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

[dad]

Let me give you an example. If you let go of your groceries, do you expect them to fall to the ground? Of course you do. You simply know they will because from infancy you have learned a law of nature. You know that this law is dependable, it is going to be the same every time. That's not "not knowing."

History tells us of a different past. That is what they learned and recorded. Science came along recently and was not there to learn anything.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

History tells us of a different past. That is what they learned and recorded. Science came along recently and was not there to learn anything.

History? History only goes back as far as writing. There are no historical documents that speak of a time when the laws of nature were different. The early parts of Genesis are NOT historical documents, my friend.

 

[nPeace]

Actually here is how it works with logic:
If the experts disagree, it is fallacious to appeal to the experts.
If the experts agree, it is logical to appeal to the experts.

Scholars in Genesis 1 agree that it is a creation myth. We are talking about real scholars that approach Genesis 1 as a body of writing. Not wannabes that have decided before even looking at it that it is the historical, scientific, inerrant word of God. Such wannabes have far too much of an axe to grind to be considered scholars. They are not looking at the evidence to reach conclusions. Rather, their preconceived ideas filter their views of the facts.

I think we can choose only one of two ways... Satan's or God's. I believe the writers of scripture, were guided by God's spirit. As to who guides the "experts" in Satan's world... that's my closing words on this topic.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think we can choose only one of two ways... Satan's or God's. I believe the writers of scripture, were guided by God's spirit. As to who guides the "experts" in Satan's world... that's my closing words on this topic.

If "Satan is the author of confusion" as your New Testament reads, then that would put you on which side? Because, my friend, you are very, very confused about this.

I do not, BTW, think you are Satanic. I do not agree with your Christian writings. I don't think there is an author of all evil called Satan.

 

[nPeace]

If "Satan is the author of confusion" as your New Testament reads, then that would put you on which side? Because, my friend, you are very, very confused about this.

I do not, BTW, think you are Satanic. I do not agree with your Christian writings. I don't think there is an author of all evil called Satan.

Notice. Who thinks the Bible is confused? Answer - Not I. Who?. So thanks for that.

 

[Sunstone]

Who said? And where is the proof for all these allegations? I have only ever seen assumptions dressed up as science. They have nothing but imagination palmed off as evidence. Its complete rubbish.

"Rubbish"? You seem to be quite an expert in rubbish.

Given that you know so very much about paleontology, perhaps you can tell me at least one specific reason that a scientist might examine a fossil skull and then state that it was likely its owner stood and walked upright. When you have done that, you can then explain to me why the scientist's conclusion is "rubbish".

Unless you can do that, Deeje, I might develop a wee little minor suspicion that you do not actually know what you are talking about.

 

[dad]

The fossil record certainly does NOT fit each animal being created according to its kind, nor does the geological record support a young earth. You are in complete denial. There is zero, zip, zilch to support your idea. You have basically made it up out of whole cloth.

Yes they both do. Remember that it is likely man and most animals probably could not leave fossil rema8ns.

 

[Subduction Zone]

His word is truth.

In 17:17

Quoting a book of myths does not help you. You must first demonstrate that the Bible is more than a book of myths.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Notice. Who thinks the Bible is confused? Answer - Not I. Who?. So thanks for that.

You really on faith that your Bible is inerrant and the Word of God. There is no proof of it. I do the same with the Tanakh. These are assumptions. There really is no reason to be triumphalist about it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes they both do. Remember that it is likely man and most animals probably could not leave fossil rema8ns.

Fossils are few and far between. Yet when genus homo has been around for 3.3 million years, and life itself has been around for billions of years, quite enough fossilizations happen for us to document the process of evolution with ease.

 

[nPeace]

You really on faith that your Bible is inerrant and the Word of God. There is no proof of it. I do the same with the Tanakh. These are assumptions. There really is no reason to be triumphalist about it.

Nope. You assume the first sentence. I have posted evidence supporting the authenticity of the Bible - it being the word of God.
Faith is not required for that.

 

[dad]

Fossils are few and far between. Yet when genus homo has been around for 3.3 million years, and life itself has been around for billions of years, quite enough fossilizations happen for us to document the process of evolution with ease.

You can only document what exists. If we could not leave remains in the former nature..there would not be any men or most animals TO document. To claim all creatures have equal opportunity to become fossils is to say this nature existed always! Prove it. Otherwise you can't use it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Nope. You assume the first sentence. I have posted evidence supporting the authenticity of the Bible - it being the word of God.
Faith is not required for that.

You are soooooooo mistaken if you think there is evidence proving the Bible is the word of God. It is an article of faith, just like me believing the Tanakh is the word of God, just like a Mormon believing the BOM is, or a Muslim believing the Quran is, or a Hindu believing the Vedas are.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You can only document what exists. If we could not leave remains in the former nature..there would not be any men or most animals TO document. To claim all creatures have equal opportunity to become fossils is to say this nature existed always! Prove it. Otherwise you can't use it.

