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

[dad]

The Hebrew Scriptures (what Christians like you would call “Old Testament”) were common knowledge among the Jews.

Just because Jesus mentioned a few things, it doesn’t mean Jesus verify anything about the scriptures.

And Jesus certainly couldn’t verify any part of the “New Testament” since these were written decades after his time.

All of the OT is about Jesus. His first coming...death, life, birth was foretold in hundreds of detailed prophesies. His next coming..to rule is also dealt with extensively.

 

[metis]

All of the OT is about Jesus.

Not really. Jesus is what we call "prefigured", but the Tanakh covers much more than just that.

 

[dad]

Not really. Jesus is what we call "prefigured", but the Tanakh covers much more than just that.

Never heard of it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not sure why you type for nothing. You'll have to take my word that I never invented creation, but rather Scripture tells us about that. As for science, well it does not cover it. If you claim it does, stop wasting words and get to it.

Absolutely nobody is suggesting you invented creation. Please stop repeating that - it has nothing to do with the point.

I type in hope that you'll someday address the point. I've explained it four times to you know, as well as another poster, and you still keep deflecting. How about YOU stop wasting my words and actually address the damn point? Why is that so hard for you?

Scripture doesn't make the error in reasoning that you did. You did that all by yourself. Stop trying to blame your failure to make a cogent, logical argument on anything/anybody other than yourself.

If you fail to address the point this time, I'll have no choice but to write you off as a joke.

 

[dad]

Absolutely nobody is suggesting you invented creation. Please stop repeating that - it has nothing to do with the point.

I type in hope that you'll someday address the point. I've explained it four times to you know, as well as another poster, and you still keep deflecting. How about YOU stop wasting my words and actually address the damn point? Why is that so hard for you?

Scripture doesn't make the error in reasoning that you did. You did that all by yourself. Stop trying to blame your failure to make a cogent, logical argument on anything/anybody other than yourself.

If you fail to address the point this time, I'll have no choice but to write you off as a joke.

What was it you thought was the point?

 

[SkepticThinker]

What was it you thought was the point?

 

[dad]

To refresh things here..remember science doesn't know. God does. He told us. Now we can know too. Science can't though because it distances itself from truth and God. Simple.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To refresh things here..remember science doesn't know. God does. He told us. Now we can know too. Science can't though because it distances itself from truth and God. Simple.

Know, you believe that God told you. The fact that you cannot support your claim does not bode well for it. Our views are supported by evidence. Yours are supported by wishful thinking.

 

[dad]

Know, you believe that God told you. The fact that you cannot support your claim does not bode well for it. Our views are supported by evidence. Yours are supported by wishful thinking.

I don't call scripture wishful thinking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't call scripture wishful thinking.

That is only because you do not know any better. The fact that you cannot support your belief makes you no different from a rabid Harry Potter fan.

 

[Deeje]

In this:

Why would we? Because of curiosity.

Curiosity would never lead me to doubt the intentions of my Creator (who is as real to me as your science mentors are to you).
Curiosity is the mother of discovery. It's a very good thing when used to uncover the hidden truths about nature and our place in it. It's the very thing that drives me to study the Bible.
But when I see science, (due to the way they interpret "evidence") coming to conclusions that essentially kill off all notion of an intelligent Creator, (because they haven't developed a "testing mechanism" for his existence) I am not going to be taken down that track because of suggestions and assumptions based on biased interpretation of said evidence. Is the evidence really supporting the conclusion...or is the conclusion forced to fit the evidence?

IMV, science in this particular area is spreading a death dealing substitute "belief" because there is no actual proof that their conclusions are accurate. I see so much suggestion used to push macro-evolution as a concept, as if it were proven fact.....but it is no such thing. You need just as much "faith" to "believe" the unprovable science as you do for an unprovable Creator.

If you exchange one "belief" system for another, then the choice between the two becomes a divider of human thinking based on what I believe is a condition of the heart. If you want God to disappear....he will.....but it will not lead anyone to the future that he has promised for those who retain their faith and belief in him despite the propaganda.

When you consider this assault on the Creator, that has been experienced just within the last 100 years, you can see a concentrated effort by God's enemy to lead people away from belief in him. It has been a concentrated campaign, gradually creating a great divide in human thinking.

There is a reason why the Bible calls this period "the last days". It is the time of separation according to scripture. A time for people to choose their position, and it was also foretold long ago that "few" would retain their faith as these assaults on God and his creation continued....you can see why.

