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

[dad]

My point exactly. Ha Ha.

Correct. I post evidence that science uses beliefs on models of the past. Nothing more is needed to relegate it's claims to the trash can of fabledom. However I also happen to have God and the bible and history and all science agreeing with me. Hoo ha

 

[ratiocinator]

I post evidence that science uses beliefs on models of the past.

...all science agreeing with me.

Are you just shamelessly dishonest, or do you have no grasp of either science or evidence?

Let's face it, pretty much every scientist in the world disagrees with you - even most creationists don't sink to your depth of total silliness and reality denial.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Perhaps there was some misunderstanding.

Like I've been saying for several pages. Why were you being so stubborn about this?

Maybe post a point clearly and I'll see what I can do with it. Meanwhile, trying to paint other posters as lying lunatics for stumbling on your lack of clarity is knavish.

Sigh...

I explained several posts ago the error that you made, and you kept insisting there was no error. There was absolutely no lack of clarity from me whatsoever, and trying to paint me being in the wrong despite clearly and precisely explaining what the error was several pages ago is ridiculous.

If you're this desperate to avoid admitting you made a simple attribution error in an internet forum, what are the chances you're going to be honest and open to the possibility of your beliefs being wrong?

 

[dad]

Are you just shamelessly dishonest, or do you have no grasp of either science or evidence?

Name any aspect of origin science claims and let's see who knows what. You need to step into the ring, rather than dance around the floor.

Let's face it, pretty much every scientist in the world disagrees with you -

Npe. None can do so save by opinion. The fact is that origin sciences is belief based. No way out of that one.

even most creationists don't sink to your depth of total silliness and reality denial.

Not sure what made you an authority on creation believers. Ha.

Yes, I have a new angle on the debate, that most believers are not yet familiar with, but none can dispute it. I figure it is about time that science accepting bible believers realize that science is limited to the present world.

 

[dad]

I explained several posts ago the error that you made, and you kept insisting there was no error. There was absolutely no lack of clarity from me whatsoever, and trying to paint me being in the wrong despite clearly and precisely explaining what the error was several pages ago is ridiculous.

No idea what you are talking about, that should indicate to you that your imagined clarity is murky.

 

[ratiocinator]

Name any aspect of origin science claims and let's see who knows what.

We've already been through dating methods and I've seen how you do exactly the same thing with other evidence. You are all bluster, blather, and hot air. You refuse to engage with reasoning and you deny evidence that you have been given.

What's more you are endlessly hypocritical. You demand evidence again and again (even when it's been given) and yet you have none whatsoever for your own bizarre fables.

None can do so save by opinion. The fact is that origin sciences is belief based. No way out of that one.

You are bearing false witness yet again. It's impossible to debate with some who just states falsehoods as facts.

Not sure what made you an authority on creation believers.

I've spent some time debating with them. You actually seem like some sort of exaggerated parody, or cartoon version.

Yes, I have a new angle on the debate, that most believers are not yet familiar with, but none can dispute it.

Of course they can. Your "angle" is nothing but empty bluster and stating your own, ill-informed prejudiced opionions as facts.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No idea what you are talking about, that should indicate to you that your imagined clarity is murky.

https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...-year-old-cranium-of-human-ancestor-discovere

https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...-year-old-cranium-of-human-ancestor-discovere

I was as clear as I could be, but since you're going to stubbornly blame your simple error on my "lack of clarity", I'm going to remove any possible misundertanding or ambiguity:

1) Deeje made a claim that evolutionary theory says that species cross taxa.
2) I explained (to Deeje) that this was a misrepresentation of evolutionary theory, since it says no such thing.
3) You responded to my post by saying evolution was hogwash.
4) I responded to you by explaining that whether or not you believe it is hogwash, it is still an indicator of dishonesty for someone (in this case, Deeje) to misrepresent what it actually says.
5) You accused me of saying that YOU were misrepresenting evolution.
6) I explained this was an error, and that the original post was addressed to Deeje, not you.
7) You responded by saying the issue is whether or not a person "believed in evolution, period".
8) I said that this was not the issue you raised, and that the issue was that you accused me of saying you "represented" evolution. I said you could just admit it was a mistake.
9) You tell me to renounce evolution and accuse me of being dishonest by accusing you of dishonesty.
10) I tell you to go back and read the previous posts where I explain the error you made.
11) You blame the error on my "lack of clarity".

