What is the Creationist view on early hominids?

Ok.

I've never seen creationists try to address this one, and I've also never seen people pose this idea to creationists, for that matter. But, I've thought about this from time to time.

How do creationists explain hominids like H. erectus, H. ergaster, and H. neanderthalensis? What about A. afarensis, A. africanus, or A. robustus? These are just a few examples of non-H. sapiens hominids, but you get the idea.

hmmmm... that is a good point ... now let me see ....

Creation Science (per Arkansas)

Definition of Creation-Science in the Arkansas law #590:

The act contains in Section 4(a), the following definition:

" 'Creation-science' means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:

1. Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing;
2. The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;
3. Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals;
4. Separate ancestry for man and apes;
5. Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and
6. A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds."

www.religioustolerance.org...


... or do you mean the traditional "Creationist" definition?

Creationism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Creationist)
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the Abrahamic belief; creationism can also refer to origin beliefs in general or, centuries earlier, to an alternative to traducianism.

Creationism or creation theology is the belief that humans, life, the Earth, and the universe were created by a supreme being or deity's supernatural intervention. The intervention may be seen either as an act of creation from nothing (ex nihilo) or the emergence of order from pre-existing chaos.

en.wikipedia.org...

Hopefully these definitions will help to minimize confusion and or miscomunication ... by acting as "starting points of common reference".

LCKob

mod edit and added link:
Please Review this thread -- Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**




[edit on 13-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

From what I have seen, there are a few different sorts of replies. The most disingenious, besides 'they're fakes made by the devil or god to test our faith', is that they aren't anything at all, that they are just chimps and malformed men, that they're not even slightly unusual chimps, etc.

Often, another thing put forward, is that they aren't real, that they are frauds.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Ok.

I've never seen creationists try to address this one, and I've also never seen people pose this idea to creationists, for that matter. But, I've thought about this from time to time.

How do creationists explain hominids like H. erectus, H. ergaster, and H. neanderthalensis? What about A. afarensis, A. africanus, or A. robustus? These are just a few examples of non-H. sapiens hominids, but you get the idea.

Hmmm... how about looking at a Creationist site... seems like it might be the best place to start, don't you think? Then you wouldn't have to ask... you could find out for yourself... firsthand... imagine that.

For example searching the ICR's website using the term "erectus" yields 17 hits. And it took me a grand total of 3 minutes, including the google search using the term "creation science."

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by truthseeka
Ok.

I've never seen creationists try to address this one, and I've also never seen people pose this idea to creationists, for that matter. But, I've thought about this from time to time.

How do creationists explain hominids like H. erectus, H. ergaster, and H. neanderthalensis? What about A. afarensis, A. africanus, or A. robustus? These are just a few examples of non-H. sapiens hominids, but you get the idea.

Hmmm... how about looking at a Creationist site... seems like it might be the best place to start, don't you think? Then you wouldn't have to ask... you could find out for yourself... firsthand... imagine that.

For example searching the ICR's website using the term "erectus" yields 17 hits. And it took me a grand total of 3 minutes, including the google search using the term "creation science."

Looking at sites is of course a logical course of action, but within the context of a thread topic ... somewhat self defeating. After all, boards are for intellectual interaction by means of the typed word. So while your point is valid in terms of basic information gathering, it lacks to take into account the motivation one has for going to forums and boards in the first place ... which is to "meet minds" over the internet. Sites are fine as static sources of info ... but cannot compare IMO with the interaction with a reasoning mind.

LCKob

Originally posted by LCKob
Looking at sites is of course a logical course of action, but within the context of a thread topic ... somewhat self defeating.

Yeah, well generally when I look for information about a topic, I don't start with a thread on an anonymous forum. I start with the source.

If you were interested in the evolutionary perspective on hominid evolution, what would be the most logical place to find good scientific information? Probably not an anonymous conspiracy forum on the internet.