One of the prime reasons why evolution has attracted so many followers is largely because of the equally ridiculous YEC dogmatism. It becomes a choice between what appears to be unscientific religious babble, and what is accepted as scientific fact. I don't see either position as valid. My belief is somewhere in the middle....a place where I can accept true science as well as the Bible.

Propaganda works...as history will attest. It weaves its way into a person's heart and alters their perceptions, but it is based on lies. Perception management has itself become a 'science'. Consult the political campaigners to see how it's done.
What I see happening now is simply fulfilment of prophesy.

But we are all free to come to our own conclusions. The Creator will force no one to even believe in him. That is how I see it.

 

[Astrophile]

For one thing, we humans are diverse in our thinking.
While one person may let consensus be his guide to truth, another person may not. I don't.

I asked,

What would you accept as valid evidence for evolution?

You replied,

I suppose it would be similar to what you might ask for as valid evidence for an intelligent designer.

I said that I would accept the hypothesis of intelligent design if the consensus of opinion among biologists supported it.

You are now going back on your word and are saying that you will not accept evolution if the consensus of opinion among biologists supports it.

Thanks for acknowledging that one would have to rely on the fossil record, in order to "see" evolution as having taken place.
This is where the major problem lies, imo. The fossil record shows all major life forms arriving on the scene, fully formed, and leaving the scene with little or no change.
Aside from that, are the many inferences made which basically are made to represent a hypothesis, or idea.
The problems to the theory, namely the millions of missing transitions, have been "swept under the rug", and many "band=aids put on the sores", so in my view, the theory is actually like a broken toy, fixed up to look nice for the little children to come in and buy.

Hence, I see no evidence in support of the theory. I think others only see what persons want to refer to as evidence.
Thank you.

First, I cited genetic evidence and evidence from biogeography as well as the fossil record. Second, it is not true that 'The fossil record shows all major life forms arriving on the scene, fully formed, and leaving the scene with little or no change.'

For example, Donald Prothero, in Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, mentions (pp. 287-8) the anagalids and mimotonids as Paleocene transitionals between early mammals and the first rodents and rabbits, and also says that rodents evolved into different forms so rapidly that their teeth are used as index fossils for very precise dating of sedimentary rocks.

The first bats did not use echo-location, and 'their large skulls and eyes show that they probably hunted by day using sight ... Eocene bats have many other primitive features of the skull, hands and feet that are not found in any other living bat' (ibid., p. 288).

The fossil record of the mustelids (weasels, skunks, otters, badgers, etc.) and of raccoons also shows that 'the early members of these groups ... would look nothing like their living descendants if you saw them today' (ibid., p. 290).

On pages 318-22, Prothero describes the 'amazing array of transitional whale fossils that clearly link terrestrial land mammals to full-fledged aquatic whales.' For good measure, these fossils also confirm the genetic evidence that whales are related to artiodactyls (hippopotami, pigs, cattle, camels, deer, antelopes, etc.).

I could say more, but it would take too long, and I advise you to read the book for yourself. The examples that I have cited should be enough to show both that there are many examples of transitions leading to major groups and that these groups do not exist for long periods without any change before disappearing.

 

[shunyadragon]

Almost he sole basis for your dating is a belief in a same nature in the past applied to isotope ratios. Prove there was a same nature or your dates are fantasy. There are still cyanobacteria today by the way. You whole timetable is simply faith based fantasy. Nor did I talk about anything 'sinking'?!.

There is abundant evidence that the nature of time is uniform through the whole history of the earth, ie uniform precision lake deposited lamela hundreds of thousands of years, as well as other geologic stratigraphic evidence in the sediments and geologic history of the earth. Of course, you can deny this, but you cannot provide any evidence whatsoever that the nature of time in the past is any different now, in recent history, 7000 years ago, one hundred thousand years ago, and millions of years ago.

I rely on hard geologic evidence in stratigraphy first, and not dating by radio isotopes ratios. Radio isotope ratios only make dating more accurate, and confirm dating by geologic stratigraphy.

Where is the evidence to support your assertions based on your religious beliefs?

Still waiting . . .

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@IndigoChild5559

There are scholars with another opinion.
Then within that same community, there are different opinions on the same topic. For example, some say there is archaeological evidence that confirms the Exodus. There is only disagreement on dating it, and there are different opinions on the date... along with a whole heap of other things.

I don't know your view on the Bible, but let's just suppose that you were a Bible student - that is, you thoroughly study the Bible, along with the manuscripts, archaeological finds... everything - the whole works. What position would you take?
Would you 1) go with one opinion or the other; 2) wait to see if they will ever agree, so that you can go with that; 3) go with your own opinion, which you formed based on your own study and evaluation?