So you made a simple error, then took several posts before you even admitted it was an error, and then blamed ME for it despite the very first thing I did being pointing the error out.

Yep, clearly it's all my fault for my "lack of clarity". Not you being unnecessarily stubborn at all.

 

[dad]

We've already been through dating methods and I've seen how you do exactly the same thing with other evidence. You are all bluster, blather, and hot air. You refuse to engage with reasoning and you deny evidence that you have been given.

What's more you are endlessly hypocritical. You demand evidence again and again (even when it's been given) and yet you have none whatsoever for your own bizarre fables.



You are bearing false witness yet again. It's impossible to debate with some who just states falsehoods as facts.



I've spent some time debating with them. You actually seem like some sort of exaggerated parody, or cartoon version.



Of course they can. Your "angle" is nothing but empty bluster and stating your own, ill-informed prejudiced opionions as facts.

The dating methods ALL involve uniformiarian beliefs about nature in the past. They cannot be defended and cannot be believed or taken seriously as anything else but religious twaddle.

 

[ratiocinator]

The dating methods ALL involve uniformiarian beliefs about nature in the past.

Yes - and their agreement with each other and other evidence from different areas of science provides evidence that the assumptions are correct.

They cannot be defended and cannot be believed or taken seriously as anything else but religious twaddle.

Says the believer in totally unevidenced religious twaddle.

 

[dad]

Yes - and their agreement with each other and other evidence from different areas of science provides evidence that the assumptions are correct.

Agreement of beliefs with each other.. after the same belief is applied to each supposedly independent evidence is circular logic. There is no possible way to check in the real world. The only agreement involves evidences that are first submerged in the same nature in the past belief. Any old ages that result in using that same belief all stem from that one belief!

 

[ratiocinator]

Agreement of beliefs with each other.. after the same belief is applied to each supposedly independent evidence is circular logic.

False. As has been pointed out before (and you keep ignoring because it threatens your blind faith) a false assumption of the same nature in the past, would generally lead to inconsistent results, not agreement.

Either the assumption is broadly correct or the universe has been contrived to look old when it isn't (Last Thursdayism).

There is no possible way to check in the real world.

Untrue.

 

[dad]

False. As has been pointed out before (and you keep ignoring because it threatens your blind faith) a false assumption of the same nature in the past, would generally lead to inconsistent results, not agreement.

Either the assumption is broadly correct or the universe has been contrived to look old when it isn't (Last Thursdayism).



Untrue.

If you paint 3 twigs blue it is no marvel 3 twigs have a blue color. If you paint evidences with a belief in a same nature in the past it is no wonder all painted evidences appear colored. Circular. No evidence stands on it's own and any agreement is due to the application of the belief to the evidence. No so called age correlation stands on it's own or has any support aside from the 'agreement' with other tainted and belief molested evidences!

You have not shown any ages supported by anything but the same state past belief. You have not shown any independent verification at all for correlations based on the belief! Claiming you did or could is delusional unless accompanied by the specific example.

 

[ratiocinator]

If you paint 3 twigs blue it is no marvel 3 twigs have a blue color. If you paint evidences with a belief in a same nature in the past it is no wonder all painted evidences appear colored. Circular. No evidence stands on it's own and any agreement is due to the application of the belief to the evidence. No so called age correlation stands on it's own or has any support aside from the 'agreement' with other tainted and belief molested evidences!

You have not shown any ages supported by anything but the same state past belief. You have not shown any independent verification at all for correlations based on the belief! Claiming you did or could is delusional unless accompanied by the specific example.

It's difficult to see if your not honest enough, not clever enough, or just too afraid to grasp the point.

If things were just different in the past (or out in space) in some general, effectively random way, there would be no reason at all to think that using a "same nature" assumption across the board would lead to self-consistent picture. There is no reason why tree rings and different radiometric dating systems would correlate with sedimentation and ice cores, or that the age we deduce for Earth would be consistent with the age we have deduced for the universe (from totally different methods).

Just try to think about it. The assumption is just about consistent laws of physics - if they had changed, all bets should be off, there is no reason why different dating methods would agree at all. There really are only two alternatives: the assumption is at least approximately correct, and so are the dates, or the universe has been made to look older than it is.

