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

[shunyadragon]

How many times do I type this?
The Sequence in Genesis
1 - God created the heavens
2 - and the earth
3 - and the earth was dark and totally oceanic
4 - the the skies cleared
5 - and the continents rose
6 - and life came from the earth (not the seas, land first, ie clay, fresh water etc..)
7 - and life came out of the sea (inc birds)
8 - and finally man.

Type it as many times as you wish. The above does not really represent how Genesis describes Creation, and nothing in Genesis describes the continents rising.

If this were in reality an accepted scientific description. which it is not, Creationists would have no problem with the science of the history of our universe and evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

Which apes are these, oh fake expert on all things?


And here we have, yet again, a nice example of how the ignorant USE their ignorance as an argument.

YOU don't understand how a skull can tell us about bipedality, but INTELLIGENT and EDUCATED people can. Just because YOUR worldview dictates that "ignorance is bliss" does not mean this is true for all.

One hint - that I am sure you will dismiss as "jargon" (which means that you just never bothered to learn anything about the things you are brainwashed to reject) - foramen magnum.

An incoherent response. You need to rewrite clearly for me to respond.

Humans did not evolve from apes(?), What are loosely called apes by layman have common primate ancestors with humans.

 

[Polymath257]

I have no problem with creatures being classified as mammals because human babies drink milk like a lot of other creatures who feed their babies milk.....I have a problem with claiming that an ear bone in a four legged land animal means it was the ancestor of a whale because it is similar looking. That is conjecture based on the flimsiest of 'evidence'.

And that is NOT the only evidence that was used to reach the conclusion. Among other things, the age of the fossils, the rest of the skull, etc also contribute to this conclusion.

I am not in denial because I demand more proof than science can produce. Just because you believe everything they tell you, doesn't mean I have to. When you are schooled in the sciences, it is a form of indoctrination when you accept things without solid proof. That is the very thing evolutionists criticize in ID supporters.

And what *would* be enough proof? Do we need to have a fossil from each and every generation dated to within a month going from one to the other to convince you? Or would that still not be enough? Would we have to have video of each generation giving birth to the next? Would that do it?

Not surprising at all.....but looking at their bones and assuming relationship is a bit like comparing the foundations and structure of several buildings. Doesn't their similarity simply mean that they were designed by a trained architect and a trained engineer and that their plans are based on sound building and engineering codes and the correct materials? All that "similarity" means to me is that the bone structure of vertebrates is similar because the basic code is sound and they all have one very intelligent Creator......its not necessarily because one kind of creature evolved into another. That is pure supposition. Having similar DNA doesn't mean anything either because the same principle applies. All living things are made out of the same basic materials. DNA codes might vary, but each creature has its own code and when reproduction occurs the information passed on in their code ensures that the offspring are of the same "kind" as its parents.

Except that building don't reproduce. One building doesn't actually give birth to another building. That sort of makes a difference, you know.

The fascinating thing about apes is their similarity to humans, but the similarity ends when it comes to differentiating the two. Humans are unique in how they use their intelligence and how they can use their concepts of past present and future to plan and to build. Animals are programmed by instinct, which means that they behave in a way that requires no planning....no conscious analysis of a situation beyond the here and now. Humans are not instinctual in their behavior....what they do is unique to them.

I think that if you look into this, you will find it to be false. In particular, the other great apes *do* plan, think through things, etc. In some ways they are better at it than we are (they have better memories in many ways).

Primitive people have always existed, even in the modern world you can still find people who live primitive lives basically untouched by modern technology.....


That does not mean that all humans were once primitive, half man-half ape as is suggested in evolutionary artwork...

First of all, 'primitive humans' are anatomically *fully human*. That is simply not the case for the human ancestors.

Second, there have not *always* been humans. If you go back 10 million years, there were no humans at all.

....that is another assumption.

No, it is a *conclusion* based on the *evidence*. Not only do we have the fossils (in order), but the ages of these fossils fit into the progression (and diversity). Again, the ages are part of the evidence that you like to ignore.

Creatures cannot cross taxonomic lines.....this has never been observed. So when did taxonomy form into identifiable classifications and who placed them into their families and clades? Wasn't it scientists who used these classifications to imply an evolutionary relationship?

