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

[night912]

You didn't know to whom the hat belongs.
The eyewitness tells you to whom it belongs.
If the guy isn't dead, he can confirm the story, and identify the hat. There's no way if identifying the hat because it's lost.
If he is dead, at least you have an eyewitness, and his account of what happened, That means that there is no way to confirm his story. Also, even if it's taken in consideration that the story was true, he is being an eyewitness to his friend losing a hat, and only that. as well as the person it is claimed the hat belongs to... No we don't. That person never made that claim. and we have the item of interest - the hat. Again, no. There's nothing connecting the hat you found and his testimony. A story about someone losing a hat has nothing to do with the hat you found.
The next step, is to find if there are any more witnesses. More witnesses confirming the friend losing a hat, at most, only confirmed that he lost a hat. And that won't matter. Even if 500 people confirmed his story, that still doesn't bring us closer to knowing who owned the hat that you found.

No, that guy isn't an eyewitness. His testimony doesn't say anything about the hat that you found, therefore, you have nothing as well. So if you start out with nothing for both, the rational way would to investigate and look for clues. The difference between the two is, one looks for evidence pertaining the to the owner of the hat, goes with the evidence, then see where that leads to, then make your conclusion based on the findings. The other, your way, is to come up with the conclusion, find anything and try to make it go according to your conclusion, even if it's irrelevant to figuring out who the hat belongs to.

On the other hand...
If there are no eyewitness, but just the hat, you have nothing.
The next step is to look for clues that might help you find out more about this hat.
So you start looking for the best clue - hair.
What is the likelihood that you will find hair pulled from the head of the wearer? At that point, you say a prayer.

That could be one suggestion. But if no hair is found, then it's dismissed as not being evidence. Then you continue to look for more clues. And that's the difference. If the suggestion ends up being nothing, it's dismissed. It won't try to be forced as being something.

The Bible accounts have the testimony of many witnesses, who all point to, or identify the item of interest, as belonging to one person.
Doesn't mean we have to accept that they are all telling the truth, but we can determine if they are, by a simple test.
Did they all know each other? Did they collaborate?
If the answer can be shown to be no, then there is no reason to doubt their accounts... imo

Agreed, but the fact is that the answer is "yes". The deciples are followers of Jesus. So they knew each other. They collaborate with each other to convince others of their shared belief.

 

[nPeace]

No, that guy isn't an eyewitness. His testimony doesn't say anything about the hat that you found, therefore, you have nothing as well. So if you start out with nothing for both, the rational way would to investigate and look for clues. The difference between the two is, one looks for evidence pertaining the to the owner of the hat, goes with the evidence, then see where that leads to, then make your conclusion based on the findings. The other, your way, is to come up with the conclusion, find anything and try to make it go according to your conclusion, even if it's irrelevant to figuring out who the hat belongs to.

You seemed to misunderstand.
Look again at post #191.
An eyewitness told you that a close friend of his lost a straw hat, while fishing off the coast of...
He did identify the hat.

That could be one suggestion. But if no hair is found, then it's dismissed as not being evidence. Then you continue to look for more clues. And that's the difference. If the suggestion ends up being nothing, it's dismissed. It won't try to be forced as being something.

Why do you say, 'that's the difference'? What do you mean.

Agreed, but the fact is that the answer is "yes". The deciples are followers of Jesus. So they knew each other. They collaborate with each other to convince others of their shared belief.

No. The answer is no. The Bible is not just Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It's Genesis to Revelation, and the Greek scriptures alone have many persons who did not know each other, nor collaborate during writing. So too, the Hebrew scriptures.
Even critics agree that the writings were some years apart.
That's a powerful case.

 

[night912]

You seemed to misunderstand.
Look again at post #191.
An eyewitness told you that a close friend of his lost a straw hat, while fishing off the coast of...
He did identify the hat.

No. I understood it. And he never identified the hat. Apparently you are doing exactly as what I said. Read it again, there's nothing indicating that. You are making it to fit your conclusion. Where in his testimony does it say anything remotely close to identifying that hat? Nowhere. All he said was, "His friend lost a straw hat." No more, no less. Therefore, not an eyewitness of you finding the hat or identifying the hat that you found. Like I said, at most, he is only an eyewitness to his friend losing a hat. Which is irrelevant to who the owner of the hat that you found. Therefore it's dismissed because it's not evidence. So you can twist it all you want so it will fit your conclusion, but the fact remains, it's not evidence in regards to your claim.

