduvia it's Olduvai. I would normally ascribe such things to bad typing but this guy shows such an abysmal knowledge of anthropology that I suspect he thinks it is Olduvia. The fossil didn't date back as far as 4 million. It dated, in 1959 at 1.8 million years. Dare I quote the Bible Science Newsletter, which is more accurate than Rhodes (and that is saying a lot.

Bible Science Newsletter, Sept. 15, 1970, p. 6

"The skull found by Leakey (Zinjanthropus) dated by Potassium
argon at 1,750,000 . . ."

---

© source where applicable

But such silliness is not restricted to the YEC crowd. ID advocates also make stupid sophmoric errors of fact when it comes to anthro.

Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, 2nd edition (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 110

"It had significant anatomical differences from modern man that have prevented its classification as Homo sapiens. It also left no evidence that it buried its dead, no signs of art, or other recognizably human culture."

---

© source where applicable

Of course this ignores what was found at Bilzingsleben which was available before he wrote his book. This site has yielded H. erectus remains(documentation Emanuel Vlcek, "A New Discovery of Homo erectus in Central Europe,"Journal of Human Evolution, (1978) 7:239-251):

Robert G. Bednarik, "On Lower Paleolithic Cognitive Development," 23rd
Chacmool Conference Calgary 1990, pp 427-435, p. 432

At this stage, only six Lower Paleolithic examples of
intentionally engraved bone objects have been published and
widely accepted by scholars. They are the four specimens from
Bilzingsleben, Germany, at least two of which were engraved on
bones of the extinct forest elephant; the engraved elephantine
vertebra from Stranska skala, Czechoslovakia, less than 500 km
from the first site; and the engraved ox rib from Pech de l'Aze,
France, first described by Bordes and later examined by Marshack.
Five of these six objects have been found only in recent years,
and the hunt is now on for more examples from the Acheulian and
other Lower Paleolithic deposits. Further marked specimens are
available from Bilzingsleben; an intricate geometric engraving on
yet another elephant bone, and markings on a tiny quartzite
tables. There are a few doubtful items from Italy which are
either poorly dated or lack authentication."

---

© source where applicable

And since the 1993 publication more has been discovered there at Bilzingsleben. The H. erectus left a village--clearly an evidence of culture.

D. Mania and U. Mania and E. Vlcek, "Latest Finds of Skull
Remains of Homo erectus from Bilzingsleben (Thuringia)",
Naturwissenschaften, 81(1994), p. 123-127, p. 124

"The home base of early man from Bilzingsleben was situated
on a shore terrace close to the outflow of a karst spring into a
small lake. Previous excavations revealed a division of the camp
site into different activity areas and outlines of three simple
shelters with hearths and workshops set up in front of them.
Five to 8 m from the dwelling structures, an artificially paved
area with a diameter of 9 m was found. According to the
archaeological evidence, special cultural activities may have
been carried out there.
"Along with large pebble tools( choppers, chopping tools,
and hammerstones), small specialized tools of flint appear.
Basic standard forms are knives, scrappers, denticulates and
notches, simple points which are pointed-oval, Tayac and Quinson
points, borers, and core-like tools. Edge retouches predominate,
but also unifacial and bifacial retouches occur. Large scrapers,
knives, chisel-shaped tools, wedges, bodkins, and work supports
were manufactured from the compact bone, preferably of the
straight-tusked elephant. Mattock- and cudgel-shaped tools were
made from cervid antlers. Specific, deliberate manufacturing
activities are recognizable in the workshops. Apart from the
dissection of the animal prey, these tools served for the working
of predominantly organic materials which in turn were used for
the manufacture of other tools and objects of daily use. Wood
was also a frequently used raw material. Numerous calcified
remains of wood artifacts were found at the site. Some bone
tools display deliberately engraved sets of lines which we regard
as expressions of abstract thinking, perhaps as graphic symbols."

