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

[IndigoChild5559]

There you go. A perfect example of opinions based on how one interprets the text. So one person knows it's written in chronological order, another knows it isn't.
On what basis do they know? It is so.

In this case, there is no difference in interpretation allowed. Rather, it is a matter of very basic reading comprehension. There is a right answer and a wrong answer. I'm pulling rank as an English teacher. His view that it is not in chronological order gets an F.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Lots in history and the scriptures, actually. As for fishbowl science, it only concerns itself with the present laws and knows nothing else existed and more importantly couldn't care less, because it loves making up it's Satanic fables.


No, more like about 4300 years ago.

I don't know how else to convince you. You disregard the evidence as if it doesn't matter. Do you think that God deliberately lies to us by creating evidence that misleads?

Evidence? Let's see what you got and why you claim this.

This video shows the effects of Plate Tectonics beginning 3.3 billion years ago:

The evidence? There are five lines of evidence.
1. Geological match--rocks of the identical type and age matching up show that those lands were connected at that level of stratat/time period.

2. Evolutionary match. Identical types of fossils from the same rock strata/geological age matching up show that at that time period those lands were connected at that level.

3. Magnetic evidence: when some rocks form they have a certain magnetic line-up depending on where they are in relationship to the poles. Thus we know what direction they were facing at what geologic time depending on the magnetic evidence.

4. Glacier evidence: Glaciers move and when they do, they carve out unique U-shaped valleys. By looking for such valleys, we can piece together ice age glaciers and proximity to the poles. The debris left over by glaciers, when split into two continents, can be noted.

5. Mountain ranges: A single mountain range can be identified by its age and identical rock makeup. When the same mountain range is continued in two different places, we know that at one time these two places were once joined.

 

[Deeje]

Are you serious? It is faith that is not reliable. Each religion in the world takes its tenets by faith, yet there is extreme differences.

The ancient Jews had one view of the Law as it was written. It was not ambiguous because the Law spelled everything out very concisely. They had appointed leaders like Moses and Joshua to guide and direct the people.....and a priesthood to conduct God's worship according to all that was written.

But when the people complained (as they often did) God sometimes gave in to them, not to shut them up, but to expose them for the selfish ingrates that they proved to be. There were no extremes in worship either way back then because the law did not allow for it, and for those who failed to uphold it, there were penalties.

It was when sects began to appear that the Jews lost the plot. By the time of Christ's appearance, the Pharisees had so altered and added to the meaning of God's written law by their ridiculous interpretations of it, that when Jesus came (around 400 years after the last prophet was sent to God's wayward people) there was 400 years worth of deviation that had crept in and Judaism was fractured into disunited sects, like it is to this day. The Pharisees had taken their own manufactured traditions and passed them off as Law. The people knew nothing else. So when Jesus exposed the Pharisees for the religious frauds that they were, it threw the whole Jewish nation into turmoil. But interestingly, Jesus was not sent to the leaders of Judaism, but to those who were "lost" because of them. He gathered these lost ones and led them to the truth of God's word.....something that had become out of reach for them because of the attitude of the Jewish leaders. Any wonder they hated Jesus enough to want him dead!

Even within Christianity, you guys have your differences. You can't even agree on what makes a person a Christian, with some of you saying it means having a born again experience (asking Jesus into your heart as your Lord and Savior), some of you saying being baptized, and some of you saying it means accepting the major teachings of Christianity.

Yes! And this was also prophesied. What happened in Judaism was to be repeated with "Christianity"....they are mirror images of one another. What started off as authentic worship......was corrupted from within by men deviating from the word of God....putting their own traditions ahead of it and claiming the corrupted version as the truth. But the divisions prove that God was not with them. God promotes unity, so at the coming judgment, Christ proclaims to those who thought that their worship was acceptable....
"I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’"

This is basically what Jesus also told the Pharisees. (Matthew 23:37-39)

That is correct. There is no consensus among Jews on what to believe. Our opinions range from the Orthodox, who take things very literally and still accept all of the Oral Torah, and who consider their way the only true Judaism, to atheist Jews who want nothing to do with Judaism at all. (Note: some atheist Jews do come to synagogue and pray, which is very interesting -- they are Jews first and atheists second.) It's not like all these views are correct. But we don't stop being a Jew simply because we are in error.

So what is a Jew? Is it a religion or a nationality?

Can you stop being God's people?....that is what the ancient Jews counted on.....being "sons of Abraham", yet John the Baptists words ring true today as they did back then...

Matthew 3:7-10...
"When he caught sight of many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to the baptism, he said to them: “You offspring of vipers, who has warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Therefore, produce fruit that befits repentance. 9 Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones. 10 The ax is already lying at the root of the trees. Every tree, then, that does not produce fine fruit is to be cut down and thrown into the fire."

