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

[Subduction Zone]

Ha ha. You are about to expose yourself here.
Before I answer that for you, let me get some clarity first.
So you are one who has the view that it is only Creationists with an agenda, who disagree with the popular opinions among scientists... particularly where the theory of evolution is concerned. Is that fair to say?

If your answer is no, then I don't need to give you names, since you would agree that there are scientists who are not Creationists who don't fully agree, and in some cases, are outright opposed to the mechanisms and "theories", related to the theory of evolution.
So which is it?

In any group large enough there are going to be a few loons. The question you will need to answer is did any of these people ever use creationism in real science or are they just nutbars?

 

[PruePhillip]

You really aren't aware just how comical this is, are you?

God created the heavens
and the earth
and the earth was dark and oceanic
and the skies cleared
and the continents rose
and life emerged on land
and then life emerged in the sea
and finally, man.

How comical is that?

 

[ratiocinator]

God created the heavens
and the earth
and the earth was dark and oceanic
and the skies cleared
and the continents rose
and life emerged on land
and then life emerged in the sea
and finally, man.

How comical is that?

That isn't what it says. What it says is the earth before light, day, night, and vegetation before the sun, moon, and stars. Then sea creatures and birds before land animals.

It's blindingly obvious that you are trying to make a pre-science myth fit with science, when it equally obviously doesn't.

 

[PruePhillip]

That isn't what it says. What it says is the earth before light, day, night, and vegetation before the sun, moon, and stars. Then sea creatures and birds before land animals.

It's blindingly obvious that you are trying to make a pre-science myth fit with science, when it equally obviously doesn't.

You wouldn't make a good archaeologist or code cracker, would you?
The early earth was a cloud planet (like Venus) and an ocean planet (like
what many extra-solar planets are thought to be)
Thus it was dark and very wet - maybe 3-4km deep without land fall.
As of 2019 it is agreed that life began on "land", warm ponds where the
constant evaporation and re-wetting of the chemical stew concentrated
the organics.
And then we are given a list of creatures which subsequently lived on land.
Same for the sea.

 

[ratiocinator]

You wouldn't make a good archaeologist or code cracker, would you?

Why would it be in code? Even if it is, you are still obviously just re-reading it to try to make it fit - it's a joke.

The early earth was a cloud planet (like Venus) and an ocean planet (like
what many extra-solar planets are thought to be)
Thus it was dark and very wet - maybe 3-4km deep without land fall.
As of 2019 it is agreed that life began on "land", warm ponds where the
constant evaporation and re-wetting of the chemical stew concentrated
the organics.
And then we are given a list of creatures which subsequently lived on land.
Same for the sea.

None of which is what it actually says. There's no reason why Genesis couldn't have said the earth was covered in think clouds to begin with, but it doesn't. And you we still have modern vegetation ("...seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it...") before the sun, moon and stars get created. We still have birds before land animals.

 

[gnostic]

You really aren't aware just how comical this is, are you?

Love this animation.

 

[gnostic]

No, it reads that life came out of the sea - then mentions some of these living things.
Same for the land - God commanded the earth to bring forth life (before the sea BTW)

You are not paying attention, and you are not reading what the Genesis is saying.

I was comparing only marine creatures and land creatures, PruePhillip. You are ignoring what Genesis 1 say about “birds”.

It say god created both marine life and birds (“winged fowls” that dominate the sky) at the same time, on the same day - the 5th day.

I have problems with birds being created at the same time as fishes and other marine life.

I also have problem with birds being created before land animals.

Genesis is wrong with both of these passages (the 5th and 6th days).

According to biology, or more precisely paleontology, birds didn’t exist at the same time as primitive marine creatures. And land animals (eg primitive amphibians, primitive mammals and dinosaurs, all existed before the first appearance of true birds.

That’s where Genesis got its claims wrong. The order of “when” birds first appeared are wrong in Genesis 1.

Are you going to blindly ignore the references to birds in Genesis 1:20-22?

 

[gnostic]

You wouldn't make a good archaeologist or code cracker, would you?
The early earth was a cloud planet (like Venus) and an ocean planet (like
what many extra-solar planets are thought to be)

Archaeologists only deal with humans, human history, cultures and societies, and man-made objects and man-made structures (eg huts, houses, palaces, temples, roads, irrigation, villages, towns, cities, etc).

Archaeologists don’t deal with other animals, particularly fossils of animals. Paleontologists are the one that deal with fossils of all animals, including fossils of humans.

You are confusing archaeology with paleontology.

 

[gnostic]

The early earth was a cloud planet (like Venus) and an ocean planet (like
what many extra-solar planets are thought to be)

No early Earth didn’t have water.

It is more likely the Earth’s surface was molten first, with the upper mantle, completely exposed. The Earth was also bombarded by meteorites and even comets.

These occurred before the surface cooled down enough to form the Earth’s crust, the new surface.

The cooling effect caused releases of gases that form the atmosphere. The atmosphere caused condensation, and that condensation led to formation of water.