Nobody (apart from blind faith adherents, like yourself) decided in advance what age the Earth and universe should be - we just pieced the evidence together.

Cue another thought-free bluster....

 

[dad]

It's difficult to see if your not honest enough, not clever enough, or just too afraid to grasp the point.

If things were just different in the past (or out in space) in some general, effectively random way, there would be no reason at all to think that using a "same nature" assumption across the board would lead to self-consistent picture.

False. Using any belief as a basis will color results...obviously. Agreement in colored belief based conclusions necessarily occurs. That agreement is circular and in house only. Nothing that doesn't involve your beliefs being used verifies the tainted 'collaboration'!

There is no reason why tree rings and different radiometric dating systems would correlate with sedimentation and ice cores, or that the age we deduce for Earth would be consistent with the age we have deduced for the universe (from totally different methods).

There is every reason when the so called consistency is all a result of using the same error! But get real no ages deduced from the universe match tree rings!! Ridiculous.

Just try to think about it. The assumption is just about consistent laws of physics - if they had changed, all bets should be off, there is no reason why different dating methods would agree at all. There really are only two alternatives: the assumption is at least approximately correct, and so are the dates, or the universe has been made to look older than it is.

You think about it..if the assumption of a different nature in the past is true all dates agree as young!!!!

Nobody (apart from blind faith adherents, like yourself) decided in advance what age the Earth and universe should be - we just pieced the evidence together.

You slopped together various renditions and applications of your belief pasted all over evidences and chose to do so as the only method used!!!!!

 

[Polymath257]

There is every reason when the so called consistency is all a result of using the same error!

What do you see the common error as being?

For example, with tree rings, we assume that the tree continues put down one ring a year. That is a result of the processes going on in the tree, so we are saying those processes worked then as they do now. Let's assume, for the same of argument, that tree rings give a date of 15,000 years ago for some event.

But, for lake varves, the processes involved in laying down the layers are *completely* different than the processes for trees producing rings. The likelihood that different physical laws would affect lake varves in such a way as to give 15,000 years as the age for that event is quite low. The physical laws involved just don't overlap much.

But, we can go further. We can also do C14 dating. This is based on the decay of C14 nuclei, yet another process that is completely different than the tree rings or the lake varves. The likelihood that a change in physical laws would affect C14 to give the same ages as BOTH the previous methods would be astronomically smaller.

So, I ask you, what is the common error in these three methods for determining an age?

At some point, we get to the *definition* of something being a certain age. Since that is a determination based on physical processes, the fact that all processes give a common age *does* say that the age is the common value.

 

[dad]

What do you see the common error as being?

For example, with tree rings, we assume that the tree continues put down one ring a year. That is a result of the processes going on in the tree, so we are saying those processes worked then as they do now. Let's assume, for the same of argument, that tree rings give a date of 15,000 years ago for some event.

But, for lake varves, the processes involved in laying down the layers are *completely* different than the processes for trees producing rings. The likelihood that different physical laws would affect lake varves in such a way as to give 15,000 years as the age for that event is quite low. The physical laws involved just don't overlap much.

But, we can go further. We can also do C14 dating. This is based on the decay of C14 nuclei, yet another process that is completely different than the tree rings or the lake varves. The likelihood that a change in physical laws would affect C14 to give the same ages as BOTH the previous methods would be astronomically smaller.

So, I ask you, what is the common error in these three methods for determining an age?

At some point, we get to the *definition* of something being a certain age. Since that is a determination based on physical processes, the fact that all processes give a common age *does* say that the age is the common value.

Simple. The error is using the present as the key to the past. For carbon you assume all C14 is a result of radioactive decay and that a certain amount of carbon was here etc etc. For tree rings you assume present growth rates. For varves you assume current deposition rates and patterns existed.

Remember also that radioactive decay ages were adjusted/calibrated to tree rings!



Remember also that it does not matter what similar ages we get when using belief based premises! The issue is what independent (of same nature past belief) proof do you have? Are.. if you could say we know that a tree ring date or c14 date etc were true..AND it agrees with other dates we get from a same state past belief basis...then you would have something!!!!

All you have is imaginary dates seeming to agree with each other!

 

[Polymath257]

Simple. The error is using the present as the key to the past. For carbon you assume all C14 is a result of radioactive decay and that a certain amount of carbon was here etc etc. For tree rings you assume present growth rates. For varves you assume current deposition rates and patterns existed.

