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

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

We are not assuming that it has always been this way. We are basing it on what we can sense and measure. YOU AREN'T

 

[nPeace]

Even your fellow followers of Christ agree with me here.

Who are my fellow followers of Christ?

 

[dad]

We are not assuming that it has always been this way. We are basing it on what we can sense and measure. YOU AREN'T

No you aren't. Looking at isotope ratios as if the present nature created them all is first assuming a same state past!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Who are my fellow followers of Christ?

Anyone who says he died for their sins, so course.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No you aren't. Looking at isotope ratios as if the present nature created them all is first assuming a same state past!

Like I said. We base what we know on what we can sense and measure. Drop and apple, and it falls to the ground. and it happens every time without fail. That's science. We know of no instance where this does not happen and have no record among fossils, geology, astronomy, etc., that would indicate anything else either. Therefore the onus is on YOU to provide evidence of any sort of change -- and you have not provided evidence. ONLY your non-scientific, non-evidentiary assumption.

 

[nPeace]

Anyone who says he died for their sins, so course.

Sorry. You are unfortunately mistaken. Perhaps because, again, you assume to know.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sorry. You are unfortunately mistaken. Perhaps because, again, you assume to know.

If I am mistaken, then teach me. What is a "follower of Christ?"

 

[nPeace]

If I am mistaken, then teach me. What is a "follower of Christ?"

What did Jesus say?
Rather than write that out again, I'll search for the post, and link it to you.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What did Jesus say?
Rather than write that out again, I'll search for the post, and link it to you.

Okay

 

[dad]

Like I said. We base what we know on what we can sense and measure. Drop and apple, and it falls to the ground. and it happens every time without fail.

You never dropped an apple in Noah's day. What you can sense and measure is limited to the present.

That's science. We know of no instance where this does not happen and have no record among fossils, geology, astronomy, etc., that would indicate anything else either.

That is because you look at these things as if earth at this present time was the big key to the past. You cannot name any example where this is not the case. Whether assuming the fossil record represents most life on earth, assuming trees grew at the same rates, assuming radioactive decay was always here and must be credited with all the ratios of isotopes...etc etc.

You have no proof or evidence for the same state past you use religiously in all models of the past. Naturally you want to slide that by as the default, that golly gee, just has to be believed in.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You never dropped an apple in Noah's day. What you can sense and measure is limited to the present.

That is because you look at these things as if earth at this present time was the big key to the past. You cannot name any example where this is not the case. Whether assuming the fossil record represents most life on earth, assuming trees grew at the same rates, assuming radioactive decay was always here and must be credited with all the ratios of isotopes...etc etc.

You have no proof or evidence for the same state past you use religiously in all models of the past. Naturally you want to slide that by as the default, that golly gee, just has to be believed in.

Still waiting for you to provide evidence.

 

[Deeje]

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

Thank you....I know “rubbish” masquerading as “science” when I see it. What about you?

The lack of “real” evidence for macro-evolution seems to go unnoticed....lost in the jargon and the complex diagrams and assumptions, which have nothing “real” to substantiate them. They are based on educated guessing. How does that turn fiction into fact? Isn’t that why evolutionists criticize Bible believers? The truth is, at the end of the day, we are all “believers”. You believe the scientists...I believe the one who created what science studies. It’s our choice....

Undirected chance is not the father of genius in my experience. Design is clearly evident in nature, from the ground up. How many chance flukes does it take to go from an amoeba to a dinosaur with nothing but assumptions as to what happened at the very beginning to create life in the first place, or in the middle as to what processes took place that explains how something microscopic can morph itself into something the size of a three story building? You want fantasy? There it is.

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".

Probably because those who undertake their examination of the “evidence” already have a pre-conceived idea about what they are examining and it will influence the conclusions they reach. Isn’t this why they have to use their suggestive language? How does “might have” or “could have” lead to “must have”, unless you think there is certainty in these well used expressions? No one seems to notice the way they dodge telling the truth. It’s all there in every article I have ever read on evolution. An assumption is not a fact unless you can prove it. You can no more prove organic evolution ever took place, than we can prove the existence of our Creator. We have as much “evidence” for his existence as you have for macro-evolution. That is a fact.

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.