If one is truly interested in discussing a topic, they inform themselves first, and then discuss specifics. If the author of this thread had actually taken the time to read what the creationist perspective about hominids actually is, thought about it, and posted something like "I've considered the creationist perspective on hominid evolution from sources x, y, and z. Source x states this which I believe to believe to be invalid for reasons 1, 2, and 3. Source y states the following, which I believe to invalid for reasons 4, 5, and 6." and so on, it might have made for a good discussion. Instead there's not much room for discussion. The thread can be answered by stating the creationist perspective is the following. How does that lead to discussion?

After all, boards are for intellectual interaction by means of the typed word. So while your point is valid in terms of basic information gathering, it lacks to take into account the motivation one has for going to forums and boards in the first place ... which is to "meet minds" over the internet. Sites are fine as static sources of info ... but cannot compare IMO with the interaction with a reasoning mind.

I agree with your perspective about what boards are for. However, don't believe that boards are for basic information gathering; Google is for finding sources of basic information, the site I linked IS a source of basic information, and ATS is a forum to discuss said basic information.

Otherwise, the board just gets cluttered with posts from people who are too lazy to type in www.google.com; followed by "creation science evolution man," or something similar, actually follow the links, and read the info. People, for some reason that I can't fathom, would rather be spoonfed information. People would rather go to ATS, and type "Hey what's the deal with this?" as opposed to actually reading something for themselves.

The best possible source of reliable information about a topic is from the horses mouth so to speak, not anonymous internet forums.

mattison0922

Yeah, well generally when I look for information about a topic, I don't start with a thread on an anonymous forum. I start with the source.

LCKob:

Actually so do I ... but thats just me, as the saying goes, it takes all kinds.

mattison0922

If you were interested in the evolutionary perspective on hominid evolution, what would be the most logical place to find good scientific information? Probably not an anonymous conspiracy forum on the internet.

LCKob:

True, from a purely academic standpoint, but like bars, clubs, social gatherings... and forums ... are to some degree acts of socialization (if remote and electronically detached). ... after all if one were to do the absolutely effecient thing in info gathering ... there really would not be much point to the internet as it has developed.

mattison0922:

If one is truly interested in discussing a topic, they inform themselves first, and then discuss specifics. If the author of this thread had actually taken the time to read what the creationist perspective about hominids actually is, thought about it, and posted something like "I've considered the creationist perspective on hominid evolution from sources x, y, and z. Source x states this which I believe to believe to be invalid for reasons 1, 2, and 3. Source y states the following, which I believe to invalid for reasons 4, 5, and 6." and so on, it might have made for a good discussion. Instead there's not much room for discussion. The thread can be answered by stating the creationist perspective is the following. How does that lead to discussion?

LCKob:

A reasonable approach and commendable for its direct and organized theme ... yet, I would not dismiss a question out of hand for being passive or open ended ... IMO it deserves a chance to develop or unfold as the originator intends ... I for my part, merely attempted to "nudge" it along in hopes of conceptual fruition...

mattison0922:

I agree with your perspective about what boards are for. However, don't believe that boards are for basic information gathering; Google is for finding sources of basic information, the site I linked IS a source of basic information, and ATS is a forum to discuss said basic information.

LCKob:

I should qualify what I mean by information gathering ... I think I implied it, but was not express in my definition ... which is namely the information gathering in the "academic" sense and such gathering in a semi social setting ... for which I contend that forums can be either ... depending on the participants and the general intellectual climate.

mattison0922:

Otherwise, the board just gets cluttered with posts from people who are too lazy to type in www.google.com; followed by "creation science evolution man," or something similar, actually follow the links, and read the info. People, for some reason that I can't fathom, would rather be spoonfed information. People would rather go to ATS, and type "Hey what's the deal with this?" as opposed to actually reading something for themselves.

