Remarkably complete’ 3.8-million-year-old cranium of human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia

[dad]

You were doing so well and now you break The Ninth again.

You plead the fifth, rather than address issues.

 

[Audie]

Negative reinforcement?

?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You plead the fifth, rather than address issues.

I have and will continue to address the issues. The problem is that you limit yourself to an elementary school level of scientific literacy. But you need to meet me part way. You need to learn what is and what is not evidence so that you can recognize evidence when it is presented to you.

 

[Audie]

I have and will continue to address the issues. The problem is that you limit yourself to an elementary school level of scientific literacy. But you need to meet me part way. You need to learn what is and what is not evidence so that you can recognize evidence when it is presented to you.

You could get off this "evidence" thing. It never
ever has worked and never will.

FOR ONE THING, "evidence' comes in many forms,
including the plausible, feasible and specious. The
fake, the....

THEN TOO, the creo-way is always SEDI.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

?

Tarnation. If I have to explain it, then it wasn't that funny.

I was just offering up an explanation of how creationist believe they know more than experts and alluded that the state is achieved through the negative reinforcement of the fact they are constantly reminded that they know practically nothing about science.

 

[nPeace]

I seriously doubt if you would let yourself understand.

Ha Ha

 

[Audie]

Tarnation. If I have to explain it, then it wasn't that funny.

I was just offering up an explanation of how creationist believe they know more than experts and alluded that the state is achieved through the negative reinforcement of the fact they are constantly reminded that they know practically nothing about science.

oh

 

[Dan From Smithville]

oh

To obscure I guess. Shucks.

 

[Jose Fly]

I was particularly intrigued by the announcement that variation is the result of adaptation. Here, all these years, I have been following the evidence that indicates that variation leads to adaptation through natural selection.

Reminds me of THIS THREAD I started to address that very subject with our resident JWs. The end result? They just bailed.

Based on that gem, I do not know how anyone can claim that JW's do not know science well enough to reject it.

It reminds me of a poem by Dixon Lanier Merritt.

A wonderful bird is the Pelican. Her beak can hold more than her head can. She can hold in her beak, enough words for a week! But I'll be darned if I know how she knows anything about evolution?

Love it!

 

[Audie]

To obscure I guess. Shucks.

You want to hear a pirate joke?

 

[nPeace]

And once again, we know the basics that planets form out of the clouds of gas and dust that we can see around other stars. We don't know the specific mechanisms.

So no papers. Opinion noted.
As for how they form. You don't know that either. Cool.
So you made an issue for what reason again?
The videos were just made up stories.

Well, the difference is that htese are also the opinions of those who have studied the archeology and history of the relevant areas. The first few books of the Bible were written late and are more accurate descriptors of the time just before the Babylonian captivity than they are of earlier times. Pretty much anything they say about times prior to about 900BC is pretty unreliable.

I do not understand what you are trying to say. Honest to God.

You see the difference between opinions is that some are backed by evidence and reason while other are backed by denial and obfuscation.

Agreed.

Each adjustment adding another decimal place to the accuracy. The theories that have been discarded as unsupported by the evidence are not resurrected.

Yes, one theory gets things right to 3 decimal places. The next to 4, and the next to 5. That seems like progress to me. We go from general ideas to more and more specifics and details.

Another pipe dream. Some so love those pipes.
I don't want to repeat myself, or dig up pages to no avail... So I won't
As the Messiah said, "It is written".

OK, so we *can* know about events in the past. How about another question.

Which is more reliable, physical evidence or eyewitness testimony?

Why. You can easily answer that.
You find a straw hat hooked to a wire mesh, at the bottom of the ocean. To whom does it belong.

An eyewitness told you that a close friend of his lost a straw hat, while fishing off the coast of...

I think the answer is obvious.
One can have physical evidence, and guesswork to go with it. It means nothing.
It is sufficient to have reasonable confidence in a writer’s general trustworthiness; if that is established, there is an a priori likelihood that his details are true. . .

So, most of the things you say are 'assumptions' are actually *conclusions* based on the science tested in the labs via experiments.