Why do you say, 'that's the difference'? What do you mean.

The difference is that once no hair was found, it was dismissed and wasn't used as evidence. While the testimony also had nothing to do with the hat that was found, you still present it as evidence, when it should've been dismissed like the hair. Both of them are not evidence for the ownership of the hat that was found.

No. The answer is no. The Bible is not just Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It's Genesis to Revelation, and the Greek scriptures alone have many persons who did not know each other, nor collaborate during writing. So too, the Hebrew scriptures.
Even critics agree that the writings were some years apart.
That's a powerful case.

I guess I assumed that you were referring to the characters in the stories, I was wrong about that. But now that you clarified your position, it actually weakens your position. Since none of the authors of the NT were written in the days of Jesus and none of them actually met Jesus. Or more accurately, we don't know who wrote the 4 gospels, backed by religious scholars, including those who are Christians. That would make them not eyewitnesses. Therefore we can dismiss it as evidence for your aruguemnt. As for genesis, there's also eyewitness because according to tradition, Moses was the author of genesis. And obviously, he didn't witness any of the events that took place in genesis. And for revelations, first, we don't know was the actual author. And second, the author is not an eyewitness because he/she did not witness "the apocalypse ." Having a "vision" of an event is not the same as witnessing the event. So all are dismissed because they are not evidence. Prophecies are not the actual events itself. Eyewitnesses can only be the ones who witnessed the actual events.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Great, so show us something that you think disagrees?! Ha.

You already know that's not how this works.

YOU made claims, YOU need to back them up. Especially when said claim flies in the face of all known science.

It's not up to other people to prove you wrong. It's on YOU to show that you are right. That's how this all works and it's the reason we don't just believe any old thing we hear or make up. Or shouldn't, anyway.

You are claiming, as the Bible apparently does, that human beings used to live much, much longer than they do now. All existing evidence shows that our average lifespans used to be much shorter, and in fact, have increased over time withe the progression of medicine, technology, sanitation, etc.

So you need to demonstrate somehow that human beings used to live to be 900 years old (or whatever) with some actual evidence. Otherwise, the claim can be dismissed as quickly as you've made it, because it holds no water.

 

[dad]

You already know that's not how this works

YOU made claims, YOU need to back them up. Especially when said claim flies in the face of all known science..

My claim is that so called science claims cannot be supported on origin issues. Your fail is evidence I am right.

It's not up to other people to prove you wrong. It's on YOU to show that you are right. That's how this all works and it's the reason we don't just believe any old thing we hear or make up. Or shouldn't, anyway.

Forget the bible, just support your own religion here. After all you like to call it science, you should be able to do that.

You are claiming, as the Bible apparently does, that human beings used to live much, much longer than they do now. All existing evidence shows that our average lifespans used to be much shorter, and in fact, have increased over time withe the progression of medicine, technology, sanitation, etc.

All existing evidence?? Ha. Such as? There are not even any bones or fossils for man before the flood or most animals, so I am not sure what evidence you think you have!!? ( I suspect it is recent remains you think dates back to that time...but that would be a silly mistake to make)

So you need to demonstrate somehow that human beings used to live to be 900 years old (or whatever) with some actual evidence. Otherwise, the claim can be dismissed as quickly as you've made it, because it holds no water.

No I do not. You need to show evidence from science that they had some other life span if you claim there is evidence for such a claim.

 

[SkepticThinker]

My claim is that so called science claims cannot be supported on origin issues. Your fail is evidence I am right.

Your claim that I am taking issue with here, is that the average lifespan of human beings used to be vastly longer than it is now. By hundreds of years. It's quite an extraordinary claim, and also a bizarre one.

Forget the bible, just support your own religion here. After all you like to call it science, you should be able to do that.

Look dude, if you can't even understand that atheism isn't a religion, and also that it has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific evidence supporting evolution, then I'm sorry to tell you that you are not equipped to carry on this conversation.