LCKob:

True, it is less than efficient, but then again so is dating, small talk and gossip ... and the forums at times incorporates all three and more ...

mattison0922:

The best possible source of reliable information about a topic is from the horses mouth so to speak, not anonymous internet forums.

LCKob:

I agree within the context of strict and academic/scientific assessement paradigm ... but would you not agree that forums such as those found on ATS (and elsewhere) ... tolerate a reasonably liberal policy on "thought exchange" ... out of the simple expediency of freedom of thought and expression (within reason)?






[edit on 12-1-2006 by LCKob]

Originally posted by LCKob

Actually so do I ... but thats just me, as the saying goes, it takes all kinds.
[snip]

True, [snip]

A reasonable approach and commendable for its direct and organized theme... ... yet, I would not dismiss a question out of hand for being passive or open ended ... IMO it deserves a chance to develop or unfold as the originator intends ... I for my part, merely attempted to "nudge" it along in hopes of conceptual fruition...

Okay, then thus far we are in agreement. I don't think I dismissed the question for being open ended. I don't think I dismissed it all. In fact, I think I responded in a totally appropriate fashion. In fact given the question:

How do creationists explain hominids like H. erectus, H. ergaster, and H. neanderthalensis? What about A. afarensis, A. africanus, or A. robustus? These are just a few examples of non-H. sapiens hominids, but you get the idea.

I think that stating

how about looking at a Creationist site... seems like it might be the best place to start

followed by:

For example searching the ICR's website using the term "erectus" yields 17 hits.

seems like a great answer.

Plus the included links not only provides the author with the infomation they asked for, but further demonstrates a way in which they might find the answer for themselves in the future.

I should qualify what I mean by information gathering ... I think I implied it, but was not express in my definition ... which is namely the information gathering in the "academic" sense and such gathering in a semi social setting ... for which I contend that forums can be either ... depending on the participants and the general intellectual climate.

Okay... I see your point. I my personal opinion, the internet - especially in anonymous discussion forums is not a typical social setting. To my knowledge there certainly is no consensus opinion. Perhaps this is part of the difficulty. However, in my own mind: The internet is a great information gathering resource; hence my earlier reference to google. However, IMO, the discussion forums are places to post ideas, theories, whatever you've heard or otherwise explored.

Like I said before, if the discussion forums were based on people saying "Hey guys what's the deal with air conditioners, how do they work?" there'd be little discussion. Since the question does begin with How it is an open ended question in a technical sense, however, it really lacks the ability to progress further on its own, as you pointed out:

I for my part, merely attempted to "nudge" it along in hopes of conceptual fruition

A well formulated discussion topic is not generally in need of 'nudging to conceptual fruition,' at least that's what I think.

True, it is less than efficient, but then again so is dating, small talk and gossip ... and the forums at times incorporates all three and more ...

Sorry, but I don't think the O & C Conspiracy forum is the appropriate place for any of these things.

I agree within the context of strict and academic/scientific assessement paradigm ... but would you not agree that forums such as those found on ATS (and elsewhere) ... tolerate a reasonably liberal policy on "thought exchange" ... out of the simple expediency of freedom of thought and expression (within reason)?

I certainly would agree. I just think it would make things easier if concepts were well thought out, reasonably planned, and had some sort of direction from the beginning. I don't haunt too many forums, but for examples of what I am saying, I would look for threads authored by soficrow in particular, and Rren. Note that I am not saying I agree with those two on all issues, rather that their threads are lucid, well thought out, and generally lead to good discussion.

So far in this thread the only thing that's really been discussed is the ethics of thread authorship.

By the way, speaking of thead authorship, have you heard of BBCode? It makes your posts easier to follow.






[edit on 12-1-2006 by LCKob]

In fact, I think I responded in a totally appropriate fashion. In fact given the question: quote: How do creationists explain hominids like H. erectus, H. ergaster, and H. neanderthalensis? What about A. afarensis, A. africanus, or A. robustus? These are just a few examples of non-H. sapiens hominids, but you get the idea.
I think that stating quote: how about looking at a Creationist site... seems like it might be the best place to start
followed by:
quote: For example searching the ICR's website using the term "erectus" yields 17 hits. seems like a great answer.