No. Their are conclusions based on assumptions and extrapolations.
For example... the experments done with various "species" reproducing to produce the same kind, and those results extrapolated to give evidence for a theory that "given time - [GALLERY=media, 8725]Macroequation by nPeace posted Nov 16, 2018 at 6:22 PM[/GALLERY]

Except that you haven't shown why the *conclusions* (not just assumptions) are invalid.

I did.. many many times. In fact, we did - as in those who are not too cowardly to admit that the theory has no solid supporting evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ha Ha

I was dead serious. Do you think that you are brave enough to learn?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Humans "come from" hominins.
Humans are hominins, the last ones left.
Humans didn't come from apes or chimpanzees. No-one says that.

Actually since humans are apes almost all biologists say that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Spammers should mot tell honest poster to watch anything.

You are not fooling anyone. Try again.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In your religion, yes.

What religion is that? Do tell me, because as far as I know I'm very neutral and apathetic towards religion, defaulting to my vast ignorance rather than pretending to have answers. So, do tell me, what is my religion because apparently I don't know myself but you seem to have some insight that let's you know.

 

[Polymath257]

So no papers. Opinion noted.

About which specifics of the process do you want papers?

We know of locations where stars are forming currently.
We know of stars with proto-planetary disks around them.
We know of other stars with actual planets.
The terrestrial planets and moons in our own solar system show the results of collisions.
We have asteroids in our own solar system that show evidence of having come from a common larger body that was broken up.

So the basics: that planets for by accretion starting with small rocks and building up to planets is pretty secure.

The details of how those collsions do their job is not known as well. It is both harder to get the necessary data and harder to model.

As for how they form. You don't know that either. Cool.

See above.

So you made an issue for what reason again?
The videos were just made up stories.

No, the videos give our current understanding and what we hope to learn from the next generation of telescopes and probes.

I do not understand what you are trying to say. Honest to God.

I am saying that the Bible was written late (around 5-600BC) and shows knowledge of the cities and people from that time with very little knowledge of the cities and people from earlier times *as shown by the archeology*. It was written as propaganda by the southern kingdom

Why. You can easily answer that.
You find a straw hat hooked to a wire mesh, at the bottom of the ocean. To whom does it belong.

An eyewitness told you that a close friend of his lost a straw hat, while fishing off the coast of...

I think the answer is obvious.
One can have physical evidence, and guesswork to go with it. It means nothing.
It is sufficient to have reasonable confidence in a writer’s general trustworthiness; if that is established, there is an a priori likelihood that his details are true. . .

And then, suppose that the hat had hairs that were NOT of the type that the friend has. Suppose that, instead, the hairs are similar to those of another person in the village. Which would win, the physical evidence or the testimony?

I hope you agree that the physical evidence would win.


No. Their are conclusions based on assumptions and extrapolations.
For example... the experments done with various "species" reproducing to produce the same kind, and those results extrapolated to give evidence for a theory that "given time - [GALLERY=media, 8725]Macroequation by nPeace posted Nov 16, 2018 at 6:22 PM[/GALLERY][/QUOTE]

I get an error when trying to view this link.

I did.. many many times. In fact, we did - as in those who are not too cowardly to admit that the theory has no solid supporting evidence.

But the theory does, in fact, have solid supporting evidence. You just choose to dismiss it without good reason.

 

[nPeace]

About which specifics of the process do you want papers?

We know of locations where stars are forming currently.
We know of stars with proto-planetary disks around them.
We know of other stars with actual planets.

We were discussing planets, weren't we? Then these are irrelevant.
Was there a particular reason you mentioned stars?

The terrestrial planets and moons in our own solar system show the results of collisions.

So? Oh. Here comes the speculations.
They are not relevant in this argument.

We have asteroids in our own solar system that show evidence of having come from a common larger body that was broken up.

So? What does that have to do with planet formation?

So the basics: that planets for by accretion starting with small rocks and building up to planets is pretty secure.

Wow. You gave me nothing, and then continue with 'So'.
Assumptions.

The details of how those collsions do their job is not known as well. It is both harder to get the necessary data and harder to model.

