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

[shunyadragon]

So. They believe.
They hold to beliefs based on what they assume to be true, in cases where historical inquiry is involved. Experimental science is different.

It seems to me persons are still fighting hard to hold one belief above another

The history and science of a universe solar system and earth billions of years old, and the evolution of life and humanity is based on experimental science in the same way all science is based on the scientific methods of experimental science.

 

[Deeje]

It's never picked the wrong god, demon, prophet, commandments, or fairies.

I disagree....science has its own gods, commandments and religion....it has its fair share of demons, prophets and fairies too .

Everything can be used for sinister purposes.
But science has lengthened lives, & filled them with entertainment.

Have you noticed that the length of life has not necessarily meant a better quality of life for the poor decaying bodies kept alive in nursing homes? Bodies in beds make money. There is little care in "care facilities". I speak from experience.

Entertainment? Look at what passes for entertainment these days....violence of the most gratuitous kind, graphic sex and supernatural, demonic stuff fed to kids from an early age. They now understand why the younger generation lacks compassion.

Without science, we wouldn't even know of environmental damage.

LOL...Without science we would not have any environmental damage.

Where's yer God in keeping our planet verdant?

I believe that he is about to hold the human race to an accounting actually. As tenants of his earth, they are about to be evicted, since the terms of their tenancy were broken quite some time ago.

They have had notice to clean up their mess, but have proven that they don't care and are not capable.

Where will they go?.....nowhere. They will just be gone.

 

[PruePhillip]

Are these your relatives? Thank God they aren't mine.

There is no proof that any of these ever existed except in the imagination of scientists. No humans existed millions of years ago, so everything that existed before intelligent recording of data is conjecture...educated guesswork. You can believe it if you like.

Yes, there IS proof hominins existed. Google image 'hominin' and you will find them in abundance.
Some of our closest extinct relatives 'live' inside our DNA. It's been said that Homo neanderthal
is "more successful extinct than alive" because their genes are in all non-African humans. Same
for two other ancient lines - still within us. And its marvelous, no?
It doesn't mean there's no God, or that Genesis is false. Don't read it like that.

 

[Deeje]

Hold on Deeje...we can address all your concerns as soon as I disprove all of the science that it took for all of us to even read on these funny glowy screens we keep staring at....

You have a problem distinguishing between science and technology? Science has many branches and each has its pros and cons. Technology has its advantages, but no one can dismiss its disadvantages. That glowy screen is emitting radiation if it's attached to the net via WiFi. There are many scientists warning about the long term concerns about exposure to this level of radiation in very young children for prolonged periods, especially when we are seeing more and more parents using tablets as electronic baby sitters. Babies in strollers with cell phones and tablets, glued to the screen, oblivious to their surroundings, becoming addicted to their devices.

I have no issues with science per se....it is Evolution, the one branch of science that demonstrates more than an acceptable level of assumption and suggestion rather than basing their conclusions on any truly solid evidence. The way it is presented, as scientific fact, you would never see the fudging that goes on when a scientist is trying to big note himself over a "discovery".

Even a casual glance shows that new skull to be somewhere in between...right where it would be supportive of an evolutionary intermediary.

Look like....so it must be....? Not very scientific......

 

[sealchan]

You have a problem distinguishing between science and technology? Science has many branches and each has its pros and cons. Technology has its advantages, but no one can dismiss its disadvantages. That glowy screen is emitting radiation if it's attached to the net via WiFi. There are many scientists warning about the long term concerns about exposure to this level of radiation in very young children for prolonged periods, especially when we are seeing more and more parents using tablets as electronic baby sitters. Babies in strollers with cell phones and tablets, glued to the screen, oblivious to their surroundings, becoming addicted to their devices.

I have no issues with science per se....it is Evolution, the one branch of science that demonstrates more than an acceptable level of assumption and suggestion rather than basing their conclusions on any truly solid evidence. The way it is presented, as scientific fact, you would never see the fudging that goes on when a scientist is trying to big note himself over a "discovery".



Look like....so it must be....? Not very scientific......

Observation is just one of many steps involved in the process of establishing truth. Saying something is not true just because it hasn't been substantiated in the news article or seems hard to believe is even less impressive.

 

[Deeje]

Yes, there IS proof hominins existed. Google image 'hominin' and you will find them in abundance.
Some of our closest extinct relatives 'live' inside our DNA. It's been said that Homo neanderthal
is "more successful extinct than alive" because their genes are in all non-African humans. Same
for two other ancient lines - still within us. And its marvelous, no?
It doesn't mean there's no God, or that Genesis is false. Don't read it like that.

Now this is always amusing to me....that evolution can sway people away from direct creation and into trying to fuse the two together somehow. IMO they do not fuse. You have to accept one or the other.
God did not create evolution...he either created all that he said he did....or he didn't. You can't hedge your bets on this one.

