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

[Dan From Smithville]

It would be all down to probability. The chances of you walking on the sun
(ten to the power one hundred to the power one hundred) is so fantastically
remote that I suppose you would say that was a miracle. A pointless miracle
to be sure, but a "miracle."

A chimpanzee giving birth to a wholy human (Homo sapiens) infant would be a miracle. Unpredicted and impossible given what we know of genetics, physiology, evolution and speciation as well as against countless observations to the contrary.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It makes no difference to me that my view is not an "established" one.
I call Genesis 1:20 the "orphan verse" as both religious people and
atheists find it confronting.

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature
that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament
of heaven.

Indeed most translations now say that the seas "teemed" with life instead of
producing life. An altogether different and deceptive translation.

You can believe as you like, but it neither supports science and the evidence nor does it meaningful contradict either. There is no compulsion to believe it literally in order to believe in God or be Christian. Science and the evidence do not support Genesis and all attempts to do that by fundamentalists are after the fact. Those attempts, themselves, undermine the biblical assertion by making science the model to emulate.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It makes no difference to me that my view is not an "established" one.
I call Genesis 1:20 the "orphan verse" as both religious people and
atheists find it confronting.

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature
that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament
of heaven.

Indeed most translations now say that the seas "teemed" with life instead of
producing life. An altogether different and deceptive translation.

I take it that you are claiming the translation you follow is the superior and correct translation. It is a very large club covering all translations I am afraid, so of little to no probative value.

 

[PruePhillip]

But if there is a chance and an explanation, it would not fall outside of physics and, thus, not meet your criteria. Perhaps a better definition would include defiance of natural law, rather than external to it. But no observations of this are known either. Just unverified claims.

Okay. Imagine you want to cycle around a whole mountain. It's hard work and
you imagine, "Wouldn't it be nice if I could just tunnel right through the mountain
and appear on the other side?"
That's not actually impossible. You CAN tunnel through, but you might wait for
the age of the universe to see it happen, and that mountain would have been
washed away long ago.
But this happens in the quantum world. Tunneling is an important aspect of
microprocessors.
But yeah, all this APPEARS TO FALL OUTSIDE OF PHYSICS - only physics
has a strong probability component.
But "outside" of the universe there is non quantum world, not even numbers.
Nothing.

 

[PruePhillip]

You can believe as you like, but it neither supports science and the evidence nor does it meaningful contradict either. There is no compulsion to believe it literally in order to believe in God or be Christian. Science and the evidence do not support Genesis and all attempts to do that by fundamentalists are after the fact. Those attempts, themselves, undermine the biblical assertion by making science the model to emulate.

You can say these things - but you aren't backing them up with the text.
When Genesis states there was period when the earth was dark with
sterile oceans and no land - that actually was correct. You need to address
each of the claims I made, not a blanket attack upon the philosophy of the
claims.

 

[PruePhillip]

I take it that you are claiming the translation you follow is the superior and correct translation. It is a very large club covering all translations I am afraid, so of little to no probative value.

Modern translations don't do these verses service. But the bottom
line is that God "commanded" the sea and the land. No hairy arm
reached down through the clouds to push plants into the soil.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Okay. Imagine you want to cycle around a whole mountain. It's hard work and
you imagine, "Wouldn't it be nice if I could just tunnel right through the mountain
and appear on the other side?"
That's not actually impossible. You CAN tunnel through, but you might wait for
the age of the universe to see it happen, and that mountain would have been
washed away long ago.

Not impossible at all. Tunnels have been built in my lifetime already.

But this happens in the quantum world. aspect of
microprocessors.

If it can happen and has a physical explanation, it is not a miracle.

But yeah, all this APPEARS TO FALL OUTSIDE OF PHYSICS - only physics
has a strong probability component.
But "outside" of the universe there is non quantum world, not even numbers.
Nothing.

What is 'outside the universe'? What does that mean? Where has it been observed? What about this 'outside the universe's having its own set of different, but internally and externally consistent rules that can be observed, determined, quantfied, and codified. Would that not preclude the miracle status of an event in that space?

