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

[TagliatelliMonster]

I recall being given two options, and being asked which was the best. I think my response was that it would depend on the circumstances, because both may require more evidence.
Maybe I didn't get the point, like you did.

The point is that any actual data, is stronger evidence then testimony, which is the weakest type of evidence.
Testimony, in the end, are just claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand what you are saying about genome sequencing and mapping. However, there are other factors involved, that alter genes, so what is inferred from the sequencing, is still assumed.

You're not making sense.
The nested hierarchy is produced by reproduction and the way DNA is inherited.
Whatever is altering genes, these alterations are inherited by off spring.

You can of course, sequence the genes within a "species", and find a greater deal of similarities, but to assume that because organisms, or "species" may have a close match, that they must be related, is only based on the presumption that they are.

No. It is based on the knowledge of how DNA and reproduction works.
The patterns we observe - not "imagine" or "superimpose" or "assume"), but the patterns we OBSERVE - are the exact patterns that would be produced by the process of evolution.

It's what inevitably happens when you have systems that reproduce with modification and pass on those modifications to off spring.

It accounts for all the known facts and it's explanatory power allows us to accurately predict new facts (like the finding of tiktaalik - and many many many other things).

It's not a "presumption". It is, instead, the only reasonable and rational account for the data we have and continue to discover, with NOTHING to contradict it. And MANY things could potentially contradict it.

A single creature that rapes the pattern of nested hierarchy would actually suffice. Evolution would be put on its head.

If we take away that supposition, that assumption varnishes, and we have creatures that - in all cases - have DNA, which are affected through mutations, and other factors, which alter their genes.

As explained, not an assumption at all.

Regarding the fruit flies experiment...
Evidence for speciation
Diane Dodd examined the effects of geographic isolation and selection on fruit flies. She took fruit flies from a single population and divided them into separate populations living in different cages to simulate geographic isolation.

Nice. That's quite different from "demonstrating the whole of evolution", now isn't it?
So what were the results and conclusions? Do you know?

 

[Polymath257]

I think that's where details would matter, and if you are thinking with a purely scientific mind - that is, with scientific terms.
Question is, what is a fish.
Is everything in the ocean a fish?
Are all trees the same kind?
The answer to both of these questions, is no.
The Bible does not go into these details, but simply presents the basics - namely, living creatures, flying creatures, sea creatures, land creatures, creeping animals, seed-bearing plants and trees yielding fruit along with seed, according to their kinds.
So i think what you are asking, is not going to produce an answer that would satisfy a scientific mind.
Also primates is not a word you find in the Bible. It certainly has nothing to do with living according to God's will.

The Bible and true science are not at odds, but one deals specifically with something the other may not deal with.

OK, so primates are not all of one kind. How can we determine which are and which are not in the same kind? The same question applies to trees.

Or are you saying this just isn't a question we will ever have an answer to?

In which case, I reject the whole scheme as simply not being very useful for biology. The *goal* is understanding. If the notion of kinds doesn't help with that goal, then it should be rejected (yes, even if it is in the Bible).

And this is what makes the Bible and science at odds: those who want to follow the Bible reject anything leading to questions the Bible doesn't answer. But human curiosity requires us to pursue understanding well past that. And, in practice, that has meant rejecting the Biblical ideas.

 

[metis]

You yourself said it.

There's a disconnect between us somewhere.

 

[dad]

So why couldn't evolution merely be the natural expression of God's will?

Because that would make Jesus false, because He verified Scripture was right. He already told us how He did it, we do not need a woulda coulda shoulda maybe mental exercise.

Why is God limited to making life in precisely the way you imagine them doing?

He told us how. I didn't make it up.

To assert that the past is different has no proof or evidence, whereas Universal constants do.

Scripture and historical records favor a different nature. The so called constants are circular reasoning, invented and fishbowl based beliefs.

And why would they change? What caused the change?

Why was there any nature to start with? God created. Why? Man is the central reason we see in the bible. Why changes? Man possibly needed an adjustment in life span for one thing...as well as having potential wickedness isolated on continents/islands possibly...etc.

 

[dad]

How do we know that, considering you've just said two posts ago that it's impossible to know that?

We know we are special because God came down here and was tortured and killed for our salvation. He also is moving soon to this planet as HQ forever and ever. What He wrote for us in Scripture is easy to know. What is impossible to know is for science with it's little pagan religious methods.

Considering you were the one who just claimed that we can't distinguish "kinds", and then went on to claim "human kind", it seems like you are the one making stuff up. Necessarily.

Context. SCIENCE can't tell what is what. God already told us we are man kind, and we have some other kinds named also. We can know...science cannot...ever.