Well Columbus.
So we don't know how planets are formed.
Getting a simple, "Admittedly..." seems to be like pulling molars.
What is wrong with agreeing with those who disagree with you?
You only wind up prolonging the obvious.

Suppose we stop circling needlessly.
Direct question - Do we know how planets are formed? Yes or No.

See above.

There's nothing useful there.

No, the videos give our current understanding and what we hope to learn from the next generation of telescopes and probes.

Yes, the current assumptions. I see that.
Let's wait till the next generation then.

I am saying that the Bible was written late (around 5-600BC) and shows knowledge of the cities and people from that time with very little knowledge of the cities and people from earlier times *as shown by the archeology*. It was written as propaganda by the southern kingdom

Wow, thanks. That's much better.
First, the Bible is not just a few book, so I am going to assume you probably are referring to the Torah (correct me if I am wrong).
Please...
By what method(s) was it arrived at, that the Torah was written "late (around 5-600BC)", and what archaeological findings show this?
If you prefer I search that information, let me know, and I will get back to you.
It would be better, imo, if you put it here, since it is the view you have accepted.

And then, suppose that the hat had hairs that were NOT of the type that the friend has. Suppose that, instead, the hairs are similar to those of another person in the village. Which would win, the physical evidence or the testimony?

Now you are making up evidence, and finding evidence.
I could do the same. What if... What if.... What if there are no hairs found? What if hairs are found one, two, three... six meters away? What if...
That was not you original question.
So no.

I hope you agree that the physical evidence would win.

No. If you conveniently create your own scene, then you are not doing science.
The theory of evolution has met many unexpected turn, and there have been tremendous collisions, and as I said before... See comments #3.

I get an error when trying to view this link.

I'm not sure why. In fact, I would have no idea. Maybe the mods can look into that.

I was saying...
No. Their are conclusions based on assumptions and extrapolations.
For example... the experiments done with various "species" reproducing to produce the same kind, and those results extrapolated to give evidence for a theory that "given time - certain events + 3.8 billion years will give us... What is macroevolution?

But the theory does, in fact, have solid supporting evidence. You just choose to dismiss it without good reason.

No it does not... and look who's talking about someone choosing to dismiss facts.
It's sad when scientists deny facts. Boy. They must have the government supporting them, because, if something is so clear, as to be undeniable, and persons with PhDs and Noble Prizes can still remain in that position, then why don't we all just forget about science.
How important is it...

 

[PruePhillip]

So we don't know how planets are formed.
Getting a simple, "Admittedly..." seems to be like pulling molars.
What is wrong with agreeing with those who disagree with you?
You only wind up prolonging the obvious.

Suppose we stop circling needlessly.
Direct question - Do we know how planets are formed? Yes or No.

One of our university professors in Melbourne, Dr Andrew Prentice,
worked for NASA for a while. He's a lovely guy, so humble and
charming. During the planning of the Voyager missions to the
planets his job was essentially to determine what NASA would find
before the probes reached each planet. (You have to know where
to steer the probes and point cameras long in advance.)
Prentice had this "supersonic turbulence" model which gave a
very indication of the composition and sizes of the moons. We
were in awe of the guy. His predictions were about 95% accurate.

The Americans now have a better model than Prentice's.
So yes, we do have a good idea of how planets form.

From a religion point of view it just says that God made the heavens
and the earth. How and when isn't the point.

 

[gnostic]

I don't know about that theory...I mean, "ape like" sure but actual apes?

Humans are apes.

Apes are not very precise, because it include humans along with chimpanzees, gorillas, etc. Ape is a umbrella term for the great apes or the family Hominidae.

But mammals are exactly precise, since humans are also mammals, just as dogs, cats, bears, cow, elephants, dolphins, whales, etc.

Apes, like mammals, tetrapods, vertebrae, etc, all umbrella terms, that also applied to humans.

 

[Polymath257]

We were discussing planets, weren't we? Then these are irrelevant.
Was there a particular reason you mentioned stars?

Because planets orbit stars and are formed at the same time as the stars form and from the same overall cloud of dust and gas. In particular, those protoplanetary disks are pretty relevant for planet formation.

