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

[dad]

Nope, you made an unclear demand. .

To you it may be unclear how to support your own claims. Not my prob.

 

[dad]

[QUOTE="Subduction Zone, post: 6346325, member: 63191"

As a Christian it is fine if you do not believe in reality. [/QUOTE]
As an unbeliever it is fine if you have never encountered reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To you it may be unclear how to support your own claims. Not my prob.

Oh, unlike you, I do know how to support my own claims. I am not guilty of your sins. Did you forget why you cannot demand evidence any more?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As an unbeliever it is fine if you have never encountered reality.

Now, now. You are breaking the Ninth again. When it comes to claims about others if you cannot support them, and I have yet to see you do so, the odds are that you are breaking the Ninth Commandment. It is amazing how many creationists do not understand their own book of myths.

 

[shunyadragon]

None of the lit proves that nature and laws were the same. They just base their claims on it. Might as well read weekly comics for info.

First you have to provide evidence other than 'I believe in the Bible,' because any other discussion of the science of the history of the earth. If you wish the evidence for the history of the earth below the KT boundary you simply can read the scientific literature on the subject, but, an . . . you only 'believe in the Bible.'

 

[shunyadragon]

My assumption is that science does not really know that past was the nature that they use in all models. That is what you can't support, so you try to look at other beliefs instead, as if that helps your epic fail.

Your ASSUMPTION is based on the fact that you 'believe in the Bible only,' and you have failed to present any other evidence to support your ASSUMPTIONS.

By the way you mention something about 'not in the lit,' are your referring to the scientific literature. You are not remotely qualified nor do you know what is in the scientific literature, nor do I believe you have looked nor read the literature.

Still waiting . . .

 

[dad]

First you have to provide evidence other than 'I believe in the Bible,' because any other discussion of the science of the history of the earth. If you wish the evidence for the history of the earth below the KT boundary you simply can read the scientific literature on the subject, but, an . . . you only 'believe in the Bible.'

First, you need to prove there was a same state past on earth before using it to manufacture models of the past.

 

[dad]

Your ASSUMPTION is based on the fact that you 'believe in the Bible only,' and you have failed to present any other evidence to support your ASSUMPTIONS.

Don't worry about other beliefs or why people may have them. Your business is your own beliefs that you call science claims. Get down and defend them.

By the way you mention something about 'not in the lit,' are your referring to the scientific literature. You are not remotely qualified nor do you know what is in the scientific literature, nor do I believe you have looked nor read the literature.

Religious gobblygook of the cult of the dead that is designed to be incomprehensible to a sane person. That lit is total ...(think of something that rhymes with lit)

Amazing how that just because some religious fakes and cranks call their fables scientific literature that some people bow down and worship it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First, you need to prove there was a same state past on earth before using it to manufacture models of the past.

Um, no. It is of course the other way around.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't worry about other beliefs or why people may have them. Your business is your own beliefs that you call science claims. Get down and defend them.
Religious gobblygook of the cult of the dead that is designed to be incomprehensible to a sane person. That lit is total ...(think of something that rhymes with lit)

Amazing how that just because some religious fakes and cranks call their fables scientific literature that some people bow down and worship it.

Still having a hard time understanding the difference between knowledge and beliefs. Oh well, maybe one day.

No, no. I kid. That is terribly unfair of me.

 

[shunyadragon]

First, you need to prove there was a same state past on earth before using it to manufacture models of the past.

Science does not prove anything, it is based on falsification based on evidence, and the physical objective verifiable evidence demonstrates a natural history with uniform time and laws of nature. You have failed to present a scrape of evidence to support your assumptions.

Remember 'you only believe in the Bible,'

Still waiting . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

Don't worry about other beliefs or why people may have them. Your business is your own beliefs that you call science claims. Get down and defend them.
Religious gobblygook of the cult of the dead that is designed to be incomprehensible to a sane person. That lit is total ...(think of something that rhymes with lit)

Amazing how that just because some religious fakes and cranks call their fables scientific literature that some people bow down and worship it.

I do not worry at, since you are arguing from self imposed ignorance.

Science does not prove anything, it is based on falsification based on evidence, and the physical objective verifiable evidence demonstrates a natural history with uniform time and laws of nature. You have failed to present a scrape of evidence to support your assumptions.

You defend science with science, and remember 'you only believe in the Bible,'

Still waiting . . .

 

[dad]

Science does not prove anything, it is based on falsification based on evidence, and the physical objective verifiable evidence demonstrates a natural history with uniform time and laws of nature.

There is a difference between assuming a uniform nature and interpreting according, and 'demonstrating' one. If we assume there was always this nature and forces in place, for example, then we would interpret isotope ratios as if there were. That is what science does. So of course it doesn't/can't prove anything. Yet it fills the planet with it's diabolical claims and fables.

You have failed to present a scrape of evidence to support your assumptions.

All history, the apostles, prophets, God, angels, and Scripture support my position and oppose yours. Funny that. You admit science can't prove it, so that leaves you with precisely nothing. Enjoy your nightmare fables. Remember all you have is belief.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is a difference between assuming a uniform nature and interpreting according, and 'demonstrating' one. If we assume there was always this nature and forces in place, for example, then we would interpret isotope ratios as if there were. That is what science does. So of course it doesn't/can't prove anything. Yet it fills the planet with it's diabolical claims and fables.