But, again, if the physical laws changed, why should they change in just the way that gives consistent results across different dating methods? If the laws now are *not* a key to the past, then the laws that *did* apply would likely affect the different methods in different ways. That would make them inconsistent.

Remember also that radioactive decay ages were adjusted/calibrated to tree rings!

Then why are lake varves consistent? And other radioactive methods that are NOT calibrated that way? How was it that the physical laws, which were different in each case, affected those different methods in just the way to make them give the same results?

This fact, gives support to the method of using the present as a key to the past, doesn't it?

 

[dad]

But, again, if the physical laws changed, why should they change in just the way that gives consistent results across different dating methods? If the laws now are *not* a key to the past, then the laws that *did* apply would likely affect the different methods in different ways. That would make them inconsistent.

If we spray paint 3 twigs blue in a forest they all will look blue. Take away the paint and they no longer look that way. You are only looking at the twigs after they are sprayed blue and exclaiming how they look alike.

We do not expect that when we apply the slow processes of the present nature, that things will seem to have taken a long time to happen! If you use slow tree growth of today slow deposition...or radioactive decay realities of today that take a long time to produce daughter isotopes.
None of these ages stands on it's own and cannot be checked. If you got dates, say 50,000 years ago agreeing from varves and c14 we cannot check this. Dates are meaningless and imaginary with the only collaboration being other worthless blue twig dream dates.

Then why are lake varves consistent?

With what...themselves !? Because there was also layers put down in the area in the former nature..why would we not see consistent layers??

And other radioactive methods that are NOT calibrated that way? How was it that the physical laws, which were different in each case, affected those different methods in just the way to make them give the same results?

Don't mistake results with confused belief interpretation based dates. Billions of years or millions cannot be validated..you have just used beliefs to agree with each other.

 

[Polymath257]

If we spray paint 3 twigs blue in a forest they all will look blue. Take away the paint and they no longer look that way. You are only looking at the twigs after they are sprayed blue and exclaiming how they look alike.

And what spray is being used in age determinations? What commonality is equivalent to spraying everything the same color?

We do not expect that when we apply the slow processes of the present nature, that things will seem to have taken a long time to happen! If you use slow tree growth of today slow deposition...or radioactive decay realities of today that take a long time to produce daughter isotopes.
None of these ages stands on it's own and cannot be checked. If you got dates, say 50,000 years ago agreeing from varves and c14 we cannot check this. Dates are meaningless and imaginary with the only collaboration being other worthless blue twig dream dates.

The point is that we *can* often test a given date with more than one method. There is no reason why a change in physical laws would affect the different dating methods the same way, but they give consistent results.

With what...themselves !? Because there was also layers put down in the area in the former nature..why would we not see consistent layers??

No, with *other* dating methods. It isn't one method. It is several different methods, all based on different physical processes, but all giving the same results.

Don't mistake results with confused belief interpretation based dates. Billions of years or millions cannot be validated..you have just used beliefs to agree with each other.

But that is most definitely NOT what is going on. You can't simply *believe* the amount of lead in a sample, or the amount of Krypton. And the fact that U-Pb and K-Ar dating methods give consistent results even though the half lives are different, the types of decay are different, the physical processes are different, etc. THAT consistency is something you haven't explained. Where's the blue paint?

 

[dad]

And what spray is being used in age determinations? What commonality is equivalent to spraying everything the same color?

the belief that this present nature represents the distant past nature on earth. The ancient world according to the bible had people live nearly 1000 years. Trees grew fast....etc. You have merely tried to mold and model the past according to the present laws and forces and nature.

The point is that we *can* often test a given date with more than one method. There is no reason why a change in physical laws would affect the different dating methods the same way, but they give consistent results.

Every single method used is based on the one belief.

But that is most definitely NOT what is going on. You can't simply *believe* the amount of lead in a sample, or the amount of Krypton. And the fact that U-Pb and K-Ar dating methods give consistent results even though the half lives are different, the types of decay are different, the physical processes are different, etc. THAT consistency is something you haven't explained. Where's the blue paint?

You miss the point. If there already was the daughter material when our nature started that would mean it did not get here by decay. Decay may be a feature of only this present nature!!