All existing evidence?? Ha. Such as? There are not even any bones or fossils for man before the flood or most animals, so I am not sure what evidence you think you have!!? ( I suspect it is recent remains you think dates back to that time...but that would be a silly mistake to make)

Yep, all existing evidence supports evolution. That's why it's the only scientific theory in town when it comes to the diversity of life on the planet. That's why it has never been falsified; I mean seriously, if it were as lacking in evidence as you claim, then someone on your side of the aisle would have already presented evidence falsifying it by now. This. Has. Never. Happened.

No I do not. You need to show evidence from science that they had some other life span if you claim there is evidence for such a claim.

Look up the burden of proof and learn to understand what it means.
Until then, you are incapable of continuing on with a conversation about claims and evidence and you should cease and desist from making claims you can't back up.And maybe ask yourself why you believe so strongly in something you can't actually demonstrate.

 

[dad]

Your claim that I am taking issue with here, is that the average lifespan of human beings used to be vastly longer than it is now. By hundreds of years. It's quite an extraordinary claim, and also a bizarre one.

Not my claim, that would be God's. The Almighty's. Now if you claim to have some evidence that He has it all wrong and the lives of men were actually short, well, it is incumbent on you to produce the evidence.

Look dude, if you can't even understand that atheism isn't a religion, and also that it has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific evidence supporting evolution, then I'm sorry to tell you that you are not equipped to carry on this conversation.

Not talking about so called atheism. The belief system being looked at here is so called science.

Yep, all existing evidence supports evolution.

Nope, none whatsoever not a single piece supports the TOE.

Only your same nature in the past belief painted all over every bit of evidence you can get you hands on!

That's why it's the only scientific theory in town when it comes to the diversity of life on the planet.

Foolish fable with no support at all. Total religion.

That's why it has never been falsified; I mean seriously, if it were as lacking in evidence as you claim, then someone on your side of the aisle would have already presented evidence falsifying it by now. This. Has. Never. Happened.

?? You kidding? Can you falsify Mickey Mouse?? How about Santa? Your fable can't be falsified.

Look up the burden of proof and learn to understand what it means.

It means you better pony up for science claims.

Maybe ask yourself why you believe so strongly in something you can't actually demonstrate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not my claim, that would be God's. The Almighty's. Now if you claim to have some evidence that He has it all wrong and the lives of men were actually short, well, it is incumbent on you to produce the evidence.


Not talking about so called atheism. The belief system being looked at here is so called science.
Nope, none whatsoever not a single piece supports the TOE.

Only your same nature in the past belief painted all over every bit of evidence you can get you hands on!

Foolish fable with no support at all. Total religion.

?? You kidding? Can you falsify Mickey Mouse?? How about Santa? Your fable can't be falsified.

It means you better pony up for science claims.

Maybe ask yourself why you believe so strongly in something you can't actually demonstrate.

Sorry dad, but until you provide some evidence that the Bible is "God's claim" it is your claim. But I am very sure that you will never support your beliefs because you know you can't. That is why you so desperately try to shift the burden of proof.

And ironically you refute yourself by relying on the science and technology that you deny to even post here in the first place.

 

[dad]

Sorry dad, but until you provide some evidence that the Bible is "God's claim" it is your claim. But I am very sure that you will never support your beliefs because you know you can't. That is why you so desperately try to shift the burden of proof.

And ironically you refute yourself by relying on the science and technology that you deny to even post here in the first place.

Stop trying to divert attention to other religions and defend your so called science beliefs. You haven't done so yet in any way. Stop the huffing and puffing and let's see you blow my house down! Ha

 

[Subduction Zone]

Stop trying to divert attention to other religions and defend your so called science beliefs. You haven't done so yet in any way. Stop the huffing and puffing and let's see you blow my house down! Ha

Attempting to get you to support your nonsensical claims is not diverting. And I did support my claims more than once. YOu, not so much.

Try again, dad.

 

[dad]

Attempting to get you to support your nonsensical claims is not diverting. And I did support my claims more than once. YOu, not so much.

Try again, dad.

Support your so called science beliefs. Or remain in the fail dept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Support your so called science beliefs. Or remain in the fail dept.

