dirkduck

It loaded pretty slow for me, the server is probably pretty loaded.

Anywho, from the site:

The Illiad has stood the test of time, hail Zeus!

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Got it to work--stupid computer internet speed.

Anyhow, this one has given me a bit of a problem:

Can anyone slay this beast?

Gamer4Fire

Hmm, hurricanes, tornados, crystals, tide pools, magnetic fields, etc.

Oolon Colluphid

Funny, that. Might it be because, time and again, ‘fraud’ is precisely what it is. Have a browse round TalkOrigins. Creationist fraud is well documented.
Nope, because it’s fraud
Doesn’t tell anyone, except for talking about it in San Diego...
KNM-ER 1470 (that is, Kenya National Museum, from East Rudolf region, reference number 1470, for those who don’t know. I didn’t, till I got into all this a few years back. KNM-WT is ‘West Turkana’ as in KNM-WT 15000, ‘Turkana Boy’; OH, as in the OH24 skull, is ‘Olduvai Hominid’. And so on.) ... erm, 1470 is actually dated by evolutionists as being 1.8my. So they’re out by a whole million years, or 35%. And it’s a Homo habilis (or rudolfensis).
Please cite. And please define ‘first man’. All the textbooks I’ve seen put modern humans at only a couple of hundred thousand years max. Does this mean that this creationist considers the Broken Hill heidelbergensis, and Homo erectus, as being truly human?
Said by whom?
... a term that’s not generally been used for decades. It was given by Dubois to the Trinil fossils in 1891... and they’re normally assigned to Homo erectus these days.
Yeah, all erectus...
Oh, ho ho! 1470 is more modern than the A’piths?!

KNM-ER 1470 is skull F in the picture below. It has a cranial capacity of



For comparison, there’s two Australopithecines there too. They’re skulls B and C (STS 5, ‘Mrs Ples’, dated to 2.6my, and with a cranial capacity of 485cc, and STS 71, dated to 2.5my, and with a cranial capacity of 428cc.

Those skulls -- except first and last, which are modern -- are in chronological order.

So please define ‘more modern’!
Does it look more like N than L and M do? Does it look more like A than B and C do?

Case closed, and laughed out of court.
Sounds more than a little out of context. Given everything else Richard Leakey has said and written, I’d like the context of this before giving it any credence. In other words, till we know what Leakey was talking about, that sentence is irrelevant. (Given the already-noted tendency of creationists to simply copy what other creationists have written, without checking themselves, I’d be surprised if anyone knows where this quote came from!)

On that last matter, it seems that the list under discussion was lifted wholesale from this page, typo mistakes (“Homo Erects”) and all. Hmmm.
Erm, so the bible can explain the above pic then, can it?

Will that do, Jesus-TDC?

Cheers, Oolon

Dr.GH

Howdy.

Oolon, I think that there are a few corrections for your otherwise good post on the hominid fossils. The fossil "A" is also an Australopithecus afarensis, "B" is A. africanus. "C" could also be A. africanus. One could have the impression that the afarensis skull was not Australopithicus from your text. The cranial capasity of KNM-ER 1470 is ~750 cc.

This TalkOrigins page, Creationist arguments: Homo habilus , addresses the Leakey quote. You are quite correct that the quote was obsolete, and taken out of context.

Oh, and the KNM-ER 1470 fossil was discovered by Bernard Ngeneo, not Leakey.

Oh, the creationists cannot spell Leakey either.

mecca777

Er, yes. I know. Sarcasm and all that. There were huge numbers of good Christian folk who justified slavery on a Biblical basis; meanwhile, Darwin was a committed and vehement abolitionist. Hence my post.

On the other hand, thanks for posting a link to the most depressing thing I've read today.

RufusAtticus

Dr. GH,

Here is the actual legend to the picture. Note that A is a modern Chimp not A. afarensis.

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) 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

Oolon Colluphid

Hi Doc!
Erm, yeah, one could, since it's a P troglodytes . I do like the idea that it could be mistaken for an afarensis though!
Ah, many thanks. That's called 'leave a space to fill in after looking it up, then forgetting all about it'.

And thanks for the TO link. I should have tried there, but a Google for a chunk of the text brought up only cretinist sites .
If you say so, but Leakey led the expedition . According to the Smithsonian site at least; I'll see what Klein says tonight.
True. 'Leaky' is what their logic is.

Cheers, Oolon

Dr.GH

I must check my eyes. Thanks.

Contrast this A. afarensis

For some reason, I recalled that afarensis has a post orbital suculus. Oh Well!

Oolon Colluphid

Hmmm. Have now read the link.... and am still none the wiser about the actual source of the Leakey quote. But this bit of TO explains how 1470 came to be on the cretinists' list: 1470 was originally announced as being c 3my, and our cretinists are still behind the times.

I'll check what Klein has to say about the dating methods of it too... if I ever go home tonight (now 5.30pm, still in the office...)

Cheers, Oolon