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

[nPeace]

One of our university professors in Melbourne, Dr Andrew Prentice,
worked for NASA for a while. He's a lovely guy, so humble and
charming. During the planning of the Voyager missions to the
planets his job was essentially to determine what NASA would find
before the probes reached each planet. (You have to know where
to steer the probes and point cameras long in advance.)
Prentice had this "supersonic turbulence" model which gave a
very indication of the composition and sizes of the moons. We
were in awe of the guy. His predictions were about 95% accurate.

The Americans now have a better model than Prentice's.
So yes, we do have a good idea of how planets form.

From a religion point of view it just says that God made the heavens
and the earth. How and when isn't the point.

There is no need to bring God into this, since I am not making an argument for God on planets.
My argument, is... why believes stories, that are created to support ideas assumed to be correct?

If you have the data that tells us, 'we know how planets are formed, then could you please post it here.
I want to know how it harmonizes with this...
"We don't know how planets formed in the beginning," said Jaumann.

"And in order to understand this, (we must) go to the small bodies, these primitive bodies, primordial in their history in their evolution, in order to understand the first 10 to 100 million years of planetary formation."

A dust mystery, and a future threat?
MASCOT also presented scientists with a new mystery: its lack of fine particles, or interplanetary dust, which would normally accumulate through millions of years of space weathering.

The paper offered theories but no definitive conclusions.

 

[dad]

You are not fooling anyone. Try again.

Thanks SZ (zzzzzzz)

 

[dad]

What religion is that? Do tell me, because as far as I know I'm very neutral and apathetic towards religion, defaulting to my vast ignorance rather than pretending to have answers. So, do tell me, what is my religion because apparently I don't know myself but you seem to have some insight that let's you know.

The religion of the theory of evolution.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The religion of the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution isn't a religion.

 

[PruePhillip]

There is no need to bring God into this, since I am not making an argument for God on planets.
My argument, is... why believes stories, that are created to support ideas assumed to be correct?

If you have the data that tells us, 'we know how planets are formed, then could you please post it here.
I want to know how it harmonizes with this...
"We don't know how planets formed in the beginning," said Jaumann.

"And in order to understand this, (we must) go to the small bodies, these primitive bodies, primordial in their history in their evolution, in order to understand the first 10 to 100 million years of planetary formation."

A dust mystery, and a future threat?
MASCOT also presented scientists with a new mystery: its lack of fine particles, or interplanetary dust, which would normally accumulate through millions of years of space weathering.

The paper offered theories but no definitive conclusions.

Not sure about the question.
But we "know" how planets form.
Big Bang created hydrogen and helium
Early suns created "metallic elements" from these
These elements coalesced under gravity to form planets.

 

[PruePhillip]

Humans are apes.

Apes are not very precise, because it include humans along with chimpanzees, gorillas, etc. Ape is a umbrella term for the great apes or the family Hominidae.

But mammals are exactly precise, since humans are also mammals, just as dogs, cats, bears, cow, elephants, dolphins, whales, etc.

Apes, like mammals, tetrapods, vertebrae, etc, all umbrella terms, that also applied to humans.

Well... I prefer to see "apes" in the Gorillini line and humans in the hominini line.
The two are quite distinct.

 

[PruePhillip]

The theory of evolution isn't a religion.

Yes and no. If by "religion" we mean a way of explaining the universe and
our reason for being in it - then I suppose you can say science serves a
similar purpose.
Fer instance, when people start arguing over whether homosexuality is
"natural" or not we are invoking the study of nature, ie do other animals
engage in homosexuality? Could it have evolved in humans for a reason?
So "natural" has taken the place of "spiritual."
Scientists are the new authority - no longer the priest.
If you should ask people how is it possible for science to know how and
why the universe started in the first place (before there was any physics)
they often say "I have faith science will find the answers."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If by "religion" we mean a way of explaining the universe and
our reason for being in it - then I suppose you can say science serves a
similar purpose.

No. Religion requires faith. Science requires evidence. Religion claims to give us reason for us being here. Science explains how we came to be in our current state in order to be able to debate what our purpose is.

So "natural" has taken the place of "spiritual."

No. Natural is of the material world. Spiritual is of the metaphysical and super natural. Many overlap the two and use them interchangeable. But science does not.

If you should ask people how is it possible for science to know how and
why the universe started in the first place (before there was any physics)
they often say "I have faith science will find the answers."

It's called the Big Bang. It's a pretty solid theory.

 

[PruePhillip]

No. Religion requires faith. Science requires evidence. Religion claims to give us reason for us being here. Science explains how we came to be in our current state in order to be able to debate what our purpose is.

No. Natural is of the material world. Spiritual is of the metaphysical and super natural. Many overlap the two and use them interchangeable. But science does not.

It's called the Big Bang. It's a pretty solid theory.

What started the Big Bang? It had to operate within time (which didn't exist)
using energy (which didn't exist)
inside space (which didn't exist)
using physical laws (which didn't exist)
and some reason for happening (which didn't exist)

Answer - you have FAITH this started it all, for no reason whatsoever.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What started the Big Bang? It had to operate within time (which didn't exist)
using energy (which didn't exist)
inside space (which didn't exist)
using physical laws (which didn't exist)
and some reason for happening (which didn't exist)

There wasn't "nothing" before the Big Bang or else there would be nothing. Our universe and things contained within did not exist prior to, but science does not claim there was nothing. But as to what, we have some ideas, and it's possible one day we will know. Anyone who claims science will definitely know doesn't know how science works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The religion of the theory of evolution.