I already have. It is your turn now. But you know that you can't. That is why all you have is denial and the ostrich defense.

 

[tas8831]

What most creationists don’t understand, that fossilization cannot fully occur with 10,000 years or less.

So if Noah’s flood occurred around 4300-4500 years ago, it is not possible to have fossils of any animals within that timeframe.

When archaeologists find any dead humans during the Neolithic, Bronze Age or Iron Age, they find either skeletal or mummified remains, not fossils, and it would be the same with any animals living within these periods.

Fossils are already hard to come be, and don’t occur frequently, but when they do find them, these fossils tends to be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions of years old. Meaning, fossilization take very long time to occur.

People, creationists like dad, wouldn’t know or understand this.

Plus, if their timeline were accurate, we should find "soft tissue" in ALL fossils (re: their claims of 'blood' and 'soft tissue' in fossils proving YEC).

 

[tas8831]

??? The fossil record is nip and tuck fitting the bible and the flood. Name any fossils that are not?

All of them.

The fact that there is a clear progression that defies all attempts at YEC 'explanations' such as hydrodynamic sorting is evidence in and of itself against YECism.

Since evolving is a created trait,

Since YECs rely on mere ad hoc co-option of evolution evidence...

ZERO to do with the evolution of man from animals or shared ancestry with worms etc etc!

Yet you wrote earlier in the same sentence:

" Since evolving is a created trait"


Do you even care about how ridiculous and internally inconsistent your laughable rants are?

In other words you can grasp at straws to cook up some explanation based on the present nature. Whooopee do. We can do that for the actual different past also.

And that is why your dopey schemes are unfalsifiable and evidence that bible tales do not belong in any reality-based educational institution.

Are you suggesting there was any radioactive decay in Noah's day??? Proof?

Proof there wasn't?

Relying on phony God-magic to prop up your beliefs is sad.

 

[Audie]

Plus, if their timeline were accurate, we should find "soft tissue" in ALL fossils (re: their claims of 'blood' and 'soft tissue' in fossils proving YEC).

Well now, not "all" for lo, it is rare enough in
recent specimens.

I do think though that there outta be at least one
flash frozen dinosaur among all the mammoths.

 

[tas8831]

Well now, not "all" for lo, it is rare enough in
recent specimens.

Well sure - no soft tissue in a titanothere that fell into a pool of hot lava!

I do think though that there outta be at least one
flash frozen dinosaur among all the mammoths.

Indeed. Perhaps even with the head of a baby mammoth in its jaws, the baby mammoth chewing on dandelions...

 

[Audie]

Well sure - no soft tissue in a titanothere that fell into a pool of hot lava!

Indeed. Perhaps even with the head of a baby mammoth in its jaws, the baby mammoth chewing on dandelions...

There is at UW an interesting display, they
cast the inside of a small cave.

Normally one would not find a cave in basalt.
rhinoceros cast UW museum - Google Search:

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not my claim, that would be God's. The Almighty's. Now if you claim to have some evidence that He has it all wrong and the lives of men were actually short, well, it is incumbent on you to produce the evidence.

It's your claim. You made it on this forum. Your claim, your burden of proof. You really need to learn how logic works. You are embarrassing yourself.

All evidence and records indicate that human lifespans in the past were not dramatically longer than they are now - no where near the 900 years you are claiming.

Lifespan and Healthspan: Past, Present, and Promise


This could all be cleared up quite easily though. Present your god so "he" can verify that your claim is accurate. I'll wait if you need some time....

Not talking about so called atheism. The belief system being looked at here is so called science.
Nope, none whatsoever not a single piece supports the TOE.

Science is a tool; a method of systematically acquiring knowledge through observation and experimentation.

Evolution is a fact of life. We know for a fact that gene frequencies in populations change over time. It happens. It is directly observable. The theory of evolution explains how evolution happens and what mechanisms and processes are involved that have led to the diversity of life on this planet.

Only your same nature in the past belief painted all over every bit of evidence you can get you hands on!

It's not a belief. It's based on observable evidence.

Yours is a belief, based on a claim in an old book. An extraordinary claim, at that.

Again, you're the one with the burden of proof.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Foolish fable with no support at all. Total religion.