If there were a former nature, there would be evidence left behind. There is evidence the world is billions of years old. Where during that time is the evidence that the laws of nature were different? There is none. And like I said, the default is that the laws of nature are reliable. If they have been different, it is up to you to prove it.

 

[nPeace]

Wrong on all three counts.


Biological diversity, genetics, the nested hierarchy of the fossil record.


Of course not, because that's not what it's trying to explain.


Such as...?


False. Evolution is testable, and observable,


False. You've presented not a single one.


Then what are they?


False. Firstly, evolution is not necessarily slow and gradual - change can be punctuated. Secondly, the fossil record shows species changing and diversifying over time. For what you say here to be true, you have to ignore literally all of the fossil evidence.


Because we observe it today. We know living populations change through reproduction and mutation, and we know these changes add up to speciation. Currently, we have no other explanation for biological diversity, and the fact that all living things share the same genetic lineage demonstrates it.


This is all just plain false, and you should know better by now. Mutations occur EVERY TIME a living thing reproduces, they are not rare and they don't need to be "specifically located" to be passed on. We inherit the vast majority of our genes, with over 200 of our own entirely unique mutations from birth, and that is true for every living thing that was ever produced. And we have directly observed speciation. We know that mutations can make one population of a single species divide into two populations that can no longer interbreed and cannot be considered the same species. We know that occurs.


Then you are wrong, and you should learn more about it.


Then please present a scientific explanation of the fossil record other than common ancestry that suitably explain all of the facts without claiming magic.


Since we've been debating, the only thing you've quoted is Darwin. If you've posted links elsewhere, present them here.


Actually, it prevents that. All you have to do is click the arrow next to the quote and you can read the post I was responding to.


Your alleged creation.


Don't patronize me.


Then you are blatantly wrong. I asked you "Do you have any examples of a complex organ which could not possibly has formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications?"

You have yet to answer that question. Last time, you answered that question with another question, which isn't an answer.


Asking a question is not answering a question. I'm asking YOU for something DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE NOT been produced by successive, slight modifications. Can you do that?


That makes no sense whatsoever.

Why couldn't God have pre-determined the outcome of biological processes which, to us, appear as natural processes such as evolution? If nature is an extension of God's will, then evolution is merely nature's way of reaching the design God intended.

Why is your God so limited?


Again, you put ridiculous limits on your God. Does not it seem far more amazing that God decided "Let there be man" and what, to him, was merely an intent manifested in nature as a billions-year long biological process? Isn't that far more awe-inspiring?

The God you describe is a mere magician, conjuring things out of a hat because it's easier for you to imagine it. But God doesn't have to be limited by your imagination.

Broaden your mind just a little and dispense of your image of God as a mere illusionist and your objection to evolutionary theory will evaporate.


Baseless assumption.


Your argument is nonsensical.


I never made that argument, so this is a strawman.


And what is this evidence?


Then you lack perception.


Except it's contradicted by the facts, because we know mutations can produce new functions and increase functionality.


And why couldn't God have used evolution?


It has been demonstrated. Why do you limit your God to a child with Lego bricks rather than understanding nature as an extension of God's will? Why must you reject nature in favour of viewing God as a child's magician?

Because mutation rates are low relative to population growth in most species, mutation alone doesn’t have much of an effect on evolution.

But mutation combined with one of the other mechanisms of evolution (genetic drift, natural selection, non-random mating, and gene flow) can result in meaningful changes in allele frequencies in a population.

The only mutations that matter to large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring. These occur in reproductive cells like eggs and sperm... called germ line mutations.

A single germ line mutation can have a range of effects:
No change occurs in phenotype
Some mutations don't have any noticeable effect on the phenotype of an organism. This can happen in many situations: perhaps the mutation occurs in a stretch of DNA with no function, or perhaps the mutation occurs in a protein-coding region, but ends up not affecting the amino acid sequence of the protein.

Small change occurs in phenotype
A single mutation [can cause a] cat's ears to curl backwards slightly.

Big change occurs in phenotype
Some really important phenotypic changes, like DDT resistance in insects are sometimes caused by single mutations. A single mutation can also have strong negative effects for the organism. Mutations that cause the death of an organism are called lethals — and it doesn't get more negative than that.

There are some sorts of changes that a single mutation, or even a lot of mutations, could not cause. Neither mutations nor wishful thinking will make pigs have wings; only pop culture could have created Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles — mutations could not have done it.

Adaptive mutation is a controversial evolutionary theory. It posits that mutations, or genetic changes, are much less random and more purposeful than traditional evolution. There have been a wide variety of experiments trying to prove (or disprove) the idea of adaptive mutation, at least in microorganisms.

