Kevin Dorner

More than zero. Number allowed by special creation: zero. Your point?

RufusAtticus

Really? Then why haven't you answered the questions in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000367" target="_blank">this</a> thread. You posted in the thread but I never noticed you actually responding.

-RvFvS

Ergaster

Only those who have no real notion of the scope and quantity of the hominid fossil record would actually ask for sucha "chart". It would be huge, and given the pace of discovery, it would be out of date as soon as it was published. It would be almost impossible to keep up with.

I think that most creationists really do not know what is out there. I did an up-to-date catalogue (as of 1997, anyway) of all the southern African australopithecine postcranial fossils for a paper I wrote, and that list alone (note: the list did NOT include any skull or dental fossils, or anything that was not australopithecine, or anything that was not from South Africa) included almost 150 fossils. The craniodental remains probably run into hundreds more. More material has been found since then. Add the East African australopithecine fossil record, the fossils from the various species of Homo (stuff from all over Africa, the Middle East, Eurasia, East Asia, South Asia, Australia....) and you have thousands upon thousands of individual fossils. People have better things to do with their time.

Even if this information is not all in one place, it can be found, by searching the appropriate literature. Scientists do it all the time. Anyone with enough interest and access to a decent university library can do it, if they are truly dedicated.

Flynn McKerrow

How many times do we need to say this:

The threads are locked because they have been moved to another forum! The threads are still open in their new locations.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Kevin Dorner

Sigh... it's the oldest creationist trick in the book, and randman plays it often.

C: "There are no transitional forms."
E: "OK, if I show you fossils of species A and C, and show you fossils of species B that is midway in properties... will you agree?"
C: "Fine."
E: "OK, here is one." [proceeds to show C Archaeopteryx or Pakicetus or one of the hominids or a whole series, like the cynodonts or hominids]
C: "Not good enough. I want to see the forms in between the gaps as well."
E: [proceeds to show a few more species between the gaps]
C: "Not good enough. There are still gaps. If you want me to accept, for example, hominid evolution: I will need at least ten photographs documenting the lifespan of every hominid for three million years, and a written affadavit from each one of them that they eeevolooted from something."

(The difference is that they never come out and say the last part... but this is the scope of what they require.)

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

Jesse

I may have missed some history here, but it seems like people are being a little nasty to randman. I'm guessing his point is just that the charts given don't plot every single hominid fossil every found--the reason, presumably, is that there are just too many of them, as Ergaster said. Charts that show bars, like some of the ones posted above, are generally showing the "ranges" of each species, meaning that every single fossil of that species would be dated to sometime within the bar (though I can't vouch for how up-to-date the charts above are).

Hastur

Yea, verily Jesse; you're missing some history.
Da Randster has shown at every turn to be a completely deluded troll utterly uninterested in actual debate.
The Internet is full of them and I for one, am happy to have found a spot that gives them their just due.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: He Who Must Not Be Named ]</p>

randman

Jesse, that's the way many of these folks get when you challenge their presumptions. They resort to name-calling and baseless accusations in order to silence any argument that might make sense, and show up some of their errors.
I still can't beleive the manner in which some even denied that Nebraska man and Neandethals were not used to convince/hoodwink the public.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

randman

"The key in this exercise is to study all of the relevant fossil material and to place it all on a ‘time chart’. Besides more than 300 Neandertal fossil individuals, this material includes more than 49 fossil individuals in the archaic Homo sapiens category, more than 220 fossil individuals that can properly be classified as Homo erectus, and more than 63 fossil individuals that are indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens and are dated by evolutionists from 30,000 years all the way back to 4.4 million years in the past. It is no accident that evolutionist books seldom include charts listing all of this material."

I will look more into the charge here, but I have no reason to doubt the assertions made in this article. The methodology of finding 5 independent sources of evolutionists who are in agreement over specific fossils isn't questioned, or is it?
If some of you do question the article, please then provide more than the same overview charts. Surely, this is part of graduate study to know the fossils when they were found and such. Even a few thousand fossils shouldn't be too much to have handy, especially when current theory is in so much flux as to who was the ancestor of whom.

RufusAtticus

Randman, you've said nothing we haven't heard and thouroghly refuted before. That's not what I would call challenging. If you don't believe me, check the archives.

-RvFvS