And when humans evolved from great apes, no taxonomic lines were crossed. We *are* a type of great ape. We are mammals. We are vertebrates, etc. No taxonomic lines were crossed. But new taxonomic lineages did develop at some points.

 

[PruePhillip]

Type it as many times as you wish. The above does not really represent how Genesis describes Creation, and nothing in Genesis describes the continents rising.

If this were in reality an accepted scientific description. which it is not, Creationists would have no problem with the science of the history of our universe and evolution.

Genesis 1:9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”
And it was so.
God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

That is my reading of it. "Let the dry ground appear."
In other words, the early earth was wet, ie oceans or ocean (singular)
It is thought that many rocky planets "out there" (exo-planets) could be pure ocean planets.
Earth had an ocean about 5-6 km deep I read somewhere - and no continents.
Continents are made of granite which is a lighter material. Only earth has granite because
this rock is created with water and subduction processes.

So yes, the bible got this right.
I wonder if someone has come up for a name for this global ocean?

 

[PruePhillip]

An incoherent response. You need to rewrite clearly for me to respond.

Humans did not evolve from apes(?), What are loosely called apes by layman have common primate ancestors with humans.

Humans "come from" hominins.
Humans are hominins, the last ones left.
Humans didn't come from apes or chimpanzees. No-one says that.

 

[shunyadragon]

Humans "come from" hominins.
Humans are hominins, the last ones left.

Still not clear. How do you define hominins?

Humans didn't come from apes or chimpanzees. No-one says that.

Well, ah . . . creationists claim science supports this, which is not true. Again . . . needs clarification.

Science has determined all primates including humans evolved from common primate ancestors.

 

[PruePhillip]

Still not clear. How do you define hominins?



Well, ah . . . creationists claim science supports this, which is not true. Again . . . needs clarification.

Science has determined all primates including humans evolved from common primate ancestors.

Frankly this "hominin" thing gets confusing - it's a new term. It used to be
"hominid" and I simply give up trying to figure it out. I say "hominin" for all
those amazing human-like creatures with names like Lucy, Australapithecus,
little foot, homo habilus, Neanderthal etc..
I showed someone this new face today and asked them, "Can you see
the human in it?" You don't see the human in a gorilla like this anamensis
creature.

 

[Revoltingest]

Uncle angus??

.​

Me own Uncle Angus is a less handsome fellow.
However, he does have opposable thumbs.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Great. So now just provide some evidence or some kind of demonstration for these claims (that all species were designed AND that all species were designed to be herbivores). I'm sure you have it, right?

 

[sealchan]

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?

That is short-sighted...what other species will be capable of preserving and moving entire ecosystems into outer space in contained environments or onto other worlds? How clever will that be? How far might that go to spread and perpetuate the life that has arisen on this planet? Homo sapiens may become the mid-wife of Gaia.

And I seem to recall another fateful "drowning in waste event" that, as it turns out, is important to us now:

The Origin of Oxygen in Earth's Atmosphere

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

How do you know God did not create evolution? Would a god not be intelligent enough to do so?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

What gods?
What commandments?
What religion?
What demons?
What prophets?
What fairies?

Do tell.

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.

Living past the age of five is pretty great, right? Well, prior to the turn of the Twentieth Century, " 30 percent of all deaths in the United States occurred in children less than 5 years of age." In 1999, that number was 1.4%.
PATTERNS OF CHILDHOOD DEATH IN AMERICA - When Children Die - NCBI Bookshelf


That’s a nice change, don’t you think?

How about past the age of forty? Not bad, right? Well, thanks to science, we've got a lot of deadly diseases under much better control than we used to, not to mention the fact that we've eradicated or almost eradicated a good deal of them. When is the last time you heard about a massive epidemic of bubonic plague? Thanks to advances in public health and sanitation, vaccines and antibiotics, we don't have so much of that anymore. They’ve been a lifesaver for us. Scientific inquiry produced all of it.