Bearing false witness against your neighbor is still a sin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What started the Big Bang? It had to operate within time (which didn't exist)
using energy (which didn't exist)
inside space (which didn't exist)
using physical laws (which didn't exist)
and some reason for happening (which didn't exist)

Answer - you have FAITH this started it all, for no reason whatsoever.

No, the answer is not based upon faith, the answer for some of your questions is "we don't know". Not knowing something is never an excuse to try to claim that "God did it". That claim has failed so many times in the past that it is amazing that anyone still uses it today. It is always better to say "I don't know" when the answer is not clear. I will tell you that it could have been started by a god, but there does not appear to be any evidence for that or any need for a god either.

 

[nPeace]

Not sure about the question.
But we "know" how planets form.
Big Bang created hydrogen and helium
Early suns created "metallic elements" from these
These elements coalesced under gravity to form planets.

Wowwwww.
You ask people for data, and they repeat themselves.
Let me follow you guys lead. You don't know anything.
How do you know that what you claim happened as you claim it did? Camera? Do you have the reel?
If you have the data that tells us, 'we know how planets are formed, then could you please post it here.

Or, maybe you only have claims.

 

[gnostic]

Well... I prefer to see "apes" in the Gorillini line and humans in the hominini line.
The two are quite distinct.

View attachment 32473

It isn’t about preference, PruePhillip.

The Hominidae included all great apes and that include all Homo species and subspecies.

We can no more choose not to be ape than we can choose to be not mammal.

It is not just comparisons of fossils and remains alone, it is also about genome sequencing and DNA.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wowwwww.
You ask people for data, and they repeat themselves.
Let me follow you guys lead. You don't know anything.
How do you know that what you claim happened as you claim it did? Camera? Do you have the reel?
If you have the data that tells us, 'we know how planets are formed, then could you please post it here.

Or, maybe you only have claims.

The way that we know is by hypothesis and testing. There are still unanswered questions which is why it is still called the Nebular Hypothesis, some basic reading:

How Was the Solar System Formed? - The Nebular Hypothesis - Universe Today

Nebular hypothesis - Wikipedia

If you want the data I suggest that you go to Google scholar. I don't think it would do you much good since you are probably far from qualified to analyze it. I know that I am not qualified to do so. You could ask @Polymath257 , but it might take a long long time for him to explain all that we know.

 

[PruePhillip]

It isn’t about preference, PruePhillip.

The Hominidae included all great apes and that include all Homo species and subspecies.

We can no more choose not to be ape than we can choose to be not mammal.

It is not just comparisons of fossils and remains alone, it is also about genome sequencing and DNA.

Okay... I am just going by the diagram below

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay... I am just going by the diagram below

View attachment 32475

That appears to be a rather outdated cladogram. It may have been originally from a Wikipedia article but it does not appear to be there anymore since it is not entirely accurate. Humans are great apes:

Hominidae - Wikipedia

Facts About Apes

The Great (Ape) Taxonomy Debate

Less scientific sources will still list humans as a separate group, but that is just bad cladisitcs.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, the answer is not based upon faith, the answer for some of your questions is "we don't know". Not knowing something is never an excuse to try to claim that "God did it". That claim has failed so many times in the past that it is amazing that anyone still uses it today. It is always better to say "I don't know" when the answer is not clear. I will tell you that it could have been started by a god, but there does not appear to be any evidence for that or any need for a god either.

Well I am sorry but "something" OUTSIDE of the natural world
created the natural world. Nature can do wonderful things all
by itself, including creating life, but nature can't make itself.
Period.

Science tell us that every phenomena in the universe is a part
of cause and effect. Rain is caused by condensation of water
vapor. Condensation is caused by sunlight. Sunlight is caused
by the fusion of hydrogen to helium in the sun. Fusion is caused
by gravity. Gravity is caused by distortion of space time. Space
time is caused by the Big Bang. The Big Bang is caused by....
................................................................................................

and if we find the cause of the Big Bang it has to be something
mechanical, physical, conforming to physical laws etc.. And
then, where did that "something" come from? Eventually we
have to say, "It all started by magic, or it started by God."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I am sorry but "something" OUTSIDE of the natural world
created the natural world. Nature can do wonderful things all
by itself, including creating life, but nature can't make itself.
Period.

Science tell us that every phenomena in the universe is a part
of cause and effect. Rain is caused by condensation of water
vapor. Condensation is caused by sunlight. Sunlight is caused
by the fusion of hydrogen to helium in the sun. Fusion is caused
by gravity. Gravity is caused by distortion of space time. Space
time is caused by the Big Bang. The Big Bang is caused by....
................................................................................................

and if we find the cause of the Big Bang it has to be something
mechanical, physical, conforming to physical laws etc.. And
then, where did that "something" come from? Eventually we
have to say, "It all started by magic, or it started by God."

That is an unjustified assumption on your part. It is better to simply say we don't know, but this is where the evidence leads us.

And no, not everything in science is "cause and effect". That is a huge mistake that creationists make.

 

[PruePhillip]

That appears to be a rather outdated cladogram. It may have been originally from a Wikipedia article but it does not appear to be there anymore since it is not entirely accurate. Humans are great apes:

Hominidae - Wikipedia

Facts About Apes

The Great (Ape) Taxonomy Debate

Less scientific sources will still list humans as a separate group, but that is just bad cladisitcs.

Okay, I am not a zoologist so I'll accept your point.
But humans, and human like creatures, belong to their own distinct line
and resemble us more than gorillas or chimps.