Which creationist types would like to deny the following hominid discoveries exist..?

Question

So what's it going to be? Faulty dating methods, it's conspiracy, it's all made up, it's not in the bible, there are no fossils, or why aren't there still monkeys.?
Like it or not, these are most of the current classifications of hominids to date.
mya = millions of yrs ago

Sahelanthropus tchadensis [ 7-6 mya, oldest known hominid]
Orrorin tugenensis [6 mya, some bipedality]
Ardipithecus ramidus [5.8-4.4 mya, some bipedality]
Australopithecus anamensis [4.2-3.9 mya, bipedal, primitive skull/advanced body features]
Australopithecus afarensis [3.9-3 mya, bipedal, human characteristics]
Kenyanthropus platyops [3.5 mya]
Australopithecus africanus [3-2 mya, bipedal, human characteristics]
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus [2.6-2.3 mya]
Australopithecus robustus [2.5-1.5 mya, digging tools]
Australopithecus boisei [2.1-1.1 mya, unlikely ancestor]
Homo habilis [2.4-1.5 mya, human shaped brain, Broca's area implies rudimentary speach]
Homo georgicus [1.8 mya]

Homo erectus [1.8 mya-300,000 yrs ago, used fire and sophisticated stone tools, maybe better at walking than modern humans]
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor [oldest European hominid at 780,000 yrs ago]
Homo heidelbergensis [500,000-200,000yrs ago]
Homo neanderthalensis [230,000-30,000 yrs ago, oldest 'known' burial 100,000 yrs ago]
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens sapiens [modern forms first appear 195,000 yrs ago]

C'mon, give us all a laugh then. Why is this not real for you..?

I realise it's brick wall, it's just good to see these fruitcakes make complete fools of themselves with lies, ignorance and denial..

Humans are NOT more related to mice, and is another typical christian lie, Shame on you! This information says NOTHING of relatedness, this is something you have chosen to inferr..
Again, typical..!

bucnomore, that's a very hollow and ignorant argument you make, as there are still cultires around today who live as hunter gatherers, and don't use "the wheel", or go to the moon, so yeah, it DOES make sense after all doesn't it..?

Answer 1

Lets examine a few revealing comments from some of the science community. In 1982 American Paleontologists Niles eldredge and Ian Tattersall noted "it is a myth that evolutionary histories of living things are essentially a matter of discovery." If this were really true they wrote "one could confidentally expect that as more hominid species were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas if anything the opposite has occurred". In 1981 Constance Holden wrote in Science "The primary scientific evidence is a pitiful small array of bones from which to contsruct man's evolutionary history. Henry Gee chief science writer for nature is even more pessimistic. "No fossil is buried with it's birth certificate, he wrote in 1999, and the intervals of time which separate fossils is so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent." It's hard enough with written records to trace a human lineage back a few hundred years. When we only have a fragmentary fossil record and were dealing with millions of years what Gee calls the "Deep Time" - the job is effectively impossible. Gee regards each fossil as an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps. He points out for example all the evidence for human evolution between ten and five million years ago can be fitted into a small box. Thus the conventional picture of human evolution as lines of ancestry and descent is a completely human invention created after the fact and shaped with human prejudices". Gee concludes " to take a line of fossils and claim they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same weight as a bedtime story -amusing perhaps even instructive , but not scientific". I could add several more choice sources again from the evolutionary crowd in candid moments of honesty. But for the moment I think I have made a point.

Answer 2

Impressive list. Are these running parallel, branching, or in direct descent? Is there any evidence other than appearance to suggest relationship? No evidence of sahelanthropus tchadensis below the skull exists. Is orrorin tugenensis closer related to ape or human, or just the end of a distinct specy?
Scientist have rightfully included in their own definitions the problems inherent to definition. Read those.
It is the final conclusion you wish to make that is the subject of disagreement. You do not have enough scientific evidence to conclude that man evolved absent God.

Answer 3

Haven't I seen this question before? Perhaps people are getting tired of it.

Don't you know that all these are either some variation of humans (i.e. homo sapiens) or not humans at all?

Sure some of these bones are real, but some of the individual bones, in part or in whole are fabrications by artists. And then, when they are real are they complete sets? When they're not, speculations are made by scientists. Just because it was scientists who made the speculations doesn't make the speculations science any more than a plumber doing surgery, makes surgery plumbing.

Answer 4

Having access to medical cures is not accepting evolution. God gave scientist the brains to come up with the medicines and the doctors the skills to treat the sick. Evolution is the the belief that you came out of the primordial goo, crawled out as a fish, became an ape and then a man. I believe man was created from the outset.

Answer 5

So, are we the only evolutionary result of all of these and the many more that we just haven't found yet? I don't disagree with the theory of evolution, but I also think that it could be argued that the fossil record is a good documentation of an extintion of species and not necessarily evolution.

We should keep studying and and not take the Bible too literally either.

Answer 6

Of course they are in all likelihood real. Can you say for certainty that you are related to Sahelanthropus tchadensis, or Orrorin tugenensis? Remember previous claims about modern humans being related to Neanderthals which has been proven to be false. And what about genetic DNA similarities between humans and chimpanzees? Why do modern humans have more DNA in common with mice than chimpanzees? Are you a man or a mouse?

Answer 7

Homo sapiens sapiens [modern forms first appear 195,000 yrs ago]....

ok lets use some common sense.... so man has been around 195000 years yous say... the Great Pyramid of Giza was built around 2500 BC and as we know it was built without the use of pulleys, wheels, or iron tools.(not yet invented) So... you're saying after 190,000 years man couldn't figure out how to make a wheel or a pulley...BUT from 2500 bc - the present .... in just 4500 years.. we went from wheel less and not even thinking to make a damn pulley to having the technology to fly to mars and send probes around the solar system, internet, medicine, nuclear fission, super computers, ect.......


yeahhh that makes sense......

Answer 8

You're going to hit a brick wall. The more open minded creationists are just going to say that they were all different created species that were unrelated to humans.


Add: As an anthropologist I've had this debate before.

Answer 9

show us how smart you are and come up with a different question