If there is a consensus of scholars, I go with the consensus. If there is a divergence of opinions, I examine to see what is the cause of the disagreement and form my own opinion. I also look to see what biases and assumptions are at play -- what axes there are to grind.

In the case of the authoring of the Torah, one group is basing their opinion on tradition (that Moses wrote it) and the other is basing their opinion on a careful analysis of the texts. It seems obvious to me that the second is miles ahead of the first in terms of scholarship. The first is on par with rumor!!! It seems to me that the first group seems to believe that if Moses didn't write the Torah that it would somehow loose its authority (which is nonsense). That means they have an axe to grind and have an observation bias.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Almost he sole basis for your dating is a belief in a same nature in the past applied to isotope ratios.

Let's say for the sake of argument that there is some fluctuation. It would not effect the overall vastness of geologic time as revealed by rock strata.

Prove there was a same nature or your dates are fantasy.

Actually it's the other way around. The assumption is that because scientific laws don't change that the decay would be constant, unless you can show something that would cause interference.

There are still cyanobacteria today by the way.

So? That just means they fill a niche. But way back when, in an isolated environment, they weren't coping so well there and a mutation coped better.

No more than if we acknowledge a six year old boy is growing at, say, 2 inches a year, that he will reach the clouds in a hundred years!

This is not a good analogy. The stretch of life forms across geologic time does not include some sort of maturational process.

You realize I don't acknowledge your idea of life being drastically different before "the fall" (by which we can roughly equate mankind's coming into moral sentience). Nature was the same the day after as it was the day before.

He made the cows that make milk! He made the grass they eat. He made man that collects and packages and transports it. He made the water we drink, the air we breathe, the sun that shines on us etc etc etc. Do not mistake your blindness to God's wonders and workings with there being no God.

Sure. But none of that has any influence on whether I choose to buy milk this week. My only considerations are whether I'm out of milk or will soon be out, and whether I have enough grocery money for it. I don't consult God on the matter. God gave me the brains to figure it on my own.

That's the thing -- God gave us intelligence for a reason. He expects us to use it. Using it is not an occasion for alarm, my friend.

Of course there were they simply did not leave remains. There never were proto humans by the way, that is just part of your religious fantasy.

So all the gazillions of skeletons of Homo Erectus are just imaginary?

You need a heavy dose of reality.

 

[dad]

There is abundant evidence that the nature of time is uniform through the whole history of the earth, ie uniform precision lake deposited lamela hundreds of thousands of years, as well as other geologic stratigraphic evidence in the sediments and geologic history of the earth. Of course, you can deny this, but you cannot provide any evidence whatsoever that the nature of time in the past is any different now, in recent history, 7000 years ago, one hundred thousand years ago, and millions of years ago.

I rely on hard geologic evidence in stratigraphy first, and not dating by radio isotopes ratios. Radio isotope ratios only make dating more accurate, and confirm dating by geologic stratigraphy.

Where is the evidence to support your assertions based on your religious beliefs?

Still waiting . . .

Think about it, if nature was not as it is then layers need not form as they do!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But they are not the same processes at all.....they are assumed to be. As I said, its more based on the notion that if a little is good a lot must be better......that is not always the case.
Science has no idea what happened to produce life or how it eventually became all the living things that have ever existed. They 'assume' all of it, based on their interpretation of their evidence. When you have a pre-conceived notion about something, you make it fit. We can just as easily fit creation into the same "evidence".

Science has only promoted another creation story, but eliminating the Father God and instead crediting "Mother Nature".

Again, let's not conflate abiogenesis with evolution. It's an entirely different area. The truth is that science doesn't rally have a wonderful theory of how life came from non-life. It has some hypotheses, which it is in the process of testing. That'sall.

Evolution, which is what happened AFTER life came to be, is a proven fact. In addition, the driving forces behind evolution are what is known as the Theory of Evolution. A scientific theory is a good deal more sound than a philosophical theory -- it has an incredible amount of evidence to back it up.

But as I've said, this distingishing that creationists make between "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution is without merit. The only difference is how much time you have, aka how old the earth is, and the earth is clearly billions of years old. Life began billions of years ago. Thus "macro" evolution is what we are left with by default.

Finally, as I've stated many times, and you insist on being deaf to, science does not replace God with Mother Nature. 51% of scientists believe in God or a higher power. I offered the link to this earlier.

Really? who told you that? Moses is credited with writing the Torah. How would you prove otherwise?
There are not two creation stories.....one is in chronological order and the other is a history, only detailing the important bits, not necessarily in order.
Please provide evidence for the four authors of the Torah.
That to me is a very twisted version of events, but not surprising from the Jewish perspective.

