Debating Creationists: Ted Holden

Ted Holden is talk.origin's most long-lived kook, having been around since around the mid-80's, I believe. Ted is not your average creationist, being more into Velikovsky-style catastrophism and some even more bizarre variants, but he hates evolution with a passion, for reasons that are unclear. Click here for Ted's view of human evolution, which is so weird that, to paraphrase physicist Wolfgang Pauli, not only isn't it right, it isn't even wrong. Ted also has a web page on Neandertals.
For your enjoyment, here is the Ted Technique for dodging awkward questions.
Sep 7, 1995, JF:
I responded to a claim of Ted's about a lack of evidence for human evolution.
Sep 7, 1995, TH:
Ted makes a flippant remark.
Sep 11, 1995, JF:
I asked my question again. No response.
Jun 4, 1996, JF:
I asked Ted to classify the hominid fossils.
Jun 4, 1996, TH:
Ted makes a flippant remark.
Jun 7, 1996, JF:
I asked my question again. No response.
Jan 14, 1997, JF:
I asked Ted about his depiction of human evolution.
Jan 15, 1997, TH:
Ted makes a flippant remark.
Jan 15, 1997, JF:
I asked my question again. No response.

Article 45293 of talk.origins:
From: jimf@vangelis.FtCollins.NCR.com (Jim Foley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,alt.christnet,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,alt.fan.splifford
Subject: Re: Discover article on our non-relatives, the neanderthals
Date: 7 Sep 1995 19:02:34 GMT
Message-ID: <42nfka$4vo@jupiter.WichitaKS.HMPD.COM>

In article <medved.810480102@access5>,
Ted Holden <medved@access5.digex.net> wrote:

>Morphology.  After us and neanderthals (and archaic homo-sapiens, 
>whatever that turns out to be), the next closest thing is terribly 
>ape-like in comparison, and the same problem arises.

Do the names "Homo erectus" and "Homo habilis" ring a bell?  They are
the next closest things to us, and they are more human-like than
apelike.  Are you claiming that the Homo erectus skeleton WT 15000 is an
ape?

Check the fossil hominids FAQ for a description of these.  There is also
a picture of WT 15000 in the archive.

--
Jim (Chris) Foley,                 jim.foley@symbios.com
Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy      Research interest:
Department of Anthropology         Primitive hominids
University of Ediacara             (Australopithecus creationistii)



Article 45396 of talk.origins:
From: medved@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,alt.christnet,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,alt.fan.splifford
Subject: Re: Discover article on our non-relatives, the neanderthals
Date: 7 Sep 1995 21:56:40 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <medved.810525358@access5>

jimf@vangelis.FtCollins.NCR.com (Jim Foley) writes:

>In article <medved.810480102@access5>,
>Ted Holden <medved@access5.digex.net> wrote:

>>Morphology.  After us and neanderthals (and archaic homo-sapiens, 
>>whatever that turns out to be), the next closest thing is terribly 
>>ape-like in comparison, and the same problem arises.

>Do the names "Homo erectus" and "Homo habilis" ring a bell?  They are
>the next closest things to us, and they are more human-like than
>apelike.  Are you claiming that the Homo erectus skeleton WT 15000 is an
>ape?

If one were to walk up to me, I'd hand him a bannanna...



Article 45982 of talk.origins:
From: jimf@vangelis.FtCollins.NCR.com (Jim Foley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,alt.christnet,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins,alt.fan.splifford
Subject: Re: Discover article on our non-relatives, the neanderthals
Date: 11 Sep 1995 18:22:20 GMT
Message-ID: <431uos$je@jupiter.WichitaKS.HMPD.COM>

In article <medved.810525358@access5>,
Ted Holden <medved@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>jimf@vangelis.FtCollins.NCR.com (Jim Foley) writes:
>
>>In article <medved.810480102@access5>,
>>Ted Holden <medved@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>
>>>Morphology.  After us and neanderthals (and archaic homo-sapiens, 
>>>whatever that turns out to be), the next closest thing is terribly 
>>>ape-like in comparison, and the same problem arises.
>
>>Do the names "Homo erectus" and "Homo habilis" ring a bell?  They are
>>the next closest things to us, and they are more human-like than
>>apelike.  Are you claiming that the Homo erectus skeleton WT 15000 is an
>>ape?
>
>If one were to walk up to me, I'd hand him a bannanna...