I know enough to call it as I see it....probably just as you feel inclined to do. How will the deluded masses know that macro-evolution is a colossal con job unless someone tells them the truth? There is a lot of information available today, so there is no excuse for ignorance. But the education system has kids indoctrinated with evolution before they ever have an inclination to test it out. The hallowed halls of higher learning then become flooded with young people who have already been convinced that belief in a Creator is only for uneducated morons.....that anything “unscientific” is not worth considering. Who gave science religious status? Who said it isn’t questionable?

I want people to question everything. The truth hides in unexpected places it seems. If you blindly run with the mob you just might just end up over a cliff.

I tell the truth as I understand it....don’t you? Isn’t this why we are here?

The readers can make up their own minds.

 

[dad]

Still waiting for you to provide evidence.

Waiting for you. Otherwise you may not use the same nature in your models. Period.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Waiting for you. Otherwise you may not use the same nature in your models. Period.

We are not going to get anywhere as long as I am using evidence and you do not acknowledge it, while you do not use evidence and see no reason to.

Its the default position. I'll use it and use and use it. You can go jump in a lake.

 

[dad]

We are not going to get anywhere as long as I am using evidence and you do not acknowledge it, while you do not use evidence and see no reason to.

Its the default position. I'll use it and use and use it. You can go jump in a lake.

You are not using evidence you are imposing bad religion onto evidences as has been shown in some detail. Denial and retreat seems to be your only option, other than surrender.

 

[Sunstone]

Thank you....I know “rubbish” masquerading as “science” when I see it. What about you?

The lack of “real” evidence for macro-evolution seems to go unnoticed....lost in the jargon and the complex diagrams and assumptions, which have nothing “real” to substantiate them. They are based on educated guessing. How does that turn fiction into fact? Isn’t that why evolutionists criticize Bible believers? The truth is, at the end of the day, we are all “believers”. You believe the scientists...I believe the one who created what science studies. It’s our choice....

Undirected chance is not the father of genius in my experience. Design is clearly evident in nature, from the ground up. How many chance flukes does it take to go from an amoeba to a dinosaur with nothing but assumptions as to what happened at the very beginning to create life in the first place, or in the middle as to what processes took place that explains how something microscopic can morph itself into something the size of a three story building? You want fantasy? There it is.



Probably because those who undertake their examination of the “evidence” already have a pre-conceived idea about what they are examining and it will influence the conclusions they reach. Isn’t this why they have to use their suggestive language? How does “might have” or “could have” lead to “must have”, unless you think there is certainty in these well used expressions? No one seems to notice the way they dodge telling the truth. It’s all there in every article I have ever read on evolution. An assumption is not a fact unless you can prove it. You can no more prove organic evolution ever took place, than we can prove the existence of our Creator. We have as much “evidence” for his existence as you have for macro-evolution. That is a fact.



I know enough to call it as I see it....probably just as you feel inclined to do. How will the deluded masses know that macro-evolution is a colossal con job unless someone tells them the truth? There is a lot of information available today, so there is no excuse for ignorance. But the education system has kids indoctrinated with evolution before they ever have an inclination to test it out. The hallowed halls of higher learning then become flooded with young people who have already been convinced that belief in a Creator is only for uneducated morons.....that anything “unscientific” is not worth considering. Who gave science religious status? Who said it isn’t questionable?

I want people to question everything. The truth hides in unexpected places it seems. If you blindly run with the mob you just might just end up over a cliff.

I tell the truth as I understand it....don’t you? Isn’t this why we are here?

The readers can make up their own minds.

Thank you, Deeje. That was quite instructive. I was honestly fascinated to see how your mind works. I have so few acquaintances whose minds work like yours.

To be sure, I see no concrete evidence that you know why a scientist would examine a skull and then conclude that its owner had walked upright. But I suppose you will carry on anyway. I only hope you do not corrupt the thinking of too many innocent and naive people with your uninformed speculations. But the risk of such a thing happening is the price our societies must pay for freedom of speech.

 

[nPeace]

If I am mistaken, then teach me. What is a "follower of Christ?"

I decided it was best to extract the information, and copy paste, with a bit of editing.

Greek
Khri·sti·a·nosʹ / Khri·sti·a·nonʹ / khris-tee-an-os' (Χριστιανός, οῦ, ὁ)
Latin - Chri·sti·aʹnum / Chri·sti·aʹnus

Strong's Greek: 5546. Χριστιανός (Christianos) -- a Christian
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 5546: Χριστιανός
Χριστιανός (cf. Lightfoot on Philip., p. 16 note), Χριστιανου, ὁ (Χριστός), a Christian, a follower of Christ: Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16.