Mt 13:11 - He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because that would make Jesus false, because He verified Scripture was right. He already told us how He did it, we do not need a woulda coulda shoulda maybe mental exercise.

Where did Jesus specify that scripture was all literally true?

He told us how. I didn't make it up.

Well, clearly somebody did, because its account is wrong.

Scripture and historical records favor a different nature. The so called constants are circular reasoning, invented and fishbowl based beliefs.

Only if you desperately want to warp reality to fit a preconception. If you really didn't want to engage in fishbowl based beliefs, you wouldn't be a theist.

Why was there any nature to start with? God created. Why? Man is the central reason we see in the bible. Why changes? Man possibly needed an adjustment in life span for one thing...as well as having potential wickedness isolated on continents/islands possibly...etc.

Now you ARE making it up.

 

[dad]

Where did Jesus specify that scripture was all literally true?

His life and death was a fulfillment of Scripture as He said. He also said it was impossible for Scripture to be broken.

Well, clearly somebody did, because its account is wrong.

Your beliefs you thought were science are wrong.

Only if you desperately want to warp reality to fit a preconception. If you really didn't want to engage in fishbowl based beliefs, you wouldn't be a theist.

Those who are lost in space and have no connection with truth are in no position to tell people who believe the Creator that they are warped.

No. We are told the condition of man and level of wickedness before the flood. We are shown that God had to intervene directly again after the flood, at Babel for example. It is quite scriptural to believe that the world was changed a number of times (such as at the fall) in response to what man did or needed.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ha...sure l made up creation and that animals and man were created.....gong

Ha ... you failed at reasoning and now you're trying to pass the blame onto something else.... gong



Let me know when you're ready to have a real discussion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

His life and death was a fulfillment of Scripture as He said. He also said it was impossible for Scripture to be broken.

But did he ever specify that, for example, the exact account of genesis is literally true (or not largely allegorical)?

Your beliefs you thought were science are wrong.

False. I have support for what I believe and am more than confident that time will only continue to confirm my beliefs, while yours will dwindle to obscurity.

But, that's just a forecast.

Those who are lost in space and have no connection with truth are in no position to tell people who believe the Creator that they are warped.

It's quite simple. If believing that Universe has physical laws that are constant is living in a "fish bowl", then surely believing that the entire Universe bends to the will of a being described in a book written thousands of years ago and interpreted by you is living in a significantly smaller fish bowl.

No. We are told the condition of man and level of wickedness before the flood. We are shown that God had to intervene directly again after the flood, at Babel for example. It is quite scriptural to believe that the world was changed a number of times (such as at the fall) in response to what man did or needed.

So where does the Bible specify that God altered the physical laws of the Universe? Where does it specifically say that?

 

[Polymath257]

Do you really have no desire to learn more and to understand at a deeper level? no desire to learn more and to understand at a deeper level?

Where did I say that?

In this:

We don’t actually care who is related to what.....why would we? Nature takes care of itself, just as it was created to do.

Why would we? Because of curiosity.

 

[dad]

Ha ... you failed at reasoning and now you're trying to pass the blame onto something else.... gong



Let me know when you're ready to have a real discussion.

The 'blame' for knowing about Adam and Eve and the flood and Babel, and creation lies squarely with Scripture. Science can't take any of the 'blame'.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The 'blame' for knowing about Adam and Eve and the flood and Babel, and creation lies squarely with Scripture. Science can't take any of the 'blame'.

So who's to blame for your error in reasoning?

Again, we're not talking about science, we're talking about claims you are making. You don't get to make logical errors and then deflect to "science" when called out on it. This isn't science's fault.

Can you explain how anyone could possibly draw conclusions when they are completely lacking the necessary information to do so? Logically speaking how does that work? Remember, you’re the one who said that it’s impossible to know what the original “kinds” were. But then you go ahead and draw all kinds of conclusion from something that’s impossible to know. Please explain how any of that is reasonable and logical.

"If you can't show it, you don't know it."
-Aronra

 

[dad]

But did he ever specify that, for example, the exact account of genesis is literally true (or not largely allegorical)?

He referred to the beginning and first man. The writers of the new testament also refer to Adam and Eve etc. It is all through the bible including the last chapter where an angel from heaven refers to it.

False. I have support for what I believe and am more than confident that time will only continue to confirm my beliefs, while yours will dwindle to obscurity.

I am only concerned with actual support that you can post for your beliefs.

It's quite simple. If believing that Universe has physical laws that are constant is living in a "fish bowl", then surely believing that the entire Universe bends to the will of a being described in a book written thousands of years ago and interpreted by you is living in a significantly smaller fish bowl.

The term fishbowl refers to the solar system and area where man has at least sent probes or been. The question about deep space is not so much physical laws, but whether time itself actually exists out there as we know it here.