Genesis 1:2 is wrong about the entire earth being covered in water, the primeval ocean, or the abyss.

So, to sum it up:

1. The molten Earth, plus bombardment of meteorites in the earliest formation of the Earth.
2. Then the Earth’s crust formed around the same time as atmosphere formed...
3. ...then the water.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ha ha. You are about to expose yourself here.

Um.......

So you are one who has the view that it is only Creationists with an agenda, who disagree with the popular opinions among scientists... particularly where the theory of evolution is concerned. Is that fair to say?

It depends on what you specifically mean by "popular opinions among scientists, particularly where the theory of evolution is concerned". So if you could specify, that would help.

 

[nPeace]

Um.......


It depends on what you specifically mean by "popular opinions among scientists, particularly where the theory of evolution is concerned". So if you could specify, that would help.

What most scientists agree on.... doesn't matter what.

 

[Jose Fly]

What most scientists agree on.... doesn't matter what.

Well, to me it kinda does matter. For example, there are evolutionary scientists who argue over things like the relative importance of genetic drift vs. selection, or how important "evo-devo" is. Obviously they aren't creationists, even though they disagree with each other.

So yeah....the specific disagreement you're referring to does matter.

 

[PruePhillip]

Why would it be in code? Even if it is, you are still obviously just re-reading it to try to make it fit - it's a joke.

"Code" refers to something cryptic.
Here's an early record of Jerusalem from Wiki
The first known mention of the city was in c. 2000 BCE in the Middle Kingdom Egyptian Execration Texts in which the
city was recorded as Rusalimum. The root S-L-M in the name is thought to refer to either "peace" (compare with modern
Salam or Shalom in modern Arabic and Hebrew) or Shalim, the god of dusk in the Canaanite religion.

Now, this is a joke.
Jerusalem is spelled j.e.r.u.s.a.l.e.m.
NOT Rusalimum or Shalim.

And until someone digs up a plaque
with "JERUSALEM" on it, Ratiocinator
is not going to believe there ever was
such a city.

Ratiocinator would make a good
detective.

 

[PruePhillip]

No early Earth didn’t have water.

It is more likely the Earth’s surface was molten first, with the upper mantle, completely exposed. The Earth was also bombarded by meteorites and even comets.

These occurred before the surface cooled down enough to form the Earth’s crust, the new surface.

The cooling effect caused releases of gases that form the atmosphere. The atmosphere caused condensation, and that condensation led to formation of water.

Genesis 1:2 is wrong about the entire earth being covered in water, the primeval ocean, or the abyss.

So, to sum it up:

1. The molten Earth, plus bombardment of meteorites in the earliest formation of the Earth.
2. Then the Earth’s crust formed around the same time as atmosphere formed...
3. ...then the water.

True. The early earth could have been MANY different things we don't even
know about. Wouldn't be surprised if it was a ringed planet like Saturn at
some stage. But the bible is a theological book - it's not about science and if
it was you, in 2019, would still not understand it, nor the mathematics used to
describe it. People "back then" had no concept of space and thought planets
were wandering stars.
Genesis just tells you the earth was here and at one stage it was dark, sterile
and completely oceanic. It's a fact.

 

[ratiocinator]

"Code" refers to something cryptic.
Here's an early record of Jerusalem from Wiki
The first known mention of the city was in c. 2000 BCE in the Middle Kingdom Egyptian Execration Texts in which the
city was recorded as Rusalimum. The root S-L-M in the name is thought to refer to either "peace" (compare with modern
Salam or Shalom in modern Arabic and Hebrew) or Shalim, the god of dusk in the Canaanite religion.

Which is not remotely like getting the order of events completely wrong.

 

[nPeace]

Well, to me it kinda does matter. For example, there are evolutionary scientists who argue over things like the relative importance of genetic drift vs. selection, or how important "evo-devo" is. Obviously they aren't creationists, even though they disagree with each other.

So yeah....the specific disagreement you're referring to does matter.

Nope. It doesn't. You just answered the question, so I don't need to give names.
I will highlight one thing though, and I don't think the scientist is a Creationist.
There are a few others, as well, and different mechanism offered.

See the full interview...
Mutation, Not Natural Selection, Drives Evolution
Molecular evolutionary biologist Masatoshi Nei says Darwin never proved natural selection is the driving force of evolution — because it isn't.

Criticism
I presented such views in my 1987 book Molecular Evolutionary Genetics, but people didn’t pay attention. Textbooks on evolution haven’t changed: They still say natural selection causes evolution. My views were totally ignored. In that book, I discussed many statistical techniques, and only in the last chapter did I discuss the problem of natural selection not being proven. The chapter did not convince a lot of people, I think, because they already had a preconceived notion that natural selection must be the driving force because Darwin said so. Darwin is a god in evolution, so you can’t criticize Darwin. If you do, you’re branded as arrogant.

But any time a scientific theory is treated like dogma, you have to question it. The dogma of natural selection has existed a long time. Most people have not questioned it. Most textbooks still state this is so. Most students are educated with these books.