No it is not based on assumptions, get your English up to date and read your dictionary. The uniformity of time and natural laws is based on a vast amount of objective verifiable evidence. I DO NOT base my argument on isotope rations.

Again . . . your understanding and self imposed ignorance of science is unbelievable dismall.

All history, the apostles, prophets, God, angels, and Scripture support my position and oppose yours. Funny that. You admit science can't prove it, so that leaves you with precisely nothing. Enjoy your nightmare fables. Remember all you have is belief.

The fact that science does not prove things is not a weakness. By definition in the English language proof is limited to logic and math. Science falsifies hypothesis and theories based objective verifiable evidence. You believe only in the Bible without any objective verifiable evidence concerning the nature of our physical existence.

Your assumptions are based on faith only.

Still waiting . . .

 

[dad]

No it is not based on assumptions,

Well then, show us how you would tell if the forces that determine how atoms behave, resulting in radioactive decay were the same or not. (without first assuming they were) This is your quest.

The uniformity of time and natural laws is based on a vast amount of objective verifiable evidence. I DO NOT base my argument on isotope rations.

Untrue. You assume layers under a lke were all laid down in this nature, apparently because there are a lot of them! Ha.

The fact that science does not prove things is not a weakness.

The fact God does prove things in our lives and through history with prophesy is a great strength!

Jud 6:39 - And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew.

Ac 1:3 -To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Don't blame me that your religion can't prove a thing!

By definition in the English language proof is limited to logic and math.

In the Greek, we see proofs meaning this

" 1 that from which something is surely and plainly known

2 on indubitable evidence, a proof"

Science falsifies hypothesis and theories based objective verifiable evidence

It cannot falsify the very basis for which all models of the past are based! (same nature in the past)

Your assumptions are based on faith only. They also oppose the Almighty, Scripture and ancient history.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well then, show us how you would tell if the forces that determine how atoms behave, resulting in radioactive decay were the same or not. (without first assuming they were) This is your quest.

Untrue. You assume layers under a lke were all laid down in this nature, apparently because there are a lot of them! Ha.

The fact God does prove things in our lives and through history with prophesy is a great strength!

Jud 6:39 - And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew.

Ac 1:3 -To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Don't blame me that your religion can't prove a thing!



In the Greek, we see proofs meaning this

" 1 that from which something is surely and plainly known

2 on indubitable evidence, a proof"

It cannot falsify the very basis for which all models of the past are based! (same nature in the past)

Your assumptions are based on faith only. They also oppose the Almighty, Scripture and ancient history.

I do not worry at, since you are arguing from self imposed ignorance.

Science does not prove anything, it is based on falsification based on evidence, and the physical objective verifiable evidence demonstrates a natural history with uniform time and laws of nature. You have failed to present a scrape of evidence to support your assumptions.

You defend science with science, and remember 'you only believe in the Bible,'

Still waiting . . .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well then, show us how you would tell if the forces that determine how atoms behave, resulting in radioactive decay were the same or not. (without first assuming they were) This is your quest.

Untrue. You assume layers under a lke were all laid down in this nature, apparently because there are a lot of them! Ha.

The fact God does prove things in our lives and through history with prophesy is a great strength!

Jud 6:39 - And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew.

Ac 1:3 -To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Don't blame me that your religion can't prove a thing!



In the Greek, we see proofs meaning this

" 1 that from which something is surely and plainly known

2 on indubitable evidence, a proof"

It cannot falsify the very basis for which all models of the past are based! (same nature in the past)

Your assumptions are based on faith only. They also oppose the Almighty, Scripture and ancient history.

dad, quoting a book of myths does not help you. If you want to quote the Bible you need to provide evidence that it is a valid source. Since it has been shown to be wrong time and time again it is far from being a valid source. Second scientists do no assume. You assume. That is your sin. Scientists derive conclusions based upon evidence. So far you have been afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence or to even discuss the idea. That is some first rate fear on your part.

 

[dad]

I do not worry at, since you are arguing from self imposed ignorance.

Science does not prove anything, it is based on falsification based on evidence, and the physical objective verifiable evidence demonstrates a natural history with uniform time and laws of nature. You have failed to present a scrape of evidence to support your assumptions.

You defend science with science, and remember 'you only believe in the Bible,'

Still waiting . . .

So do you admit not knowing what forces and laws existed on earth in the far past? Ha. Either admit it or show the evidence for what nature you claim existed. Win/win for me.

 

[shunyadragon]

So do you admit not knowing what forces and laws existed on earth in the far past? Ha. Either admit it or show the evidence for what nature you claim existed. Win/win for me.

The vast amount of objective verifiable evidence has determined it is factual beyond any reasonable doubt. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

I do not worry at, since you are arguing from self imposed ignorance.

Science does not prove anything, it is based on falsification based on evidence, and the physical objective verifiable evidence demonstrates a natural history with uniform time and laws of nature. You have failed to present a scrape of evidence to support your assumptions.

You defend science with science, and remember 'you only believe in the Bible,'

Still waiting . . .

 

[Subduction Zone]

So do you admit not knowing what forces and laws existed on earth in the far past? Ha. Either admit it or show the evidence for what nature you claim existed. Win/win for me.

Yes, since dad won;t let himself understand the nature of evidence he can always deny it without openly lying. Anyone that understood evidence could not do so.

But I would never call employing using the ostrich defense a "win". In real life such an ostrich would quickly be lion food.