Sorry. In responding I may have cut out some of your quoted material by accident.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can say these things - but you aren't backing them up with the text.
When Genesis states there was period when the earth was dark with
sterile oceans and no land - that actually was correct. You need to address
each of the claims I made, not a blanket attack upon the philosophy of the
claims.

It is widely recognized and has been widely done to the point that it is common knowledge that the evidence contradicts Genesis. There is no demand in the Bible that Genesis acceptance is a criteria of faith.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Modern translations don't do these verses service. But the bottom
line is that God "commanded" the sea and the land. No hairy arm
reached down through the clouds to push plants into the soil.

No evidence exists for how this might have occurred at all based on any translation. It is known, however, that plants require the sun, despite the claims of Genesis to the contrary.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can say these things - but you aren't backing them up with the text.
When Genesis states there was period when the earth was dark with
sterile oceans and no land - that actually was correct. You need to address
each of the claims I made, not a blanket attack upon the philosophy of the
claims.

You are leaning on a literal interpretation and my response is sufficient to rebut that. Further, you are claiming the superiority of one of a multitude of translations. Again, my response is sufficient to rebut that. Finally, your own examples of miracles do not fit your own definitions. You rebut yourself there and I concur.

 

[PruePhillip]

You can believe as you like, but it neither supports science and the evidence nor does it meaningful contradict either. There is no compulsion to believe it literally in order to believe in God or be Christian. Science and the evidence do not support Genesis and all attempts to do that by fundamentalists are after the fact. Those attempts, themselves, undermine the biblical assertion by making science the model to emulate.

This is true. I appreciate your excellent point.
But I wrote "When Genesis states there was period when the earth
was dark with sterile oceans and no land - that actually was correct."
Science DOES support this scene. "Fundamentalists" per se don't
accept my interpretation either.
Wanting something clarion clear and in black and white is not the
way to read any old text. You have to take on board the nuances.

 

[PruePhillip]

You are leaning on a literal interpretation and my response is sufficient to rebut that. Further, you are claiming the superiority of one of a multitude of translations. Again, my response is sufficient to rebut that. Finally, your own examples of miracles do not fit your own definitions. You rebut yourself there and I concur.

I see the first creation account as being more literal than the second.
It's clear that Genesis says God created everything by "command",
regardless of translation. Genesis seems to be saying that everything
fell into a process, as if creating itself.
But declaring what is and what isn't "literal" is fraught with difficulty.
Yes, I see the process as literal, but I don't see the seven days as
literal. It's a bit like an algorithmic filter (think Photoshop) when you
strip away theological language and you find something underneath
that's uncannily like what was thought to actually happen.
This happens a lot in archaeology by the way.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Huh?

As in "I base my belief in evolution in the abundance of facts that support it from biology, anthropology and paleontology".

That's not accurate at all. I haven't missed the point, and no, you apparently stretched my statement to fit all conclusions. Not a fair tactic.

It's a perfectly fair tactic. You ridiculed the idea that scientists can do this, and yet it's something that is demonstrably true and effective. You were ill-informed and leapt to an unfounded conclusion.

Nope. There were two prime suspects, in a murder case. I was asking you to prove which of the suspects was the murderer.

What does that have to do with identifying the body?

Genetics? What about it? It's a study, like biology, geology, zoology, etc.
Surely, you are not going to start rattling off names of existing methods to say that there are facts of evolution.
Strike one.

You asked what provided evidence of evolution. I said genetics.

Do you not understand how genetics provides evidence of evolution?

And please stop the childish use of emojis. It doesn't make you look clever.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1 - earth is wholly ocean
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 10

2 - earth is dark
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 5

3 - earth is sterile
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 10

4 - earth's atmosphere became transparent
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 10

5 - continents rose
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 20

6 - life appeared on land
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 5

7 - life appeared in the oceans
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 10

8 - man was the last
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 20

Do the math
10x5x10x10x20x5x10x10
= one chance in 900,000,000

ONE CHANCE IN NEARLY A BILLION

Prue, I've called you out on this before, but taking the Biblical Genesis account and removing everything that doesn't fit and then manipulating and over-simplfying what's left is dishonest.