Spoiler: Scriptures

(Acts 11:26) After he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year they assembled with them in the congregation and taught quite a crowd, and it was first in Antioch that the disciples were by divine providence called Christians.
(Acts 26:28) But A·gripʹpa said to Paul: “In a short time you would persuade me to become a Christian.”
(1 Peter 4:16) But if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but let him keep on glorifying God while bearing this name.

The name was first given to the worshippers of Jesus [?]by the Gentiles[? Acts 11:26], but from the second century (Justin Martyr (e. g. Apology 1, 4, p. 55 a.; dialog contra Trypho, § 35; cf. 'Teaching etc. 12, 4 [ET])) onward accepted by them as a title of honor. CL Lipsius, Ueber Ursprung u. ältesten Gebrauch des Christennamens. 4to, pp. 20, Jen. 1873. (CL Sophocles' Lexicon, under the word, 2; Farrar in Alex.'s Kitto, under the word; on the 'Titles of Believers in the N. T.' see Westcott, Epistles of St. John, p. 125f; cf. Dict. of Chris. Antiqq., under the word 'Faithful'.)

So originally a Christian is in its most basic term, a follower of Christ.
It involves following Jesus the Christ's (Messiah), teachings and way of life, or example.

However, the use o the word Christian has become distorted, based on second century interpretation.

Spoiler: Uses of the word Christian

Christian
A Christian (/ˈkrɪstʃən, -tiən/) is a person who follows or adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. "Christian" derives from the Koine Greek word Christós (Χριστός), a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term mashiach (Biblical Hebrew: מָשִׁיחַ).

While there are diverse interpretations of Christianity which sometimes conflict, they are united in believing that Jesus has a unique significance. The term "Christian" is also used as an adjective to describe anything associated with Christianity, or in a proverbial sense "all that is noble, and good, and Christ-like."

According to a 2011 Pew Research Center survey, there were 2.2 billion Christians around the world in 2010, up from about 600 million in 1910. By 2050, the Christian population is expected to exceed 3 billion. According to a 2012 Pew Research Center survey Christianity will remain the world's largest religion in 2050, if current trends continue.

Etymology
The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos), meaning "follower of Christ", comes from Χριστός (Christos), meaning "anointed one", with an adjectival ending borrowed from Latin to denote adhering to, or even belonging to, as in slave ownership. In the Greek Septuagint, christos was used to translate the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Mašíaḥ, messiah), meaning "[one who is] anointed."

The first recorded use of the term (or its cognates in other languages) is in the New Testament, in Acts 11:26, after Barnabas brought Saul (Paul) to Antioch where they taught the disciples for about a year, the text says: "[...] the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." The second mention of the term follows in Acts 26:28, where Herod Agrippa II replied to Paul the Apostle, "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." The third and final New Testament reference to the term is in 1 Peter 4:16, which exhorts believers: "Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."

Modern usage
Definition
A wide range of beliefs and practices is found across the world among those who call themselves Christian. Denominations and sects disagree on a common definition of "Christianity". For example, Timothy Beal notes the disparity of beliefs among those who identify as Christians in the United States as follows:

The true source of the original use of the word, also made mention of this deviation from true Christianity - in other words, a falling away from following the teachings and example of Jesus the Christ, but having an appearance of Christian... Thus imitation Christians - weeds which closely resemble wheat, which Jesus sowed.
Matthew 3:12; 13:24-30; 2 Thessalonians 2:3

The world uses "Christian" to apply to anyone who professes to believe in Jesus - that includes prostitutes, and people living all manner of debauch lifestyles.
That's not what Christian means. A Christian - rightly defined - is one who follows Jesus Christ's example (way of life), and teachings. Such a person lives by the principles and standards set down in the Bible.

For this reason, I believe it is important to identify those who are truly Christian - that is, those who are following Christ, in his teachings and way of life.
For example, Jesus Christ said:
“If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:31, 32

By this all will know that you are my disciples - if you have love among yourselves. John 13:35

So looking around us, we should be able to, based on Jesus' words - not opinion - identify out of all the religious groups, which is truly following Christ.