Your intellectual bankruptcy is showing, Ted.  Answer the question: IS
IT AN APE?  (you can even find a picture of WT 15000 in the images in
the FAQ archive)

Ted claims that the next claimed human ancestor prior to the Neandertals
(or to archaic Homo sapiens, which he hadn't heard of) was obviously
ape-like.  This is false.  Homo erectus and Homo habilis (which Ted
doesn't seem to have heard of either) are not "terribly ape-like".  It's
obvious that despite his confident assertions about the human fossil
record, Ted knows nothing about it.

--
Jim (Chris) Foley,                 jim.foley@symbios.com
Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy      Research interest:
Department of Anthropology         Primitive hominids
University of Ediacara             (Australopithecus creationistii)



Article 108907 of talk.origins:
From: jimf@vangelis.co.symbios.com (Jim Foley)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.fan.publius,alt.fan.splifford,alt.christnet,sci.bio.paleontology,alt.catastrophism
Subject: Re: Absence of Intermediates and the T.O "FAQ" system
Date: 4 Jun 1996 18:27:40 GMT
Message-ID: <4p1v6s$bp1@jupiter.ks.symbios.com>

In article <medved.833631679@access5>,
Ted Holden <medved@access5.digex.net> wrote:

>I would like to see Andrew MacRae remove his own little www page which
>attempted to make a similar case if he hasn't done so already, and I would
>like to see Brett Vickers, if he has a shred of integrity, remove Kathlene
>Hunt's FAQ/FGU from the Ediacara system and apologize to the net for its
>ever having been there.

What about the hominids FAQ?  Doesn't it deserve to get removed too?
If the fossils described in it are not transitional, could you tell us
which ones are apes and which ones are human?

--
Jim (Chris) Foley,                 jim.foley@symbios.com
Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy      Research interest:
Department of Anthropology         Primitive hominids
University of Ediacara             (Australopithecus creationistii)



Article 109454 of talk.origins:
From: medved@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.fan.publius,alt.fan.splifford,alt.christnet,sci.bio.paleontology,alt.catastrophism
Subject: Re: Absence of Intermediates and the T.O "FAQ" system
Date: 4 Jun 1996 16:25:01 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <medved.833919860@access5>

jimf@vangelis.co.symbios.com (Jim Foley) writes:

>What about the hominids FAQ?  Doesn't it deserve to get removed too?
>If the fossils described in it are not transitional, could you tell us
>which ones are apes and which ones are human?

The ones which appear to be evolutionists are apes...

Ted Holden
http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html



Article 110419 of talk.origins:
From: jimf@vangelis.co.symbios.com (Jim Foley)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.fan.publius,alt.fan.splifford,alt.christnet,sci.bio.paleontology,alt.catastrophism
Subject: Re: Absence of Intermediates and the T.O "FAQ" system
Date: 7 Jun 1996 23:07:31 GMT
Message-ID: <4pacnj$658@jupiter.ks.symbios.com>

In article <medved.833919860@access5>,
Ted Holden <medved@access5.digex.net> wrote:

>>What about the hominids FAQ?  Doesn't it deserve to get removed too?
>>If the fossils described in it are not transitional, could you tell us
>>which ones are apes and which ones are human?
>
>The ones which appear to be evolutionists are apes...

Hilarious.  Hands up, anyone, who was suckered by this transparent ploy
to distract attention from the question?  [long pause]  Sorry Ted, they
all saw through it.