You need to stop doing this. If the Bible was truly accurate, you would just copy and paste the passages - you wouldn't deliberately misrepresent them, like you are doing now. Here is a breakdown of what the Bible ACTUALLY says, with notes from me pointing out the parts it gets wrong:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(Pretty straight-forward.)

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
(So we can assume that when the earth was created, God made water upon it and it was dark - despite the fact that the earliest stage of earth was a hot ball of molten magma and water didn't exist until around 100 million years after the earth first formed. WRONG.)

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
(Ambiguous as to whether it refers to the concept of light in general or light from the sun specifically. We can probably assume that light pre-dates the earth, but we'll be charitable and assume this is a more illustrative line.)

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(Weird that the days pre-date the sun, but whatever.)

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
(So, the next things God did was create the land.)

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
(So plant-life pre-dates any other form of life. WRONG.)

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
(This is pretty obviously referring to the sun. You COULD argue that he's talking about the sun's light reaching earth through the clouds, but THEN...)

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
(Oh look! It specifically says he MADE the two great lights AND the stars at this point, making it unambiguous that he is referring to the CREATION of the sun and moon, so the Bible claims that both the earth and plant life pre-date the sun. WRONG.)

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
(So god created both the creatures of the sea and the fowl that "fly above the earth" at the same time on the fourth day. He doesn't say "the creatures of the sea - who, by the way, would eventually evolve into the fowl WAYYY later on". It makes it clear that aquatic animals and avian animals were created on the same day. WRONG.)

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
(So NOW god creates life on land, specifically on the FIFTH day, claiming birds pre-date land animals. WRONG.)

So, let's amend your account with FULL reference to the facts (additions in red):

heavens
earth (specifically, it says they were created at the same time)
earth - dark and oceanic (ignoring the 1 billion years earth spent as molten rock)
earth - continents (formed by the presence of water aiding subduction and granite formation.
earth - light (opaque atmosphere as will happen on Titan when the swells and expands in billions of years)
earth - life coming from the land (specifically, plants, no mention of micro-organisms)
the sun - God creates the sun and moon
earth - life coming from the sea (and birds)
earth - God creates all creatures that live on the land (excluding humans)
earth - man.

 

[nPeace]

As in "I base my belief in evolution in the abundance of facts that support it from biology, anthropology and paleontology".


It's a perfectly fair tactic. You ridiculed the idea that scientists can do this, and yet it's something that is demonstrably true and effective. You were ill-informed and leapt to an unfounded conclusion.

Again. No. You are stretching a statement to fit a book. Like stretching a party balloon to fit New York. In other words, misrepresenting what I said.
However, I am not going to argue with you. I know how that goes.

What does that have to do with identifying the body?

You are completely missing the point.
The point is, no matter how much forensic evidence one has, the circumstantial evidence may be such, that the conclusion may be wrong.

You asked what provided evidence of evolution. I said genetics.

Do you not understand how genetics provides evidence of evolution?

And please stop the childish use of emojis. It doesn't make you look clever.

Nope. Again, please don't misrepresent my statements.
I said... Give me one of the tons of facts supporting the theory that is not a hypothesis... just one.
That is what I said, which was in response to your claim regarding evolutionary theory.

As I said, I'll repeat... Genetics is a study, just like biology, zoology, etc. It's not something you can say, is a fact supporting the theory of evolution. Biology is not a fact supporting the theory of evolution.
See here, here, and here.
Perhaps you are thinking of population genetics... a subfield of genetics, I don't know.
Population genetic models are used both for statistical inference from DNA sequence data and for proof/disproof of concept.

Or, perhaps you are referring to comparing the DNA genetic sequences from which they infer common descent. That is not genetics, but it is one of several method which is used to study the hypothesis of evolutionary history. It is one of a number of hypotheses. So is comparative anatomy.

I'm not telling you what to do, or not to do, like you keep telling me.
However what you are telling me is not anything in line with RF rules. So I don't understand why you are ordering me. Are you even staff? Nay.