So where does the Bible specify that God altered the physical laws of the Universe? Where does it specifically say that?

The nature on earth in the past is on record as being fundamentally different. We are not talking about the universe, we do not really know about that. Yes, on earth here the light we have streaming in from outside the solar system obeys our laws....that doesn't say all that much.

 

[dad]

So who's to blame for your error in reasoning?

I do not agree that God's word is error, or that your religion is truth.

Again, we're not talking about science, we're talking about claims you are making. You don't get to make logical errors and then deflect to "science" when called out on it. This isn't science's fault.

Science is not involved, except inside it's own belief set. Science has nothing to say either way. You don't get to pretend you have any science to support your beliefs.

you’re the one who said that it’s impossible to know what the original “kinds” were. But then you go ahead and draw all kinds of conclusion from something that’s impossible to know. Please explain how any of that is reasonable and logical.

Impossible for science. Not impossible for a kindergarten kid reading the bible!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

He referred to the beginning and first man. The writers of the new testament also refer to Adam and Eve etc. It is all through the bible including the last chapter where an angel from heaven refers to it.

But do they refer to them specifically as literal facts, or do they just refer to them generally?

I am only concerned with actual support that you can post for your beliefs.

There is a significant amount that has been presented to you, and you ignore it by asserting the Universe worked differently, with no support whatsoever.

The term fishbowl refers to the solar system and area where man has at least sent probes or been. The question about deep space is not so much physical laws, but whether time itself actually exists out there as we know it here.

A Universe that exists entirely within the simplified perception of ancient texts and the interpretation of a person who wishes them to minister to their own desires is a much smaller fishbowl than the totally of scientific discovery.

The nature on earth in the past is on record as being fundamentally different.

I'm asking about whether or not physical LAWS were different, such as radioactive decay. Not just "nature".

We are not talking about the universe, we do not really know about that. Yes, on earth here the light we have streaming in from outside the solar system obeys our laws....that doesn't say all that much.

So where does the Bible state that God altered the physical laws of the Universe?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do not agree that God's word is error, or that your religion is truth.

Wow.

For the fourth time, we're talking about your words. Your error in reasoning. You don't get to blame gods for that. I've explained it to you at least 3 times now. I see that others have as well.

Why is this so hard for you to understand here?

Science is not involved, except inside it's own belief set. Science has nothing to say either way. You don't get to pretend you have any science to support your beliefs.
Impossible for science. Not impossible for a kindergarten kid reading the bible!

Blah, blah .. this is irrelevant to the question at hand.

You don't get to blame science for your lapse in reasoning either.

We're talking about your argument/assertion/claim, which was lacking in reason and logic. Are you ever going to address that, or are you just going to keep blame gods and science for your own errors?

 

[gnostic]

Because that would make Jesus false, because He verified Scripture was right.

The Hebrew Scriptures (what Christians like you would call “Old Testament”) were common knowledge among the Jews.

Just because Jesus mentioned a few things, it doesn’t mean Jesus verify anything about the scriptures.

And Jesus certainly couldn’t verify any part of the “New Testament” since these were written decades after his time.

 

[dad]

But do they refer to them specifically as literal facts, or do they just refer to them generally?

Quite factually

There is a significant amount that has been presented to you, and you ignore it by asserting the Universe worked differently, with no support whatsoever.

No. The issue in deep space is time, not nature. As far as earth nature in the past goes, nothing has been presented to show it was the same. Let's be honest.

A Universe that exists entirely within the simplified perception of ancient texts and the interpretation of a person who wishes them to minister to their own desires is a much smaller fishbowl than the totally of scientific discovery.

Your imagination regarding the universe is simply opinion.

I'm asking about whether or not physical LAWS were different, such as radioactive decay. Not just "nature".

I am open minded. If you can prove radioactive decay existed say, before the KT layer, well, we could look at that. However, I assume for now that decay is a feature of the present nature.

So where does the Bible state that God altered the physical laws of the Universe?

Once again when we talk about laws of nature, we are talking earth. Both history and the bible records do indicate great differences in life then and now.

 

[dad]

Wow.

For the fourth time, we're talking about your words. Your error in reasoning. You don't get to blame gods for that. I've explained it to you at least 3 times now. I see that others have as well.

Why is this so hard for you to understand here?


Blah, blah .. this is irrelevant to the question at hand.

You don't get to blame science for your lapse in reasoning either.

We're talking about your argument/assertion/claim, which was lacking in reason and logic. Are you ever going to address that, or are you just going to keep blame gods and science for your own errors?

Not sure why you type for nothing. You'll have to take my word that I never invented creation, but rather Scripture tells us about that. As for science, well it does not cover it. If you claim it does, stop wasting words and get to it.