---

© source where applicable

And I would suggest that if this site were found in a modern human village, one would wish to leave as quickly and quietly as one could.

Rick Gore, "The First Europeans,"
National Geographic, July, 1997, p. 110

"But Mania's most intriguing find lies under a protective
shed. As he opens the door sunlight illuminates a cluster of
smooth stones and pieces of bone that he believes were arranged
by humans to pave a 27-foot-wide circle.
"'They intentionally paved this area for cultural
activities,' says Mania. 'We found here a large anvil of
quartzite set between the horns of a huge bison, near it were
fractured human skulls.'"

---

© source where applicable

Is this evidence of religion? I think a rational case can be made for it.

John Wiester has never answered my criticism of his silly statement in several tries.

John Wiester, The Genesis Connection, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983), p. 180

"We have no way of knowing with certainty if Neanderthal man could talk. His brain cavity size was not only equal to but exceeded that of modern man. However, he reportedly lacked the frontal lobe, the speech center of our modern brain."

---

© source where applicable

Neanderthal most assuredly did have a frontal lobe to his brain. Wiester might not, but neanderthal most assuredly did.

Wysong wrote:

Randy L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, (Midland Mich.: Inquiry Press, 1976), p. 296.

"The first Neanderthal skeleton was found in Europe at about the turn of the century."

---

© source where applicable

Neanderthal was first found and recognized as different from modern humans in 1848 at Gibraltar. Then in 1856 at Feldhofer cave. There was an infant find from the 1830s in Belgium but it wasn't recognized for what it was til after Feldhofer.

The anthro antics will continue into the future. Truth is not what YEC is about, unfortunately.

Apart from the bad scholarship exhibited by the creationist authors in both research and writing skills (I am sure Conway-Morris wouldn't have called the CE a 'breakthrough in the history of life', as every day is such a thing; I suspect he was talking about the finding and characterization of the Burgess Shale, and Sarfati, out of his depth, has made a silly paraphrase) what strikes me is the lack of editing in these snippets. All of these things are from supposed published books. Why do the creationist publishers not have editors who spot simple errors of fact (rather, of course, than interpretation) such as Bolack/Black and Olduvia/Olduvai, whether they originate as typos or misapprehensions?

Something the casual observer should take from this list is the lack of editorial control, which shows what an amateurish outfit the creationist 'press' and 'publishers' are. Most of these books I suspect are essentially vanity publications. This underscores what a fringe group the Creationists really are.

K

Lol, wouldn't that kind of book be bad enough to hinder a real scientist/writers career?

Originally posted by grmorton

The anthro antics will continue into the future. Truth is not what YEC is about, unfortunately.

It is worth pointing out that this book is not representative of YEC writings on this subject. It does not warrant this conclusion.

One of the titles that I recommend to people seeking to get their heads around this subject is "Is man descended from Adam?" by Reinhard Junker (English version is published by the Biblical Creation Society).
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/o...Adam_link.html
I looked at the comments on Neanderthal Man, and there are none of the errors pointed out in Glenn's post.

Moderated By: Undisclosed

I edited the thread title. The added inflammatoriness was not necessary for a thread title in science. ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.*** Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

I was amazed to discover this silly error by someone named grmorton:

He wrote, "These are now categorized as Homo erectus, not as monkeys and apes as these two gentlemen erroneously claim."

They didn't actually make any such claim as a *careful* check of the quotations provided by grmorton himself would show. All they did was to report what others thought or believed, as an anecdote.

Good grief, if this is a harbinger of numerous silly errors by this fella, we are in for a long evening of a good many laughs.

Seriously, I am wondering whether grmorton bears animonsity towards YEC and whether it is justified. Also whether he is a real Xian.

Augustine, the article claims that experts in the field believe something they do not.

Thusly, Morton's statement is not in error. He is correct in stating that the author does not know what the proper classification is, or the author would not have cited an incorrect classification as that of the experts.