To give just a few examples...
1. The first century Christians were no part of the world - they did not get involved in politics, and wars, etc. John 15:17-19 ; 1 John 2:15-17

2. They engaged in the work of making disciples - preaching the good news of God's kingdom from town to town, village to village to the most distant part of the world. Just look at the Acts of the apostles, and their travels, as well as when they accompanied Jesus on his preaching campaigns.
You would notice too, that they were travelling overseers sent by the body in Jerusalem, to build up newly formed congregation of new disciples, and to appoint overseers in each congregation.
Note also, that all new disciples engaged in the same work of preaching the good news, with their fellow brothers. Matthew 24:14 ; 28:19, 20 ; Luke 8, 9, 10

3. They had love among themselves, and this was seen from their sharing all things in common with one another.
They took care of their elderly and widows, as well as orphans.
They came to the aid of those in need, by arranging for supplies to be sent through the hands of the brothers. John 15:35 ; 1 Corinthians 1:10 ; 2 Corinthians 13:11

4. They were united by divine teaching, and were not divided in scriptural teachings, no matter which part of the earth they lived.
This due to their being fed by one "slave" / "servant". Matthew 24:45

These are just a few areas where first century Christian practices are carried out today
So my fellow followers of Christ, are all those who fit the requirements mentioned above.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you, Deeje. That was quite instructive. I was honestly fascinated to see how your mind works. I have so few acquaintances whose minds work like yours.

To be sure, I see no concrete evidence that you know why a scientist would examine a skull and then conclude that its owner had walked upright. But I suppose you will carry on anyway. I only hope you do not corrupt the thinking of too many innocent and naive people with your uninformed speculations. But the risk of such a thing happening is the price our societies must pay for freedom of speech.

I do believe that she is Australia's problem. I know that the cult she belongs to is mostly an American thing, but they have gone international.

 

[Deeje]

Thank you, Deeje. That was quite instructive. I was honestly fascinated to see how your mind works. I have so few acquaintances whose minds work like yours.

I am not surprised.

It occurs to me that God chooses to reveal himself to those whose thinking cannot be corrupted by popular opinion. Jesus was the one who taught us that "different" isn't always a bad thing. Running with the mob can lead to disaster.

To be sure, I see no concrete evidence that you know why a scientist would examine a skull and then conclude that its owner had walked upright.

It would help if the scientists even knew whether it was an ape or a human skull that they were looking at. How can they tell the difference if we are supposedly such close relatives?

In all the science books for students with accompanying illustrations it was always assumed that the later primates who were the assumed ancestors of man were stooped and apelike, but when it was ascertained that these supposedly early ancestors walked upright (probably because they were humans and not apes) the illustrations changed to depict fully upright apes. Where will I find fully upright apes who only walk on two legs? Humans are the only ones, AFAIK.

But I suppose you will carry on anyway.

Yep...you can count on it Sunny. It needs a voice of reason who hasn't swallowed science's "might have's" and "could have's" and "must have's". They really don't know.

I only hope you do not corrupt the thinking of too many innocent people with your ignorant speculations.

You mean like all those poor kids in the school system who never get a chance to question science's so-called evidence? If it takes a swipe at someone's self esteem to force them to accept what science cannot prove, then I rest my case. You only have to watch the likes of Dawkins or Coyne to see how this tactic is used. Only the 'uneducated' or 'ignorant' refuse to accept the science..... Right?

I am a proud believer in an Intelligent Creator who according to my Bible based beliefs, is at this moment evaluating everyone's response to his warning message that is being disseminated throughout the earth, giving all an equal opportunity to listen and to respond...one way or another. No force...no coercion....just an offer of life or death on the Creator's terms.

There is nothing anyone can do to force a person to "believe" anything.....or not to. Belief comes from the inner reaches of a person's heart and soul and tells the Creator all he needs to know about them. If you don't need him, what makes anyone think that he needs them?

We each choose our own path, and each will lead to a destination.....let's all hope that we choose the right one, because without the Creator, the human race is headed for extinction due to its own stupidity. No one has contributed more to that situation than science......how clever are they really?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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..

What do think any of this is actually saying? Because I don't think it's saying what you think it is.

You claimed that mutations are "rare", only result in "slight" modification and need to be "specifically located":

"...and yet, it is known that only very slight modification occur, due to the fact that mutations are random, rare, and need to be specifically located, in order to be passed on. They also know that mutations are non-adaptive in nature."

You have just now contradicted all three of those claims.

Or do you not not understand the difference between saying "mutations are rare" and "mutation rates are low"?