Lots of people lead productive, healthy and happy lives well into their 80s and early 90s these days. My grandfather was one of them. He just passed away at the age of 92. He lived independently in his own home, retained his driver’s license and enjoy a very long and happy life. He only became ill at the very end, thankfully. I can’t disagree with you that nursing homes need a lot of improvement, though, I’ve seen both excellent ones and some not-so-great ones.

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.

When she was alive, my grandmother’s favourite movies were Donnie Brasco and Goodfellas. My favourite movies are Gone With the Wind and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. To each his own, eh?

Who is feeding “demonic stuff” to kids at an early age? You do know that movies have ratings, right? Where do you get the idea that there is a lack of compassion in younger generations?

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

Without science and scientists, we wouldn't even know anything about what environmental damage even is.

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.

So … more nothing.

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.

Please be sure to let us know if your conjecture ever becomes reality.

 

[Jose Fly]

So here we go again, another thread on evolution where the Jehovah's Witnesses show up, post as if they're the true experts in almost every field of science, and make all sorts of grand declarations about what the true science really is. Yet if anyone were to ask them if maybe....just maybe, being Witnesses influences their opinions on the subject, they'd act all indignant and shocked at the mere suggestion of such a thing. Weird!

Since I think all of them have me on "ignore", I'll just post this for everyone else. Never, ever forget it when you're trying to discuss evolution with a Jehovah's Witness.

Should I Believe in Evolution? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

"If evolution is true, life has no lasting purpose. If creation is true, we can find satisfying answers to questions about life and the future."​

That's all you ever need to know about JWs and evolution.

 

[Audie]

How do you know God did not create evolution? Would a god not be intelligent enough to do so?

Seriously.

 

[Audie]

S

Should I Believe in Evolution? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

"If evolution is true, life has no lasting purpose. If creation is true, we can find satisfying answers to questions about life and the future."​

That's all you ever need to know about JWs and evolution.

And they know all they will ever need to know about
science, for lo, they know more than any actual scientist
on earth.

 

[Jose Fly]

And they know all they will ever need to know about
science, for lo, they know more than any actual scientist
on earth.

Odd how a religious group that discourages higher education is composed of so many people who are high-level experts in so many field of science. Amazing!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So here we go again, another thread on evolution where the Jehovah's Witnesses show up, post as if they're the true experts in almost every field of science, and make all sorts of grand declarations about what the true science really is. Yet if anyone were to ask them if maybe....just maybe, being Witnesses influences their opinions on the subject, they'd act all indignant and shocked at the mere suggestion of such a thing. Weird!

Since I think all of them have me on "ignore", I'll just post this for everyone else. Never, ever forget it when you're trying to discuss evolution with a Jehovah's Witness.

Should I Believe in Evolution? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

"If evolution is true, life has no lasting purpose. If creation is true, we can find satisfying answers to questions about life and the future."​

That's all you ever need to know about JWs and evolution.

I was particularly intrigued by the announcement that variation is the result of adaptation. Here, all these years, I have been following the evidence that indicates that variation leads to adaptation through natural selection.

Based on that gem, I do not know how anyone can claim that JW's do not know science well enough to reject it.

It reminds me of a poem by Dixon Lanier Merritt.

A wonderful bird is the Pelican. Her beak can hold more than her head can. She can hold in her beak, enough words for a week! But I'll be darned if I know how she knows anything about evolution?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Odd how a religious group that discourages higher education is composed of so many people who are high-level experts in so many field of science. Amazing!

Another Christmas miracle.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And they know all they will ever need to know about
science, for lo, they know more than any actual scientist
on earth.

Negative reinforcement?

 

[dad]

Whether or not you believe it, the truth is that's what evolutionary theory claims. Anybody who says otherwise is just factually wrong, and misrepresenting evolution.

I was not representing evolution! Why would I represent your faith?? ..Fairy tale.

If I repeatedly asserted that the Bible said "All men should be named Adam", it doesn't matter whether the story of Adam and Eve is true - what would matter is the fact that Bible says no such thing, and to assert it does is mistaken at best and dishonest at worst.

What you assert that opposes what God wrote doesn't much matter actually. Relax.

How can somebody expect to debate evolution when they constantly assert things about it that are not true?

I think I asked how the silly little skull is connected to human beings? The reply should be specific, rather than whiny and accusatory and a strawman argument.