It factually is not a religion. It just isn't.

?? You kidding? Can you falsify Mickey Mouse?? How about Santa? Your fable can't be falsified.

The theory of evolution could be falsified quite easily. A rabbit fossil in the Cambrian layer would do it. Funny how we've never found something like that. Instead what we find are fossils exactly where scientists predicted they would be:
https://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html

If evolution were false, this shouldn't be possible.

It means you better pony up for science claims.

Scientists can demonstrate the veracity of their claims.
You have yet to do that for a single one of your claims.
You make a claim, you back it up. That's just how it works. This is why we don't just believe every single thing anybody says.

Maybe ask yourself why you believe so strongly in something you can't actually demonstrate.

I don't believe in it at all. No belief is required. I accept the evidence for what it is.

This entire post is one long psychological projection on your part.


And you still don't understand the burden of proof, so maybe this will help:
Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

Pay special attention to the part about shifting the burden of proof.

 

[dad]

All of them.

The fact that there is a clear progression that defies all attempts at YEC 'explanations' such as hydrodynamic sorting is evidence in and of itself against YECism.

Not in any way is that remotely true.
The fossil record is a record of a very small sampling of life on earth in the early days. Probably most, almost all life on earth could not leave fossil remains, including man in that former nature! That means that the fossil record is say, 5% or some other small tiny fraction of what was alive. It also means that at the same time that these fossils were formed (of creatures that, for whatever reasons..could leave fossilized remain in that former time)--man and lions and wolves and etc etc etc etc also existed! The absences of man and animals does not mean they were not also here! It just means they could not leave remains. God said to Adam, for example...'from dust you came, and to dust you will return'. (not to fossilized remains)

" Since evolving is a created trait"

Correct. Men and animals could adapt at lightning speeds in the former nature and for all we know, while still alive, rather than only via offspring!

Do you even care about how ridiculous and internally inconsistent your laughable rants are?

Your inability to grasp the immensity of the issues in no way represents inconsistency on my part!

And that is why your dopey schemes are unfalsifiable and evidence that bible tales do not belong in any reality-based educational institution.

Your same nature in the past is not a falsifiable belief.

Proof there wasn't?

Stick to what is known. If you don't know either way do not predicate endless and godless origin fables on it being one way or the other!

Relying on phony God-magic to prop up your beliefs is sad.

[/QUOTE] Ignoring the almost universal spiritual experiences of man due to poor science being to pathetic to detect it is sad.

 

[dad]

It's your claim. You made it on this forum. Your claim, your burden of proof. You really need to learn how logic works. You are embarrassing yourself.

All evidence and records indicate that human lifespans in the past were not dramatically longer than they are now - no where near the 900 years you are claiming.

Lifespan and Healthspan: Past, Present, and Promise


This could all be cleared up quite easily though. Present your god so "he" can verify that your claim is accurate. I'll wait if you need some time....


Science is a tool; a method of systematically acquiring knowledge through observation and experimentation.

Evolution is a fact of life. We know for a fact that gene frequencies in populations change over time. It happens. It is directly observable. The theory of evolution explains how evolution happens and what mechanisms and processes are involved that have led to the diversity of life on this planet.


It's not a belief. It's based on observable evidence.

Yours is a belief, based on a claim in an old book. An extraordinary claim, at that.

Again, you're the one with the burden of proof.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


It factually is not a religion. It just isn't.


The theory of evolution could be falsified quite easily. A rabbit fossil in the Cambrian layer would do it. Funny how we've never found something like that. Instead what we find are fossils exactly where scientists predicted they would be:
https://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html

If evolution were false, this shouldn't be possible.



Scientists can demonstrate the veracity of their claims.
You have yet to do that for a single one of your claims.
You make a claim, you back it up. That's just how it works. This is why we don't just believe every single thing anybody says.


I don't believe in it at all. No belief is required. I accept the evidence for what it is.

This entire post is one long psychological projection on your part.


And you still don't understand the burden of proof, so maybe this will help:
Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

Pay special attention to the part about shifting the burden of proof.

I accept the bible record. If you claim lives were shorter let's see the case. The link you gave deals with current times, not the ancient times. Gong!