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

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nor any respect.

it seems you don't even know what a null hypothesis is then.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot once again....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you claim a same nature in the past, it is a story unless you prove it.

The null hypothesis doesn't require any proving.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The object here is not for you to express opinions about God or His word or pagan beliefs of old. Your quest is to defend the belief based claims science makes. I think that little monkey whose skull they found had more sense.

Dodgy George, dodges once more.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Name any scientific evidence you have that you think supports your models for evolution of life on earth or man. That will become my evidence probably.

Still no evidence for you claims.

Dodgy George is driving his Dodge again.

 

[dad]

The null hypothesis doesn't require any proving.

Your religion accepts your beliefs as the null hypothesis...so does mine. Ha

 

[dad]

Still no evidence for you claims.

Dodgy George is driving his Dodge again.

All evidence in and out of science agrees.

 

[SkepticThinker]

All evidence in and out of science agrees.

None of it does.

You need to produce some evidence for your extraordinary claims. Otherwise, nobody has any reason to take you seriously.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your religion accepts your beliefs as the null hypothesis...so does mine. Ha

I am an atheist. I don't follow a religion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All evidence in and out of science agrees.

Claiming it, doesn't make it so.

Still no mention of any evidence.

 

[dad]

None of it does.
.

Great, so show us something that you think disagrees?! Ha.

 

[dad]

I am an atheist. I don't follow a religion.

I am a Christian and I don't follow your religion.

 

[dad]

Claiming it, doesn't make it so.
.

If there is anything you think in science (or out) that does disagree, post it, rather than flagellating.

 

[night912]

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. . .

The answer is obvious, it's "I don't know who the hat belongs to." This is because we don't know if the "eyewitness" did actually eyewitnessed that you found a straw hat hooked to a wire mesh at the bottom of the ocean, nor does he/she said anything about that hat and/or who it belongs to. His/her testimony says nothing to indicate that. The testimony is irrelevant in this particular case, therefore it's dismissed as not evidence at all.

Exact same scenario, it's just that, no evidence was presented here.

 

[night912]

I am a Christian and I don't follow your religion.

That's surprising. I thought you follow the religion known as Christianity.

Since, TagliatelliMonster doesn't follow a religion, and Christianity is a religion. So that would make Christianity one of TagliatelliMonster's religion that he does not follow. So by you not following HIS religion that he does not follow, you too do not follow Christianity.

 

[dad]

That's surprising. I thought you follow the religion known as Christianity.

Since, TagliatelliMonster doesn't follow a religion, and Christianity is a religion. So that would make Christianity one of TagliatelliMonster's religion that he does not follow. So by you not following HIS religion that he does not follow, you too do not follow Christianity.

I don't follow origin science baloney fables beliefs falsely called science. Hope that clears it up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't follow origin science baloney fables beliefs falsely called science. Hope that clears it up.

You follow false baloney fables from a much older source. To me that makes no sense. Leave some sliced baloney in your refrigerator after taking a piece out of the package for a year and you will see why.

 

[dad]

You follow false baloney fables from a much older source. To me that makes no sense. Leave some sliced baloney in your refrigerator after taking a piece out of the package for a year and you will see why.

Sorry, not interested in your religion I have my own.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, not interested in your religion I have my own.

Religion is your failing, not mine. It is a sin to accuse others of your own shortcomings.

 

[nPeace]

The answer is obvious, it's "I don't know who the hat belongs to." This is because we don't know if the "eyewitness" did actually eyewitnessed that you found a straw hat hooked to a wire mesh at the bottom of the ocean, nor does he/she said anything about that hat and/or who it belongs to. His/her testimony says nothing to indicate that. The testimony is irrelevant in this particular case, therefore it's dismissed as not evidence at all.

Exact same scenario, it's just that, no evidence was presented here.

You didn't know to whom the hat belongs.
The eyewitness tells you to whom it belongs.
If the guy isn't dead, he can confirm the story, and identify the hat.
If he is dead, at least you have an eyewitness, and his account of what happened, as well as the person it is claimed the hat belongs to... and we have the item of interest - the hat.
The next step, is to find if there are any more witnesses.

On the other hand...
If there are no eyewitness, but just the hat, you have nothing.
The next step is to look for clues that might help you find out more about this hat.
So you start looking for the best clue - hair.
What is the likelihood that you will find hair pulled from the head of the wearer? At that point, you say a prayer.

The Bible accounts have the testimony of many witnesses, who all point to, or identify the item of interest, as belonging to one person.
Doesn't mean we have to accept that they are all telling the truth, but we can determine if they are, by a simple test.
Did they all know each other? Did they collaborate?
If the answer can be shown to be no, then there is no reason to doubt their accounts... imo

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't know to whom the hat belongs.
The eyewitness tells you to whom it belongs.
If the guy isn't dead, he can confirm the story, and identify the hat.
If he is dead, at least you have an eyewitness, and his account of what happened, as well as the person it is claimed the hat belongs to... and we have the item of interest - the hat.
The next step, is to find if there are any more witnesses.

On the other hand...
If there are no eyewitness, but just the hat, you have nothing.
The next step is to look for clues that might help you find out more about this hat.
So you start looking for the best clue - hair.
What is the likelihood that you will find hair pulled from the head of the wearer? At that point, you say a prayer.

The Bible accounts have the testimony of many witnesses, who all point to, or identify the item of interest, as belonging to one person.
Doesn't mean we have to accept that they are all telling the truth, but we can determine if they are, by a simple test.
Did they all know each other? Did they collaborate?
If the answer can be shown to be no, then there is no reason to doubt their accounts... imo

You seem to be confused about the sources for the Bible. Very little is from eyewitnesses. A good part is hearsay at best.