Hmm, okay, well, here's how you ACTUALLY responded:

Hmmm... how about looking at a Creationist site... seems like it might be the best place to start, don't you think? Then you wouldn't have to ask... you could find out for yourself... firsthand... imagine that.

For example searching the ICR's website using the term "erectus" yields 17 hits. And it took me a grand total of 3 minutes, including the google search using the term "creation science."

Funny, you took out the biting cynicism in YOUR version of your reply...ironic that you stopped the quote of yourself right at that part...

Ciao.
~MFP

mattison0922:

So far in this thread the only thing that's really been discussed is the ethics of thread authorship.

LCKob:

True, sad to say that no one responded to the question at hand ... but I am guessing it is only a matter of time ... as for BBCode ... I am aware of it ... and yes I choose not to use it. Consider this my toast to personal quirks.

.. just as yours appears to be a somewhat brusque appraisal of questioning styles not to your liking

... but like I said to each their own.

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Hmm, okay, well, here's how you ACTUALLY responded:

Hmmm... how about looking at a Creationist site... seems like it might be the best place to start, don't you think? Then you wouldn't have to ask... you could find out for yourself... firsthand... imagine that.

For example searching the ICR's website using the term "erectus" yields 17 hits. And it took me a grand total of 3 minutes, including the google search using the term "creation science."

Funny, you took out the biting cynicism in YOUR version of your reply...ironic that you stopped the quote of yourself right at that part...

Ciao.
~MFP

Funny? Hmmm.... I don't think it's funny, per se. My version of the reply? The reply stands as it was initially posted. There are not different 'versions' of the reply. What you refer to was a quote of my reply that highlighted the main jist of said reply. 'Biting cynicism' wasn't really relevant in that context. Oh and by the way 'doc,' I've read your posts, and you should be the last person addressing biting cynicism in their replies.

Originally posted by LCKob
just as yours appears to be a somewhat brusque appraisal of questioning styles not to your liking

Hmmm... I wouldn't say that a 'brusque appraisal' is necessarily my MO. Though I certainly can see how one might get this idea. This 'flavor' that you detected in my post is likely due to the post author's and my history together. We've had it out in the O & C forum before.

Originally posted by truthseeka
How do creationists explain hominids like H. erectus, H. ergaster, and H. neanderthalensis? What about A. afarensis, A. africanus, or A. robustus? These are just a few examples of non-H. sapiens hominids, but you get the idea.

I've seen one creationist idiot on this site explain Neanderthal Man away as being someone with really reeeally bad arthritis. I laughed until the twit said that they were serious. Arguing with them was like banging your head against a brick wall, and about as productive.

Thanks, Nygdan and Darkmind, for the only real responses.

Mattison, who cares if I look up a creationist site or not? I'm sure Edsinger didn't read up on evolution before he made the "evolution is false-scientific fact" thread, yet I've seen your replies all over that thread. Why should I go look at a creationist site when I can ask this question in a CREATIONISM section of ATS? Do you think everyone who supports evolution on this site is a prominent expert on the subject?

Originally posted by truthseeka
Mattison, who cares if I look up a creationist site or not?

Probably nobody. Again, if you're interested in a topic, my advice always has been, currently is, and in the foreseeable future will continue to be look it up for yourself at the source.

I'm sure Edsinger didn't read up on evolution before he made the "evolution is false-scientific fact" thread, yet I've seen your replies all over that thread.