Mutations are passed on only through reproductive cells. Mutation rates are relatively low. They don't know that natural selection and mutation is the mechanism driving evolution..

 

[nPeace]

You are soooooooo mistaken if you think there is evidence proving the Bible is the word of God. It is an article of faith, just like me believing the Tanakh is the word of God, just like a Mormon believing the BOM is, or a Muslim believing the Quran is, or a Hindu believing the Vedas are.

Obviously another "expert" opinion.

 

[dad]

If there were a former nature, there would be evidence left behind. There is evidence the world is billions of years old. Where during that time is the evidence that the laws of nature were different? There is none. And like I said, the default is that the laws of nature are reliable. If they have been different, it is up to you to prove it.

No there is none at all. It is not evidence when we first assume it is a certain way. You basically admit not being able to evidence the nature you insist must be a default belief. I therefore reject it and models based on it.

 

[gnostic]

I think we can choose only one of two ways... Satan's or God's. I believe the writers of scripture, were guided by God's spirit. As to who guides the "experts" in Satan's world... that's my closing words on this topic.

If "Satan is the author of confusion" as your New Testament reads, then that would put you on which side? Because, my friend, you are very, very confused about this.

I do not, BTW, think you are Satanic. I do not agree with your Christian writings. I don't think there is an author of all evil called Satan.

Notice. Who thinks the Bible is confused? Answer - Not I. Who?. So thanks for that.

For one, IndigoChild5559 is a Jew and Jewish, not a Christian, therefore, he or she, doesn’t accept the division between Old Testament and New Testament, and no jews have to accept Christian teachings including those found in the NT.

For another, Jews have a different view of Satan to the Christian teachings. Despite his scattered appearances in the OT (or the Tanakh, the Jewish Bible), they still viewed Satan as God’s angel, doing God’s work.

So there is no Lucifer, no Devil, and no Beelzebub in Judaism, names or titles given to Satan by Christians; the identity to “Lucifer” (Isaiah 14:12) doesn’t exist until St Jerome, a 4th century Christian translator responsible for the Latin translation, the Vulgate Bible.

And Jews also don’t identify the talking serpent (of Genesis 3) with Satan.

Second, there are no such thing in Judaism, war or rebellion in heaven, where a 3rd of host of angels followed Satan. That too, is Christian teachings, not Jewish ones, where Christian have misinterpreted Isaiah 14:12. If Christians bothered to read most of the rest of Isaiah 14, starting from 3 to 23, this all related to the king of Babylon, not to Satan and his fallen angels.

The war of heaven didn’t occur in the Tanakh, but in the Hellenistic literature, the Psedepigrapha, a collection of pre-Christian books, not accepted as canon, such as the books of Enoch (1 Enoch & 2 Enoch) and the Book of Jubilees, which narrated (eg 1 Enoch & Jubilees) or alluded to (2 Enoch) the war between angels, between the holy Watchers and fallen Watchers.

My points in all of this, is that Christians and Jews have very different views on Satan. And I don’t see why Jews must accept Christian books and Christian teachings.

 

[nPeace]

For one, IndigoChild5559 is a Jew and Jewish, not a Christian, therefore, he or she, doesn’t accept the division between Old Testament and New Testament, and no jews have to accept Christian teachings including those found in the NT.

For another, Jews have a different view of Satan to the Christian teachings. Despite his scattered appearances in the OT (or the Tanakh, the Jewish Bible), they still viewed Satan as God’s angel, doing God’s work.

So there is no Lucifer, no Devil, and no Beelzebub in Judaism, names or titles given to Satan by Christians; the identity to “Lucifer” (Isaiah 14:12) doesn’t exist until St Jerome, a 4th century Christian translator responsible for the Latin translation, the Vulgate Bible.

And Jews also don’t identify the talking serpent (of Genesis 3) with Satan.

Second, there are no such thing in Judaism, war or rebellion in heaven, where a 3rd of host of angels followed Satan. That too, is Christian teachings, not Jewish ones, where Christian have misinterpreted Isaiah 14:12. If Christians bothered to read most of the rest of Isaiah 14, starting from 3 to 23, this all related to the king of Babylon, not to Satan and his fallen angels.

The war of heaven didn’t occur in the Tanakh, but in the Hellenistic literature, the Psedepigrapha, a collection of pre-Christian books, not accepted as canon, such as the books of Enoch (1 Enoch & 2 Enoch) and the Book of Jubilees, which narrated (eg 1 Enoch & Jubilees) or alluded to (2 Enoch) the war between angels, between the holy Watchers and fallen Watchers.

My points in all of this, is that Christians and Jews have very different views on Satan. And I don’t see why Jews must accept Christian books and Christian teachings.

I don't see what this has ti do with me.
I was stating what I believe, not what Jews believe.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Obviously another "expert" opinion.

Even your fellow followers of Christ agree with me here.