So? Oh. Here comes the speculations.
They are not relevant in this argument.

Because planets are formed from exactly such collisions.

So? What does that have to do with planet formation?

They show a record of the types of collsions that also lead to planet formation.

Wow. You gave me nothing, and then continue with 'So'.
Assumptions.

Sorry if you don't see the relevance of what I wrote.

Well Columbus.
So we don't know how planets are formed.

Sorry, but that is sort of like asking if we understand atoms. At what level of detail? We understand them pretty well, but not perfectly.

Same thing with planet formation. We understand the general process, but don't understand a lot of the details. In particular, we do know when they were formed in our system. We know there was a period where they built up from collisions. We don't understand a lot of the dynamics of collisions, especially in orbit and how that affects the formation.

It just isn't a simple yes or no question.

Getting a simple, "Admittedly..." seems to be like pulling molars.
What is wrong with agreeing with those who disagree with you?
You only wind up prolonging the obvious.

Well, part of it is you ask questions as if they are binary, yes or no questions, when they are not.

Suppose we stop circling needlessly.
Direct question - Do we know how planets are formed? Yes or No.

A perfect example. At what level of detail? We understand the general
process, but not many of the details.

There's nothing useful there.

There was, but you either didn't understand it or ignored it.

Yes, the current assumptions. I see that.
Let's wait till the next generation then.

Yes, let's. We will have more detail about the whole process. And that will be a good thing. But it doesn't change when the process happened. And it doesn't change the fact that it is *completely* contrary to the Biblical picture.

Wow, thanks. That's much better.
First, the Bible is not just a few book, so I am going to assume you probably are referring to the Torah (correct me if I am wrong).
Please...
By what method(s) was it arrived at, that the Torah was written "late (around 5-600BC)", and what archaeological findings show this?
If you prefer I search that information, let me know, and I will get back to you.
It would be better, imo, if you put it here, since it is the view you have accepted.

Well, read a few Biblical archeologists, like Israel Finkelstein 'The Bible Unearthed' or William Dever 'Did God Have a Wife' (answer: yes).

Now you are making up evidence, and finding evidence.
I could do the same. What if... What if.... What if there are no hairs found? What if hairs are found one, two, three... six meters away? What if...
That was not you original question.
So no.

I'm trying to show how physical evidence is superior to witness testimony when the two conflict. And that is my point: physical evidence is always superior when it can be used to reach a conclusion. In your original scenario, it could not. So I added aspects to make it possible and to put the physical and witness aspects in conflict.

No. If you conveniently create your own scene, then you are not doing science.

I changed the *example* to be more realistic. I had asked whether physical evidence or eyewitness testimony was superior. So, we need a situation where they conflict to see which one would win.

The theory of evolution has met many unexpected turn, and there have been tremendous collisions, and as I said before... See comments #3.

Whao! I thought we were talking about planets. Now you want to talk about evolution?


I'm not sure why. In fact, I would have no idea. Maybe the mods can look into that.

I was saying...
No. Their are conclusions based on assumptions and extrapolations.
For example... the experiments done with various "species" reproducing to produce the same kind, and those results extrapolated to give evidence for a theory that "given time - certain events + 3.8 billion years will give us... What is macroevolution?
[/QUOTE]

Didn't see anything relevant there.

No it does not... and look who's talking about someone choosing to dismiss facts.
It's sad when scientists deny facts. Boy. They must have the government supporting them, because, if something is so clear, as to be undeniable, and persons with PhDs and Noble Prizes can still remain in that position, then why don't we all just forget about science.
How important is it...

Huh? You seem to think that scientists get rich off of government funds. Which is, frankly ridiculous.

What you seem to not understand is that there is *always* another level to investigate. You can always ask what happens at the next decimal place, or at the next refinement, etc. So, just because we understand that cells are chemical factories doesn't mean we understand every process in the cells. Just because we know the general physical laws doesn't mean we know what happens in every situation, especially in complex systems.

This is the way or research: every question answered leads to 10 new questions. There is *always* more to learn.