You have to question dogma. Use common sense. You have to think for yourself, without preconceptions. That is what’s important in science.

Many agree with Masatoshi Nei, and want to inform the public. They also want to counteract your efforts to oppose their efforts.

Looks like you've got a fight on your hands.
Isn't it interesting that after nearly two centuries, they don't know how evolution by natural selection works in the real world.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope. It doesn't. You just answered the question, so I don't need to give names.
I will highlight one thing though, and I don't think the scientist is a Creationist.
There are a few others, as well, and different mechanism offered.

See the full interview...
Mutation, Not Natural Selection, Drives Evolution
Molecular evolutionary biologist Masatoshi Nei says Darwin never proved natural selection is the driving force of evolution — because it isn't.

Criticism
I presented such views in my 1987 book Molecular Evolutionary Genetics, but people didn’t pay attention. Textbooks on evolution haven’t changed: They still say natural selection causes evolution. My views were totally ignored. In that book, I discussed many statistical techniques, and only in the last chapter did I discuss the problem of natural selection not being proven. The chapter did not convince a lot of people, I think, because they already had a preconceived notion that natural selection must be the driving force because Darwin said so. Darwin is a god in evolution, so you can’t criticize Darwin. If you do, you’re branded as arrogant.

But any time a scientific theory is treated like dogma, you have to question it. The dogma of natural selection has existed a long time. Most people have not questioned it. Most textbooks still state this is so. Most students are educated with these books.

You have to question dogma. Use common sense. You have to think for yourself, without preconceptions. That is what’s important in science.

Many agree with Masatoshi Nei, and want to inform the public. They also want to counteract your efforts to oppose their efforts.

Looks like you've got a fight on your hands.
Isn't it interesting that after nearly two centuries, they don't know how evolution by natural selection works in the real world.

That's interesting for sure. But from what I can tell, it's kind of a distinction without much of a difference in that Dr. Nei's view is that "natural selection is merely a force eliminating less fit genotypes". I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that, because that's pretty much how natural selection works. Crossing over to our wolf/deer scenario, think about what the wolves (the selective pressure) are actually doing....they're eliminating the deer that are less fit (those without parasite immunity). Of course the corollary to that is how the deer that are more fit (those with parasite immunity) are thereby favored and subsequently increase in future generations.

So really this is quibbling over minute details. Dr. Nei and other evolutionary biologists agree that mutation and selection are mechanisms behind evolution, they're just debating the relative role of selection.

 

[PruePhillip]

Which is not remotely like getting the order of events completely wrong.

The order is "wrong" only if you chose you to look at the land and
sea lists as differently.
"God commanded the land to bring forth life"
... then a list of land life
"God commanded the seas to bring forth life"
... and another list - this of sea life, PLUS BIRDS.

You chose one way of seeing that list because it then appears
nonsensical. I chose the opposite way of seeing it, and it clicks
into place.

1 - the heavens
2 - the earth
3 - the opening of the skies
4 - the creation of land
5 - the creation of life on land
6 - the creation of life in the sea
7 - man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's interesting for sure. But from what I can tell, it's kind of a distinction without much of a difference in that Dr. Nei's view is that "natural selection is merely a force eliminating less fit genotypes". I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that, because that's pretty much how natural selection works. Crossing over to our wolf/deer scenario, think about what the wolves (the selective pressure) are actually doing....they're eliminating the deer that are less fit (those without parasite immunity). Of course the corollary to that is how the deer that are more fit (those with parasite immunity) are thereby favored and subsequently increase in future generations.

So really this is quibbling over minute details. Dr. Nei and other evolutionary biologists agree that mutation and selection are mechanisms behind evolution, they're just debating the relative role of selection.

A quick seach by me revealed the same thing. Creationists at times seem to be unable to understand that it is variation (which includes mutation) and natural selection working together driving evolution. It is easy to "refute" evolution if one pretends it is only natural selection, which remioves "informatin" is the drviing force since no new traits can emerge, and the same bad arguments apply if one goes by mutation only snce that loads up both good and bad changes and no species change can occur. One has to continually emphasize that it is the two working together and it is rather foolish to try to refute evoluiton by focusing on only one.

 

[shunyadragon]

The order is "wrong" only if you chose you to look at the land and
sea lists as differently.
"God commanded the land to bring forth life"
... then a list of land life
"God commanded the seas to bring forth life"
... and another list - this of sea life, PLUS BIRDS.

You chose one way of seeing that list because it then appears
nonsensical. I chose the opposite way of seeing it, and it clicks
into place.

1 - the heavens
2 - the earth
3 - the opening of the skies
4 - the creation of land
5 - the creation of life on land
6 - the creation of life in the sea
7 - man.

Trying to juggle the books does not get you the brass ring. The natural evolution of life of over billions of years and the evolution of humanity is the science not supported by Genesis, and then we have to deal with the flood, for which htere i absolutely no evidence for the flood on either a world nor regional perspective.