 

[Deeje]

Observation is just one of many steps involved in the process of establishing truth. Saying something is not true just because it hasn't been substantiated in the news article or seems hard to believe is even less impressive.

Observation is a very important part of science and this is why I get toey over the claims that scientists make concerning the supposedly slow process of evolution. There is no way to "observe" that what they claim, really happened.

When it was observed that various lifeforms could produce new species under certain circumstances, science suggested that it was possible to cross genetic boundaries to make new lifeforms. That is patently not true. "Speciation" produces variety within a "kind" They never produce a new kind of creature. There are no intermediate species or missing links for the simple reason that they never existed.

The lab experiments that were observed, saw adaptive changes in their specimens but they remained true to their own kind. Never did they ever cross the boundary to become something else. The fish remained fish...the flies remained flies...and the bacteria never became anything but a new or stronger adaptation of the original. This is what Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands. He didn't see new creatures, but adapted species of the same creatures that he saw on the mainland. This is a far cry from all living things descending from a common ancestor. There is no such thing as a common ancestor. The evidence suggests direct creation by an Intelligent Designer. That is what I clearly see.

No one seems to notice the sleight of hand in these scientific musings...but its there. Once it is pointed out, its hard to dismiss it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I disagree....science has its own gods, commandments and religion....it has its fair share of demons, prophets and fairies too .

Your science classes must've been very different from mine.

Have you noticed that the length of life has not necessarily meant a better quality of life for the poor decaying bodies kept alive in nursing homes? Bodies in beds make money. There is little care in "care facilities". I speak from experience.

Entertainment? Look at what passes for entertainment these days....violence of the most gratuitous kind, graphic sex and supernatural, demonic stuff fed to kids from an early age. They now understand why the younger generation lack compassion.

I prefer a longer healthier life with modern entertainment to what our predecessors endured.
But I can understand the appeal of medieval living for some.

LOL...Without science we would not have any environmental damage.

We'd still have the damage with our large population.
Just look at the Amazon...doesn't take science to burn down forest for agriculture.

I believe that he is about to hold the human race to an accounting actually. As tenants of his earth, they are about to be evicted, since the terms of their tenancy were broken quite some time ago.

Well, he's taking his sweet time to do anything about it.

They have had notice to clean up their mess, but have proven that they don't care and are not capable.

Where will they go?.....nowhere. They will just be gone.

He sounds like a terrible landlord.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, there IS proof hominins existed. Google image 'hominin' and you will find them in abundance.
Some of our closest extinct relatives 'live' inside our DNA. It's been said that Homo neanderthal
is "more successful extinct than alive" because their genes are in all non-African humans. Same
for two other ancient lines - still within us. And its marvelous, no?
It doesn't mean there's no God, or that Genesis is false. Don't read it like that.

I do not believe the question of God existing is a subject of this thread. I believe in God, but that is topic of another thread.

As for the question of Genesis. It is neither true nor false. It is simple not a factual history of our universe, solar system, earth, nor the history of life on earth including human history.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Observation is a very important part of science and this is why I get toey over the claims that scientists make concerning the supposedly slow process of evolution. There is no way to "observe" that what they claim, really happened.

When it was observed that various lifeforms could produce new species under certain circumstances, science suggested that it was possible to cross genetic boundaries to make new lifeforms. That is patently not true. "Speciation" produces variety within a "kind" They never produce a new kind of creature. There are no intermediate species or missing links for the simple reason that they never existed.

The lab experiments that were observed, saw adaptive changes in their specimens but they remained true to their own kind. Never did they ever cross the boundary to become something else. The fish remained fish...the flies remained flies...and the bacteria never became anything but a new or stronger adaptation of the original. This is what Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands. He didn't see new creatures, but adapted species of the same creatures that he saw on the mainland. This is a far cry from all living things descending from a common ancestor. There is no such thing as a common ancestor. The evidence suggests direct creation by an Intelligent Designer. That is what I clearly see.

No one seems to notice the sleight of hand in these scientific musings...but its there. Once it is pointed out, its hard to dismiss it.

And you are still an ape.

Change of kinds is a creationist strawman.

 

[shunyadragon]

And you are still an ape.

Change of kinds is a creationist strawman.

Actually apes and us are primates and cousins.

 

[nPeace]

Many apes are still bipedal. They found a skull, so how is this proof of how it walked 3.8 million years ago?

Teeth are used to suggest all manner of things. Humans are at present, omnivores, but according to scripture all species are designed to be herbivores, except perhaps the carrion creatures, who are designed as the clean-up crew.

Humans apparently did not evolve that very important component in their nature....the one that naturally prompts them to recycle their waste......we are so intelligent that we are drowning in the results of our own inventiveness. We can't dispose of our rubbish without making the planet pay.....greedily raping the earth of its resources and reaping the consequences of completely polluting the only home we have.....to the point of endangering our own existence. We are robbing the other creatures of their homes as well, leading to their extinction. How clever are we really? How much is science accountable for all that?

