Why can't creation scientists tell the difference

[McCulloch]

Comparison of Skulls
Jim Foley asks a good question. Creationists, assert that apes and humans are separated by a wide gap. If this is true, deciding on which side of that gap individual fossils lie should be trivially easy. Why is it that the "Creation Scientists" cannot agree on which skulls belong to apes and which ones belong to humans?
KNM-ER 1813, Homo habilis considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) Mehlert (1996) Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) Gish (1979) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be ape.
Java Man, Pithecanthropus I, Homo erectus considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) Gish (1979) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) to be ape and by Mehlert
(1996) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be human.
Peking Man, Homo erectus (was Sinanthropus pekinensis) considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) and Gish (1979) to be ape and by Mehlert (1996) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be human.
Homo habilis (or Homo rudolfensis) considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) and Mehlert (1996) to be ape and by Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) Gish (1979) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be human.
Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster) and Turkana Boy", Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster) both considered to be ape by Cuozzo (1998) and human by the rest of the gang.

[jcrawford]

Comparison of Skulls
Jim Foley asks a good question. Creationists, assert that apes and humans are separated by a wide gap. If this is true, deciding on which side of that gap individual fossils lie should be trivially easy. Why is it that the "Creation Scientists" cannot agree on which skulls belong to apes and which ones belong to humans?
KNM-ER 1813, Homo habilis considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) Mehlert (1996) Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) Gish (1979) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be ape.
Java Man, Pithecanthropus I, Homo erectus considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) Gish (1979) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) to be ape and by Mehlert
(1996) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be human.
Peking Man, Homo erectus (was Sinanthropus pekinensis) considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) and Gish (1979) to be ape and by Mehlert (1996) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be human.
Homo habilis (or Homo rudolfensis) considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) and Mehlert (1996) to be ape and by Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) Gish (1979) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be human.
Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster) and Turkana Boy", Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster) both considered to be ape by Cuozzo (1998) and human by the rest of the gang.

Since Lubenow correctly identifies all the skull fossils, do you think that KNM-ER 1813 is human or ape?

Failure to correctly identify KNM-ER 1813 as human or ape may rank you as the rankest of amateur paleoanthropoligists.

[juliod]

Since Lubenow correctly identifies all the skull fossils

But then why don't the other creationists agree with him? Isn't there sufficient evidence for the creationists to make a reasonable determination? Especially since the creationist explanation of species and fossils in much much simpler than the scientific one.

Specifically, why does Lubenow differ from Gish (1985)? Which do you consider to be more correct?

DanZ

[McCulloch]

Since Lubenow correctly identifies all the skull fossils, do you think that KNM-ER 1813 is human or ape?

Failure to correctly identify KNM-ER 1813 as human or ape may rank you as the rankest of amateur paleoanthropoligists.

I am not even an amateur paleoanthopoligist. Paleoanthopolgy like auto repair is beyond my current expertise. I defer to the acknowledged experts in these fields. I have yet to see that Lubenow has been acknowledged to be one of those experts. Why is it that I am not surprised that jcrawford completely agrees with Lubenow against the other creationists? Perhaps he could point out why Lubenow is correct and the others were wrong.
My point was that if the creation scientists were correct, distinguishing between humans and other apes would be obvious and one would not expect such a diversity of opinion regarding the identification of these skulls.

[AlAyeti]

Doesn't diversity of opinion denote an open mind?

The biggest problem in dealing with the majority of "freethinkers-atheists-humanists-etc-etc . . ." is their rigid stance on everything.

Now, dinosaurs are birds. When, as a child and student, I was taught they were big lizards.

So, can't argument be engaged without perfidy? Intelligent Design is logical seeing the complexity of our observable world, and especially the unseen world.

It appears from evidence, that Creation Scientists should be the norm. But alas, open-mindedness is not yet allowable to a certain clique at school.

[palmera]

It appears from evidence, that Creation Scientists should be the norm. But alas, open-mindedness is not yet allowable to a certain clique at school.