Let's try again.  Since your skill at identifying human fossils is, um,
unequalled by anyone on this group (posting from talk.origins), it
should be a simple job to tell apes and humans apart.  Of the
illustrated skulls in the hominids faq, which are which?  (If you don't
want to do them all, stick to WT 15000, Java Man, Peking Man, ER 1470,
ER 1813, ER 3733, and Stw 53)

-- 
Jim (Chris) Foley,                 jim.foley@symbios.com
Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy      Research interest:
Department of Anthropology         Primitive hominids
University of Ediacara             (Australopithecus creationistii)



Article 199125 of talk.origins:
From: jimf@vangelis.co.symbios.com (Jim Foley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,alt.fan.splifford,alt.christnet,talk.origins
Subject: Re: human evolution
Date: 14 Jan 1997 23:53:04 GMT
Message-ID: <5bh690$bvm@herald.ks.symbios.com>

In article <5bau48$lv9@news4.digex.net>,
Theodore A. Holden <medved@access.digex.com> wrote:

>Again for newcomers, the evolutionary thesis in our case is
>that you are starting off with an ape-like creature 10 million
>years ago in a fang-and-claw world with 1000 - 1500 lb. 
>predators running amok all over the place, and trying to
>evolve your way to a more refined creature.

Funny, I don't recall ever reading anything like that.  Could you give
us a reference for who said this and where?

-- 
Jim (Chris) Foley,                 jim.foley@symbios.com
Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy      Research interest:
Department of Anthropology         Primitive hominids
University of Ediacara             (Australopithecus creationistii)



Article 199279 of talk.origins:
From: medved@access.digex.net (Theodore A. Holden)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,alt.fan.splifford,alt.christnet,talk.origins
Subject: Re: human evolution
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 03:34:58 GMT
Organization: DIGEX
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <5bhj3f$118@news3.digex.net>
Reply-To: medved@access.digex.com

jimf@vangelis.co.symbios.com (Jim Foley) wrote:

>>Again for newcomers, the evolutionary thesis in our case is
>>that you are starting off with an ape-like creature 10 million
>>years ago in a fang-and-claw world with 1000 - 1500 lb. 
>>predators running amok all over the place, and trying to
>>evolve your way to a more refined creature.

>Funny, I don't recall ever reading anything like that.  Could you give
>us a reference for who said this and where?

In other words, you claim to still be a neanderthal or australopithicine?

Ted Holden
http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html


                    . .                     , ,                              
 
                 ____)/                     \(____                           
 
        _,--''''',-'/(                       )\`-.`````--._                 
     ,-'       ,'  |  \       _     _       /  |  `-.      `-.             
   ,'         /    |   `._   /\\   //\   _,'   |     \        `.            
  |          |      `.    `-( ,\\_//  )-'    .'       |         |           
 ,' _,----._ |_,----._\  ____`\o'_`o/'____  /_.----._ |_,----._ `.          
 |/'        \'        `\(      \(_)/      )/'        `/        `\|
 `                      `       V V       '                      '            

                                                             
Splifford the bat says:  Always remember

    A mind is a terrible thing to waste;  especially on an evolutionist.
    Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
    doctrines.




Article 199407 of talk.origins:
From: jimf@vangelis.co.symbios.com (Jim Foley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,alt.fan.splifford,alt.christnet,talk.origins
Subject: Re: human evolution
Date: 15 Jan 1997 20:30:00 GMT
Message-ID: <5bjeo8$nhc@herald.ks.symbios.com>

In article <5bhj3f$118@news3.digex.net>,
Theodore A. Holden <medved@access.digex.com> wrote:

>jimf@vangelis.co.symbios.com (Jim Foley) wrote:
>
>>>[Ted said:]
>>>Again for newcomers, the evolutionary thesis in our case is
>>>that you are starting off with an ape-like creature 10 million
>>>years ago in a fang-and-claw world with 1000 - 1500 lb. 
>>>predators running amok all over the place, and trying to
>>>evolve your way to a more refined creature.
>
>>Funny, I don't recall ever reading anything like that.  Could you give
>>us a reference for who said this and where?
>
>In other words, you claim to still be a neanderthal or australopithicine?

I didn't claim anything.  I asked a question.  Which you didn't answer,
so I'll ask it again:

Could you give me a reference for the above depiction of human
evolution?

-- 
Jim (Chris) Foley,                 jim.foley@symbios.com
Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy      Research interest:
Department of Anthropology         Primitive hominids
University of Ediacara             (Australopithecus creationistii)
This page is part of the Fossil Hominids FAQ at the talk.origins Archive.