Evolution of teeth is an assumption because of one small thing missing in the evolutionary theory....the *links* that join one kind of creature to another. When they find all those millions of missing links, please let us know.

Sounds like devolution to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually apes and us are primates and cousins.

The classification has changed. Classification in biology is now based upon cladistics. One does not evolve out of a clade. We are primates, apes, great apes, and humans. Each group is a smaller clade. Just as we are mammals, A much larger clade.

Humans are apes – ‘Great Apes’

The Need for Cladistics

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sounds like devolution to me.

Nope. Lucky for creationists there is no such thing as "devolution"

 

[nPeace]

The history and science of a universe solar system and earth billions of years old, and the evolution of life and humanity is based on experimental science in the same way all science is based on the scientific methods of experimental science.

Oh, I meant this one - science based on experimental research that plays the role of testing hypothesis, typically in controlled laboratory settings.
An example, is the fruit fly experiment.
Otherwise, I used the wrong expression.
It really doesn't matter though, because doing an experiment, and then having to assume, and use conjecture, still brings us back to point A. So we are just circling.

An experiment like this, needs no assumptions.

 

[nPeace]

Nope. Lucky for creationists there is no such thing as "devolution"

Devolution
noun

1. the transfer or delegation of power to a lower level, especially by central government to local or regional administration.
   synonyms: decentralization, delegation, dispersal, distribution, transfer, surrender, relinquishment
   "the devolution of power to the regions"
   • FORMAL
     descent or degeneration to a lower or worse state.
     "the devolution of the gentlemanly ideal into a glorification of drunkenness"
   • LAW
     the legal transfer of property from one owner to another.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, I meant this one - science based on experimental research that plays the role of testing hypothesis, typically in controlled laboratory settings.
An example, is the fruit fly experiment.
Otherwise, I used the wrong expression.
It really doesn't matter though, because doing an experiment, and then having to assume, and use conjecture, still brings us back to point A. So we are just circling.

An experiment like this, needs no assumptions.

Dude! Way to shoot yourself in the foot. You used a openly biased source. It is worthless. They have an incorrect definition. Try finding a neutral source if you want to convince anyone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Devolution
noun

1. the transfer or delegation of power to a lower level, especially by central government to local or regional administration.
   synonyms: decentralization, delegation, dispersal, distribution, transfer, surrender, relinquishment
   "the devolution of power to the regions"
   • FORMAL
     descent or degeneration to a lower or worse state.
     "the devolution of the gentlemanly ideal into a glorification of drunkenness"
   • LAW
     the legal transfer of property from one owner to another.

Context matters. You were using the term in regards to evolution. In that context it does not exist.

 

[sealchan]

Observation is a very important part of science and this is why I get toey over the claims that scientists make concerning the supposedly slow process of evolution. There is no way to "observe" that what they claim, really happened.

When it was observed that various lifeforms could produce new species under certain circumstances, science suggested that it was possible to cross genetic boundaries to make new lifeforms. That is patently not true. "Speciation" produces variety within a "kind" They never produce a new kind of creature. There are no intermediate species or missing links for the simple reason that they never existed.

The lab experiments that were observed, saw adaptive changes in their specimens but they remained true to their own kind. Never did they ever cross the boundary to become something else. The fish remained fish...the flies remained flies...and the bacteria never became anything but a new or stronger adaptation of the original. This is what Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands. He didn't see new creatures, but adapted species of the same creatures that he saw on the mainland. This is a far cry from all living things descending from a common ancestor. There is no such thing as a common ancestor. The evidence suggests direct creation by an Intelligent Designer. That is what I clearly see.

No one seems to notice the sleight of hand in these scientific musings...but its there. Once it is pointed out, its hard to dismiss it.

So I take that the observed similarity in DNA means nothing to you?

One thing that perhaps might be the case that many overlook...the tree of life as described by various theories of how specific species formed may be more like a multi-trunk tree going way back to single-celled life forms than is commonly thought of. In this way evolution has far fewer traverses to cross between kinds.

Still a chimpanzee and a human's DNA are far more similar than different just as our respective morphologies are far more similar than different. And we all share common traits with mammals. That fact alone suggests that there is a common source from which all mammals come.

 

[nPeace]

Context matters. You were using the term in regards to evolution. In that context it does not exist.

Wrong.
I am using the term in the context of Deeje's comment.
Humans apparently did not evolve that very important component in their nature....the one that naturally prompts them to recycle their waste......we are so intelligent that we are drowning in the results of our own inventiveness. We can't dispose of our rubbish without making the planet pay.....greedily raping the earth of its resources and reaping the consequences of completely polluting the only home we have.....to the point of endangering our own existence. We are robbing the other creatures of their homes as well, leading to their extinction. How clever are we really? How much is science accountable for all that?