Morton's position and belief system have been hashed and rehashed repeatedly. He was once a YEC, and is no longer. I imagine he suffers the frustrations of a historian conversing with persons believing the moon landings never occured.

Slinging doubt about the authenticity of a person's Christianity around here is generally regarded very poorly by the administration and users and can get you moderated. I'd advise against it. It is generally regarded as a sign of hubris.

Originally posted by Augustine2004

I was amazed to discover this silly error by someone named grmorton:

He wrote, "These are now categorized as Homo erectus, not as monkeys and apes as these two gentlemen erroneously claim."

They didn't actually make any such claim as a *careful* check of the quotations provided by grmorton himself would show. All they did was to report what others thought or believed, as an anecdote.

The problem Augustine2004 is that I know of no anthropologists who have "... concluded that the skulls and teeeth represent the remains of monkeys or baboons that had been killed and eaten by lime quarry workers."

Thus, I am not in error as Gilgaron states so succinctly.

Seriously, I am wondering whether grmorton bears animonsity towards YEC and whether it is justified. Also whether he is a real Xian.

This idea that one can't be an old earth evolutionist and a christian at the same time alters what the Bible clearly says about salvation. It makes Jesus sayto the rich young ruler,

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him and does not believe in evolution and does not believe in an old earth, but does believe in YEC, Socrates and all that Socrates says, and does not believe in radioactive dating or distant galaxies but does beleive in the global flood and Woodmorappe's view of animals on the ark trained to take dumps on command, and whosoever gives money to AIG and ICR, but doesn't believe in any form of naturalism should not perish, but have everlasting life",

Is that what you think the bible says????? I don't.


I believe I fit the bill as a real Christian. I am a sinner saved through faith, not through works. Unless of course, you think the Bible says the above.

>>>>

Seriously, I am wondering whether grmorton bears animonsity towards YEC and whether it is justified. Also whether he is a real Xian.
>>

Glenn Morton is a Christian, a theist, as am I. We would both claim the label "creationist" if it had not already been co-opted by the gentlemen at ICR and AIG as a label for YEC.

I have known Glenn (via the internet and the ASA) for many years. Sometimes we disagree on stuff. Important stuff. That's OK -- Chriatians don't always agree on everything. Such is not in the rulebook.

Ubi Caritas

Burgy

Originally posted by burgy

>>>>

Seriously, I am wondering whether grmorton bears animonsity towards YEC and whether it is justified. Also whether he is a real Xian.
>>

Glenn Morton is a Christian, a theist, as am I. We would both claim the label "creationist" if it had not already been co-opted by the gentlemen at ICR and AIG as a label for YEC.

I have known Glenn (via the internet and the ASA) for many years. Sometimes we disagree on stuff. Important stuff. That's OK -- Chriatians don't always agree on everything. Such is not in the rulebook.

Ubi Caritas

Burgy

You may have been reading the wrong "rulebook", or else reading with blinders on.

Humans did not descend from ape like ancestors.

The flood was global and lasted over a year.

Creation was accomplished in 6 ordinary days.

All current air-breathing animals as well as humans are descended from those preserved on the Ark.

Mutations can not generate sufficient information additions to transform a hypothetical protocell into all lifeforms we see today and in the fossil record. Natural selection only weeds out the inferior, it has no creative powers.

In the light of what is known today about the complexities and marvels of lifeforms, the belief in "evolution" can only be sustained by massive government supported propaganda activities, starting in kindergarten and containing through graduate school.

But the truth is beginning to come out, thanks to the fine efforts of many private organizations such as this forum, AiG and Walt Brown's Creation Science.

(Not to mention the dedicated efforts by individuals such as Socrates and others)

Originally posted by Socratism

In the light of what is known today about the complexities and marvels of lifeforms, the belief in "evolution" can only be sustained by massive government supported propaganda activities, starting in kindergarten and containing through graduate school

When your arguments fail as miserably as poor little Soccies do, then resort to conspiracy theories.