Okay.... so? I never responded to Ed Singer. Furthermore, you'll note that EdSinger, irrespective of his particular position on the topic, composed a lucid, well put together post, addressing specific issues and his take on them. EdSingers post, without any nudging from other members has gone on for 8 pages. This clearly demonstrates that EdSingers post you refer to, and the post you started this thread with are in a different class. In one post, the author has taken the time to research and formulate a hypothesis, in the other, the author simply stated "Hey what's the deal with this? I've never seen it before," when the question could be answered much more thoroughly and from the particular perspective the author was interested in, by doing a simple search on the internet.

Why should I go look at a creationist site when I can ask this question in a CREATIONISM section of ATS?

AGAIN, so you can read the information from their perspective and evaluate it for yourself. You prefer being spoonfed information to making an effort to find out for yourself?

Do you think everyone who supports evolution on this site is a prominent expert on the subject?

Hell no!!! I'd be astonished if 5% of the people on this site that frequently post in evolution forums have read even ONE entire book about evolution. But what does that have to do with anything? One needn't be an expert on something, but IMO, if one wishes to discuss something in one of these forums, they should at least be familiar with topic on a cursory level. Otherwise, the thread turns into a lecture, not a discussion.

Well, if you call a thread that claims science disproves evolution and makes it impossible (despite the fact that the scientific community accepts evolution) is great and well thought out, I guess. Anyway, why don't you answer the question instead of telling me how to go about obtaining information? If I wanted to look it up myself, I would have done that.

BTW, I DO know how to research info for myself. Just check out my posts in the War on Terror, Other Current Events, and 9/11 Conspiracy threads.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Well, if you call a thread that claims science disproves evolution and makes it impossible (despite the fact that the scientific community accepts evolution) is great and well thought out, I guess.

His hypothesis was irrelevant. Whether or not I agree with his hypothesis is irrelevant also. What IS relevant is that he took some time, researched his topic and made an effort to post something that would spark some discussion. That's the difference.

Anyway, why don't you answer the question instead of telling me how to go about obtaining information?

Because I don't know the answer off the top of my head. For me to answer the question would involve my going and looking a bunch of stuff up, writing it down and posting it. I'm not that interested in the Creationist apologetics with respect to early man at this point though...

Furthermore, since I've been in academics... well pretty much forever now, and my training in terms of education focuses on instructing students HOW to obtain information as opposed to spoonfeeding it to them, it makes total sense that this would be my response.

If I wanted to look it up myself, I would have done that.

Hey, man... whatever floats your boat... if you prefer being told what others believe as opposed to actually finding out for yourself, then that's your loss.

BTW, I DO know how to research info for myself.

Good for you!!! It's an invaluable skill.

Cripes...He's obviously new, cut him a break and talk about what Creationists say abot early Hominids (in near real time), rather than on some 2 year old website made by nuts. Although, there will be some nuts here as well...

No wait, it's LCKob who seems to have the small ATS points, none the less, he seems to be on his side. meh.

[edit on 1/15/2006 by Arcane Demesne]

I actually have a reasonable explaination, but thanks to Darkmind reminding me I don't want to be involved in another excuse for a Christian bashing thread, I'll leave those of that ilk to stay surrounded by their wall of 'all knowing' rather than ask them to bash their heads against unexplored possibilities.

Sorry, I know it sounds weak but so does endlessly digging up any excuse for people like Darkmind to call Christians "idiots".

Hey, at least your thread might get a kick along by all those evolutionists telling us what I may be wrong to believe.

Tell you what, if they pick and disprove it, I'll admit I was wrong.

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Sorry, I know it sounds weak but so does endlessly digging up any excuse for people like Darkmind to call Christians "idiots".

I don't go around calling Christians idiots - I just like to point out the nonsensical attitudes of people who ignore the fossil record. My parents are Christians, and both believe in evolution, the fact that the world is 4.5bn years old and science in general.
I'm just a cynical atheist who places cold hard facts above faith.

go darkmind!

intelligent response to defend the atheistic worldview.

atheism, secular humanism, and science don't go around calling christianity stupid, they just don't like how it accuses people of attacking it.