• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

nPeace

nPeace

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ah. Someone with actual data. Thanks SZ.
So they don't know. They assume, as I rightfully said.
They just have a widely accepted idea.
Looking at the problems associated with the idea, I think one more is in order - explaining why the earth has its tilt and location, and relative distance from the sun.
Oops. :facepalm: It just happened to be the lucky planet, that makes it possible for us to be here... and thank Go... Thank nature for Jupiter.
Lord help us.
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
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.
Click to expand...

Okay, so if something OUTSIDE of the natural world did not create the natural
world then this world CREATED ITSELF.
This is where science stops and magic starts. Perhaps backwards in time,
when there was no time, something which didn't exist, anticipated the natural
world, and cause it to spring into existence - and completely without any
reason at all.
Did this magic universe "think" for itself? Must have done. Someone or something
was doing the "thinking." We understand that in science there are valid reasons
for everything.
It's doing my head in. I am going to go get a cup of tea. And invoke all sorts of
physical laws in the process, from neurons in my brain all the way down to the
alternating current in our power supply, heating that water.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
PruePhillip said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is true for all species. They are more closely related to themselves than they are to other species. One concept that should be easy to understand is that a species does not evolve out of its history. "Change of kinds" is a creationist misstatement of what evolution is. There is no change of kinds in evolution. The common ancestor that we shared with chimpanzees was an ape and we are still apes, just as we are still mammals.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
nPeace said:
Ah. Someone with actual data. Thanks SZ.
So they don't know. They assume, as I rightfully said.
They just have a widely accepted idea.
Looking at the problems associated with the idea, I think one more is in order - explaining why the earth has its tilt and location, and relative distance from the sun.
Oops. :facepalm: It just happened to be the lucky planet, that makes it possible for us to be here... and thank Go... Thank nature for Jupiter.
Lord help us.
Click to expand...
Now you are being dishonest. Not having all of the answers does not mean that no one knows.

If you want to have questions answered you must take back your incorrect statements.
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
That is true for all species. They are more closely related to themselves than they are to other species. One concept that should be easy to understand is that a species does not evolve out of its history. "Change of kinds" is a creationist misstatement of what evolution is. There is no change of kinds in evolution. The common ancestor that we shared with chimpanzees was an ape and we are still apes, just as we are still mammals.
Click to expand...

I like to think of us (sapiens, neanderthal, denisovan, errectus etc..) as hominins.
That is something similar to, related to etc but still distinctly "human" as opposed
to distinctly "ape."
Got nothing to do with arguments about creation and such. Just an intuitive feel.
And anything prior to Australopithecus I wouldn't see as being "human."

Anamensis.jpg

Anamensis.
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
PruePhillip said:
I like to think of us (sapiens, neanderthal, denisovan, errectus etc..) as hominins.
That is something similar to, related to etc but still distinctly "human" as opposed
to distinctly "ape."
Got nothing to do with arguments about creation and such. Just an intuitive feel.
And anything prior to Australopithecus I wouldn't see as being "human."

View attachment 32479
Anamensis.
Click to expand...
Then you simply are not letting yourself learn what an ape is. Tell me, what significant differences can you find between humans and other apes?
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
Then you simply are not letting yourself learn what an ape is. Tell me, what significant differences can you find between humans and other apes?
Click to expand...

Looking into their faces.
Compare Lucy to a gorilla. There's something different. And Lucy, for all her "ape-ness"
more or less acts like a human and not a gorilla.
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
"Missing links" is a very poor term to use. But of course there are. So what?
Click to expand...

Not with humans there aren't. We have a perfect line of "early humans" with such fine differences between them
that you are struggling to differentiate one skull from the next skull.
We will never know the exact linkages here but that doesn't matter. The animation makes that point - there's no big
leap between fossils.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
PruePhillip said:
Not with humans there aren't. We have a perfect line of "early humans" with such fine differences between them
that you are struggling to differentiate one skull from the next skull.
We will never know the exact linkages here but that doesn't matter. The animation makes that point - there's no big
leap between fossils.
Click to expand...
No, there are still "gaps" in the record and there will always be, though it may be filled in better. And gaps are predicted. What is important is the patter of fossils found. They all fit perfectly into the phylogenetic tree, though if creationism was true there would be no need for them to do that. We could find Precambrian Bunny Rabbits if creationism was true.
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
Sorry, still not a biological trait.
Click to expand...

True, and some animals use tools. It's the whole package. And bear in
mind - the use of tools (and fire) adapted the body. Through cooking and
weapons we have become slackers - teeth have shrunk, limbs shortened
etc..
We have been watching that super-cool animation over dinner here tonight.
There's more to this animation that trick 3d morphing - there's some real
science. Wish they nominated the species as the morphing progressed.
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Deeje said:
You are free to believe whatever you wish. Science cannot prove what they theorize. Guesswork based on similarity is assumption, not fact. e.g. A similar earbone cannot make a four legged land dweller into a whale without a whole lot of supposition, followed by a bucketload of suggestions. o_O You all swallow this stuff and then accuse those who support intelligent design of being short on evidence? That's funny.

"Evidence" used to promote what science "believes" is interpreted by them. Just like the Bible, it can be twisted to lead people to wrong conclusions.

Six scientists can give the same "evidence" six different interpretations with language such as "could have" or "might have" or "leads us to the conclusion that"....to indicate a possibility, not a provable fact. Only a small part of the evolutionary theory is based on fact. Using that little bit of fact, they manufacture a whole lot of conjecture. You havent noticed? Most people don't.

The biggest example of that is "speciation" which is based on "adaptation". In lab experiments this adaptive process is confined to a single species, and then, expanding on what has been observed they "suggest" that it can and did go much further. There is no proof that it ever did. "Evidence" is not "proof", it is interpreted to support a theory, but presented as if it were fact. There are very few facts in evolutionary science.

It's a snow job. Someone is having a lend of you all. In your haste to get rid of God, you have been willingly led into another unsubstantiated "belief system".

This finding of a supposedly 3.8 million year old skull is a bit of a joke when you read the circumstances of its discovery. Do you believe that some goat herder just picked the jaw bone up off the ground and then he was moved to find the archeologist, who just happened to find the skull a short distance away, lying on the ground in plain sight?
Seriously? You don't find that a bit unbelievable? :shrug:

How easily convinced are you?
Click to expand...

I love how you just assume that the whole thing must be suspect and a fraud.

Off course you have to believe that, in order to clinge to your a priori religious dogma.
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Deeje said:
Creatures cannot cross taxonomic lines....
Click to expand...

Indeed, they can not.
If they would, then evolution theory would be falsified.

See, this is how we know that you the only knowledge you have on biology, is misinformation from creationist propaganda.

You say that statement above AS IF under evolution it would be required for creatures to "cross taxonomic lines". As in: if that doesn't happen, then evolution is false.

The fact of the matter is that the exact opposite is true!!!

If creatures WOULD "cross taxonomic lines", THEN EVOLUTION WOULD BE FALSIFIED

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?
Click to expand...

The data of genetics, comparative anatomy etc, is what established evolutionary relationships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top