It's sad that some atheist are so uptight

, though, and seem so angry all the time. It's as though they can't seem to even have a light conversation.
Perhaps, it seems, they are just sore losers, and get extremely annoyed

when they have to try and defend their beloved philosophical belief. It's no one's fault that they chose to believe something so that the only evidence it has to prop it up are a bunch of absurd ideas.
All they can do is act tough

, while inside they are crying

. As though they so badly want their belief to be true, as though that faith will somehow get rid of God.
But it's just a weak helpless, rootless, baseless, fruitless tree, imo.

Why? Your last comment seems so cold, unfriendly , and insulting,

I am prompted take up last your invitation.
Here is you, ridiculing.
...you're willing to take the Bible's word at face value no matter how ridiculous it's claims are? No matter what way you try to justify it, that is pure and simple delusion.

May I recommend, if you have a problem with persons using emojis, why not take it up with the RF staff?
I am sure you don't have the authority to tell anyone, when, how, or if to use them, and. I am sure RF didn't put those emojis there to sit as un-welcomed spectators. Nor to make someone look clever. However, I find they can add a little humor and friendliness. However, I can see how they might be annoying to someone who may think more of themselves than is necessary, and who might pride themselves in the belief that they have a "superior intelligence", and "unmatched cleverness".
Why... a simple smiley emoji seem to cause some atheists to blow a fuse.
Smile.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again. No. You are stretching a statement to fit a book. Like stretching a party balloon to fit New York. In other words, misrepresenting what I said.
However, I am not going to argue with you. I know how that goes.


You are completely missing the point.
The point is, no matter how much forensic evidence one has, the circumstantial evidence may be such, that the conclusion may be wrong.


Nope. Again, please don't misrepresent my statements.
I said... Give me one of the tons of facts supporting the theory that is not a hypothesis... just one.
That is what I said, which was in response to your claim regarding evolutionary theory.

As I said, I'll repeat... Genetics is a study, just like biology, zoology, etc. It's not something you can say, is a fact supporting the theory of evolution. Biology is not a fact supporting the theory of evolution.
See here, here, and here.
Perhaps you are thinking of population genetics... a subfield of genetics, I don't know.
Population genetic models are used both for statistical inference from DNA sequence data and for proof/disproof of concept.

Or, perhaps you are referring to comparing the DNA genetic sequences from which they infer common descent. That is not genetics, but it is one of several method which is used to study the hypothesis of evolutionary history. It is one of a number of hypotheses. So is comparative anatomy.

I'm not telling you what to do, or not to do, like you keep telling me.
However what you are telling me is not anything in line with RF rules. So I don't understand why you are ordering me. Are you even staff? Nay.

It's sad that some atheist are so uptight

, though, and seem so angry all the time. It's as though they can't seem to even have a light conversation.
Perhaps, it seems, they are just sore losers, and get extremely annoyed

when they have to try and defend their beloved philosophical belief. It's no one's fault that they chose to believe something so that the only evidence it has to prop it up are a bunch of absurd ideas.
All they can do is act tough

, while inside they are crying

. As though they so badly want their belief to be true, as though that faith will somehow get rid of God.
But it's just a weak helpless, rootless, baseless, fruitless tree, imo.

Why? Your last comment seems so cold, unfriendly , and insulting,

I am prompted take up last your invitation.
Here is you, ridiculing.
...you're willing to take the Bible's word at face value no matter how ridiculous it's claims are? No matter what way you try to justify it, that is pure and simple delusion.

May I recommend, if you have a problem with persons using emojis, why not take it up with the RF staff?
I am sure you don't have the authority to tell anyone, when, how, or if to use them, and. I am sure RF didn't put those emojis there to sit as un-welcomed spectators. Nor to make someone look clever. However, I find they can add a little humor and friendliness. However, I can see how they might be annoying to someone who may think more of themselves than is necessary, and who might pride themselves in the belief that they have a "superior intelligence", and "unmatched cleverness".
Why... a simple smiley emoji seem to cause some atheists to blow a fuse.
Smile.

Dishonesty tends to make honest people get angry at times. Lying with a smile on one's face is exceptionally irritating.

My question, which no creationist can seem to answer is why do creationists believe in a lying God?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are completely missing the point.

No, that's what you're doing. You're confusing a criminal case with identification of a body.

The point is, no matter how much forensic evidence one has, the circumstantial evidence may be such, that the conclusion may be wrong.