Creation scientists are the ones with the closed minds Al. While the vast majority of scientists are constantly searching through the many possibilities of ideas to explain our existence and our reality, creation scientists are only looking for proof to fit their beliefs. They are "doing science" having already decided on an answer. This is the very essence of narrow mindedness. Scientific theorems must be falsifiable, and allow for predictions to be made- creation scientists cannot meet these two basic criteria because their answer is God, and their predictions come from the Bible. This is not science, and it is not open-minded. How can you state that real scientists are close-minded? What possible argument do you have? Creation Scientists are a reactionary branch of scientists bent on maintaining their religious belief that the world was created by the God of the Old Testament- they are not searching, probing the depths of the earth for clues about this world we live in, they've already decided on it. How is this open-minded? Open to God? Most scientist are, just not in the lab. Most scientists don't have a problem with doing good science and being religious. God for them is beyond the creation stories of the Old Testament, and God's creation is more to them than what is told in the OT. Close minded? I think not.

[McCulloch]

Doesn't diversity of opinion denote an open mind?

AlAyeti seems to miss the point. Diversity of opinion among objective observers of some phenomena denotes that the point under discussion has not yet been resolved. This is a good thing in science. The point is that the creation scientists are saying that the issue is clearly resolved, humans are not apes but then have a diversity of opinion as to which skulls are human and which are apes. One would not expect such a diversity in a clearly resolved issue.

The biggest problem in dealing with the majority of "freethinkers-atheists-humanists-etc-etc . . ." is their rigid stance on everything.

I just finished reading two opposing views about race in the same issue of Skeptic. No, the biggest problem with dealing with certain creationists is that they unfairly and incorrectly classify skeptics and freethinkers as having a rigid views.

Now, dinosaurs are birds. When, as a child and student, I was taught they were big lizards.

Unlike religion, science progresses in its understanding.

[QED]

Failure to correctly identify KNM-ER 1813 as human or ape may rank you as the rankest of amateur paleoanthropoligists.

That's a good point. Now all we need is an authoritative identification and we can sort out the amateurs from the pros. Perhaps the Smithsonian Institute might be a starting point?

[jcrawford]

Since Lubenow correctly identifies all the skull fossils

But then why don't the other creationists agree with him? Isn't there sufficient evidence for the creationists to make a reasonable determination? Especially since the creationist explanation of species and fossils in much much simpler than the scientific one.

Specifically, why does Lubenow differ from Gish (1985)? Which do you consider to be more correct?

DanZ

Creationists have differed in their opinions as much as the African Eve and Multi-regional Continuity neo-Darwinst theorists contiinue to differ in their opinions about the the human fossil record and how to interpret it.

Gish retired earlier this year and Lubenow's 2004 publication of "Bones of Contention" with it's scientific documentation of 371 human fossils and over 1000 scientific quotes, notations and references makes Lubenow the modern creationist expert on the human fossil record.

How else would I know for sure that KNM-ER 1813 is an ape fossil and doesn't belong under the genus and species of Homo sapiens?

[jcrawford]

Paleoanthopolgy like auto repair is beyond my current expertise. I defer to the acknowledged experts in these fields.

Being neither an expert auto mechanic or paleoanthropologist, I too rely and depend on the "experts" in these fields. That's why I appreciate Lubenow's scholarly 35 year study and assessment of the fossils of our human ancestors. He scientifically documents (over 1000 scientific notations, footnotes and references) what the paleoanthropologists have unearthed to date (specific details on 371 human fossils) and clearly demonstrates that neo-Darwinsts are at odds with themselves on how to account for the incredible diversity and racial variation within the human fossil record to date.

I have yet to see that Lubenow has been acknowledged to be one of those experts.

How could you possibly acknowledge Lubenow's expertise when you haven't even read his book? What are you waiting for? Neo-Darwinists to give you the go-ahead? Of course they discredit him. Wouldn't you if he called your theories racist?

Why is it that I am not surprised that jcrawford completely agrees with Lubenow against the other creationists? Perhaps he could point out why Lubenow is correct and the others were wrong.

I just did. I pointed out that only Lubenow was completely correct in his assessment of the fossils presented. What do you think KNM-ER 1813 represents? An ape or human fossil? Better yet, what do you think neo-Darwinist race theorists classify KNM-ER 1813 as? An ape or human fossil?

My point was that if the creation scientists were correct, distinguishing between humans and other apes would be obvious and one would not expect such a diversity of opinion regarding the identification of these skulls.

Your "point" is well put and taken in view of the factual evidence that most neo-Darwinist theorists and their followers don't seem able to differentiate between the first African people on earth and some ancestral species of non-human African apes.