By the way, when the 'truth' does come out, be sure to tell us. ICR have been around for decades and have made no progress whatsoever.

The world still revolves, the vast majority of scientists go about their work, and you and your cult continue to plod along much to the amusement of many.

Keep living the dream Soccie!

I seem to remember that there is evidence to suggest that Neadertal fashioned some crude clothing using bone needles--but I'll need to double check. At any rate, Neandertal remains have been found with small caches of lithic tools--there is debate about how the tools were obtained. Some scientists believe they were either found, or received via contact with Archaic Homo Sapiens (who shared some of the southern territories). They definately had fire and they did build lean-to structures that were covered with animal skins. There is also some evidence of ritual burials--the dead were buried with artifacts arranged in deliberate fashion. Actually, Neandertal had a larger cranial capacity (1520 cc) than AMHSS (1350 cc)--but some scientists think this was neccessary in order to manage a larger morphology.
Here's a link:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../282/5393/1456

anthrogirl

Originally posted by Socratism

Mutations can not generate sufficient information additions to transform a hypothetical protocell into all lifeforms we see today and in the fossil record. Natural selection only weeds out the inferior, it has no creative powers.

Unsupported assertions noted.

OK - I will go on the assumption that grmorton is a real Christian. However that leads to something that puzzles me. How can grmorton believe in the Bible, especially what Jesus Christ said, and also believe that the Flood simply never happened? That the earth is billions of years old, in flat contradiction to a plain reading of Genesis? grmorton's mind may be a weird sort of hybrid, a state of affairs that simply can't last without problems for himself, for others, or both himself and others.

Does grmorton think AiG is silly to be concerned that science is or was undermining the authority of the Bible, and that this is a major factor in the until-now growing unChristianity of the world?

Don't misunderstand, let me reiterate that I think grmorton is doing a real service in bringing up all these geologic conundrums for the YEC model. What makes me concerned is that grmorton often seems to want the world to accept science as an authority *instead of the Bible's*.

If it ever happens that the world becomes totally scientific (to be more precise, materalistic or naturalistic) and so totally UNBiblical, would grmorton be happy? Well, no, I did say that I would go on the assumption that grmorton is a real Christian. Well now I can't figure it out. Maybe I need just need time to figure it out, but I think now there is a real contradiction here.

Mutations can not generate sufficient information additions to transform a hypothetical protocell into all lifeforms we see today and in the fossil record.

What is an "information addition", how much is required to transform a hypothetical protocell into all lifeforms we see today and in the fossil record, and what is the maximim/average amount that can be added by mutation?

No answer?

Of course. You just like to spew sound bites.

Originally posted by Socratism

You may have been reading the wrong "rulebook", or else reading with blinders on.

Humans did not descend from ape like ancestors.

The flood was global and lasted over a year.

Creation was accomplished in 6 ordinary days.

All current air-breathing animals as well as humans are descended from those preserved on the Ark.

Mutations can not generate sufficient information additions to transform a hypothetical protocell into all lifeforms we see today and in the fossil record. Natural selection only weeds out the inferior, it has no creative powers.

In the light of what is known today about the complexities and marvels of lifeforms, the belief in "evolution" can only be sustained by massive government supported propaganda activities, starting in kindergarten and containing through graduate school.

But the truth is beginning to come out, thanks to the fine efforts of many private organizations such as this forum, AiG and Walt Brown's Creation Science.

(Not to mention the dedicated efforts by individuals such as Socrates and others)

All your Fundamentalist interpretation, Soc.

Are you saying the Glenn, Burgy, and I aren't Christians? Come on, say it -- you're itching to.

The "truth" has been obfuscated by your ilk for the past 40 years, and yes, you've unfortunately been very successful in misleading the scientifically naive. Shame on you -- and Socrates, and Jorge, and...