Which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with being able to successfully identify the body, thus demonstrating the reliability of this particular scientific method.

Nope. Again, please don't misrepresent my statements.
I said... Give me one of the tons of facts supporting the theory that is not a hypothesis... just one.
That is what I said, which was in response to your claim regarding evolutionary theory.

In what way am I misrepresenting you? Are you unaware that evidence means "facts that support a proposition"?

As I said, I'll repeat... Genetics is a study, just like biology, zoology, etc. It's not something you can say, is a fact supporting the theory of evolution.

Yes, you can, because the entire study of genetics supports evolution.

I'm not telling you what to do, or not to do, like you keep telling me.
However what you are telling me is not anything in line with RF rules. So I don't understand why you are ordering me. Are you even staff? Nay.

I made a polite request and gave you advice. Your use of emojis undermines you and makes you come across as childish. You can still use them if you like, I'm just giving you my opinion. To me, the only reason a person would use emojis on this forum in the middle of a serious debate is ridicule or gloating, neither of which are fit for respectful discussion.

It's sad that some atheist are so uptight

, though, and seem so angry all the time. It's as though they can't seem to even have a light conversation.
Perhaps, it seems, they are just sore losers, and get extremely annoyed

when they have to try and defend their beloved philosophical belief. It's no one's fault that they chose to believe something so that the only evidence it has to prop it up are a bunch of absurd ideas.
All they can do is act tough

, while inside they are crying

. As though they so badly want their belief to be true, as though that faith will somehow get rid of God.
But it's just a weak helpless, rootless, baseless, fruitless tree, imo.

See, it's paragraphs like the above that should make it perfectly clear to you why atheists can lack patience with you. This violent reaction against such a simple and polite request is frankly bizarre.

Also, that's ridicule.

Why? Your last comment seems so cold, unfriendly , and insulting,

I am prompted take up last your invitation.
Here is you, ridiculing.
...you're willing to take the Bible's word at face value no matter how ridiculous it's claims are? No matter what way you try to justify it, that is pure and simple delusion.

There is no ridicule in that post. Try again.

May I recommend, if you have a problem with persons using emojis, why not take it up with the RF staff?
I am sure you don't have the authority to tell anyone, when, how, or if to use them, and. I am sure RF didn't put those emojis there to sit as un-welcomed spectators. Nor to make someone look clever. However, I find they can add a little humor and friendliness. However, I can see how they might be annoying to someone who may think more of themselves than is necessary, and who might pride themselves in the belief that they have a "superior intelligence", and "unmatched cleverness".
Why... a simple smiley emoji seem to cause some atheists to blow a fuse.
Smile.

Or, you could just say

"Yeah, I guess it is kind of childish and undermines my argument. I'll use them less in future."

 

[nPeace]

No, that's what you're doing. You're confusing a criminal case with identification of a body.


Which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with being able to successfully identify the body, thus demonstrating the reliability of this particular scientific method.


In what way am I misrepresenting you? Are you unaware that evidence means "facts that support a proposition"?


Yes, you can, because the entire study of genetics supports evolution.


I made a polite request and gave you advice. Your use of emojis undermines you and makes you come across as childish. You can still use them if you like, I'm just giving you my opinion. To me, the only reason a person would use emojis on this forum in the middle of a serious debate is ridicule or gloating, neither of which are fit for respectful discussion.


See, it's paragraphs like the above that should make it perfectly clear to you why atheists can lack patience with you. This violent reaction against such a simple and polite request is frankly bizarre.

Also, that's ridicule.


There is no ridicule in that post. Try again.


Or, you could just say

"Yeah, I guess it is kind of childish and undermines my argument. I'll use them less in future."

I have acknowledged all of your opinions. They are your opinions, and obviously you think they are right, but you are entitled to that opinion, also.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evolution is the backbone of modern biology. So yeah, all biological evidence supports evolution.

 

[Astrophile]

This is true. I appreciate your excellent point.
But I wrote "When Genesis states there was period when the earth
was dark with sterile oceans and no land - that actually was correct."
Science DOES support this scene. "Fundamentalists" per se don't
accept my interpretation either.

Can you give a link to a scientific source that says this?