It is TRADITION to say that Moshe wrote the Torah. Like it is tradition to say that George Washington chopped down the cherry tree.

And by the way some Jews buy into the tradition also. People often make the mistake of believing Jews are somehow monolithic when in fact we are a very diverse group. Anytime you hear "the Jews this" or "the Jews that" you can be sure it is mistaken. We don't agree on anything.

Textual criticism examines the actual Hebrew text for writing style and there are dead giveaways that there are at least four authors. We don't know their names of course, but we refer to them as J (J-hw-h writer), E (Elohim writer), D (Deuteronomy writer), and P (priestly writer).

For instance, the first story of creation, which extends from Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:3 is written by E. God is continually referred to as Elohim. Then in Genesis 2:4, when the second story of Genesis begins, God is suddenly referred to as J-hw-h. Thus it is obvious that whoever wrote the second story is a different person than the one who wrote the first story.

You can read more about the evidence for J, E, D, and P by googling the "Documentary Hypothesis."

And my friend, these two stories also conflict with each other. For example, in the first story, plants are created before man. In the second story, plants are created after man.

Jesus' parables were teaching tools, drawn from everyday life, not myths.

They are still fiction, just more realistic. But fiction nonetheless.

A myth is also a teaching tool. It teaches eternal truths, even though it is not historical or scientific.

BTW, you could read a creation myth from any other group of people and you would immediately recognize it as a myth. Why is it that somehow it is not a myth just because it is in the Bible? What do you have against myths? They are the most powerful form of literature there is, sneaking past the rational censors to implant values into our unconscious.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't call scripture wishful thinking.

It is as far as any application to the sciences dating the ages of the earth, our solar system and our universe.

 

[shunyadragon]

Think about it, if nature was not as it is then layers need not form as they do!

This is terrible circular reasoning to justify a religious agenda, and no meaningful substance,The physical and chemical nature of the lamela is the same today as it was 7,000, 10,000, 100,00 and 500,000 years ago. If you can come up with an alternate way the lamela form by objective verifiable evidence please do

Again . . . You're making claims, defend them instead of talking in circles.

There is abundant evidence that the nature of time is uniform through the whole history of the earth, ie uniform precision lake deposited lamela hundreds of thousands of years, as well as other geologic stratigraphic evidence in the sediments and geologic history of the earth. Of course, you can deny this, but you cannot provide any evidence whatsoever that the nature of time in the past is any different now, in recent history, 7000 years ago, one hundred thousand years ago, and millions of years ago.

I rely on hard geologic evidence in stratigraphy first, and not dating by radio isotopes ratios. Radio isotope ratios only make dating more accurate, and confirm dating by geologic stratigraphy.

Where is the evidence to support your assertions based on your religious beliefs?

Still waiting . . .

 

[dad]

Let's say for the sake of argument that there is some fluctuation. It would not effect the overall vastness of geologic time as revealed by rock strata.

Not fluctuation of this nature, but a change of natures. It affects everything...atoms..laws of thermodynamics...etc etc.

Actually it's the other way around. The assumption is that because scientific laws don't change that the decay would be constant, unless you can show something that would cause interference.

Astounding you admit that. No proof whatsoever for a same state past, but just belief without rhyme or reason. You feel that because you go ahead and assume laws never changed, you can assume decay existed!

So? That just means they fill a niche. But way back when, in an isolated environment, they weren't coping so well there and a mutation coped better.

Just because you can't detect other remains does not mean the one you can was 'isolated'!! Ha.

This is not a good analogy. The stretch of life forms across geologic time does not include some sort of maturational process.

Such as?

You realize I don't acknowledge your idea of life being drastically different before "the fall" (by which we can roughly equate mankind's coming into moral sentience). Nature was the same the day after as it was the day before.

No you cannot equate 'the fall' with your fantasy of man evolving from ape like thingies.

Sure. But none of that has any influence on whether I choose to buy milk this week. My only considerations are whether I'm out of milk or will soon be out, and whether I have enough grocery money for it. I don't consult God on the matter. God gave me the brains to figure it on my own.

A created being uses God given free will to attain some products of other created creatures on a created world in a created universe and thinks he had no help. Lame.

That's the thing -- God gave us intelligence for a reason. He expects us to use it. Using it is not an occasion for alarm, my friend.

Using it does not mean doubting Him and inventing foolish fables.

So all the gazillions of skeletons of Homo Erectus are just imaginary?

Post flood and post nature change also...what about them??