History tells us what their response was.

Well the Orthodox would agree with you -- they will say, "May he come swiftly in our days." But no, for me and many other Jews there is no haste. is the world dying? It has its problems, but it has always had its problem. In some ways it is improving, and things are very exciting. Who is to say that our improvements aren't the very thing that is preparing the world for the coming of the Messiah?

True worship is identified by its unity and balance....never by its unbalanced extremes.

A longing for the Kingdom to "come" is as old as the scriptures that foretold its benefits to mankind. Isaiah's prophesies point forward to a "new heavens and a new earth"....where the apostle Peter said "righteousness" was to be the norm. (2 Peter 3:13)

Yes these verses are what I was referring to. However, the transfiguration simply isn't the Kingdom of God. It just isn't. In the Kingdom of God, everyone will believe in God and obey him, just as the angels and all the planets in their courses do.

The apostles who were present saw Jesus as the glorious King of God's kingdom. His promise was fulfilled, just not as you think it should have been. It was a "vision" that they were forbidden to speak about until after Jesus' death and resurrection.

This is the Bible's version of history as I understand it......and it proves that people, no matter what they claim, can be dead wrong because they choose to believe lies rather than the truth. It is apparently human nature.

 

[dad]

I don't know how else to convince you. You disregard the evidence as if it doesn't matter. Do you think that God deliberately lies to us by creating evidence that misleads?

The traces of the former nature are mistaken by men who assume that this present is the key to the past. Don't blame anyone else or the evidence for being deceived.

Evidence? Let's see what you got and why you claim this.

Scripture. We know about when Babel and the flood were. The dividing was after.

This video shows the effects of Plate Tectonics beginning 3.3 billion years ago:

No it doesn't, it shows imaginary time claimed based on beliefs.

The evidence? There are five lines of evidence.
1. Geological match--rocks of the identical type and age matching up show that those lands were connected at that level of stratat/time period.

Correct, there was a division, so of course the rocks should match. ZERO to do with your religion.

2. Evolutionary match. Identical types of fossils from the same rock strata/geological age matching up show that at that time period those lands were connected at that level.

Having creatures die in certain times has nothing to do with evolution, but probably rather has to do with what was able to leave remains in that former nature. But of course the lands were joined together.

3. Magnetic evidence: when some rocks form they have a certain magnetic line-up depending on where they are in relationship to the poles. Thus we know what direction they were facing at what geologic time depending on the magnetic evidence.

No. You know that magnetism was oriented in the former nature a certain way. That does not give us years!

4. Glacier evidence: Glaciers move and when they do, they carve out unique U-shaped valleys. By looking for such valleys, we can piece together ice age glaciers and proximity to the poles. The debris left over by glaciers, when split into two continents, can be noted.

We know continents split...but are you saying you have glacier evidence for before the superlandmass separated? Let's see it.

5. Mountain ranges: A single mountain range can be identified by its age and identical rock makeup.
When the same mountain range is continued in two different places, we know that at one time these two places were once joined.

?? you have ranges that were joined before Pangaea? let's look at it. Details?

 

[nPeace]

That he tried to use textual criticism is impressive for someone who rejects the Documentary Hypothesis. I truly respect it, even if I disagree.

Thank you for finding this.

Notice that at the beginning of his Abstract, he writes, "Most modern biblical scholars remain wedded to the classic Documentary Hypothesis." IOW the consensus of scholars is that JEPD wrote the Torah. His view is the exception to the rule.

I hope you also read what he said on the reason why most modern scholars are wedded to it.
His opinion is one of many exceptions, not the exception, as though there is only one.

 

[nPeace]

In this case, there is no difference in interpretation allowed. Rather, it is a matter of very basic reading comprehension. There is a right answer and a wrong answer. I'm pulling rank as an English teacher. His view that it is not in chronological order gets an F.

Reading comprehension? You are not saying that scholars who see things different to what you prefer, are incompetent, are you?

I'm wondering though, whom do you think controls this system? Do you believe what 1 John 5:19 states?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lots in history and the scriptures, actually. As for fishbowl science, it only concerns itself with the present laws and knows nothing else existed and more importantly couldn't care less, because it loves making up it's Satanic fables.


No, more like about 4300 years ago.

? The flood lasted about a year, what about it? If you mean the change in nature that was likely about 106 years after the flood, in the days of Peleg, when the earth was split.


Evidence? Let's see what you got and why you claim this.



The dino time was likely pre flood time. The seas before that were also pre flood waters. Remember we had something like 1700 plus years from
Adam till the time of the change in nature.

dad, you won't let yourself understand what evidence is in the first place. Demonstrate that you understand the concept of evidence and then you can demand to see it.

 

[shunyadragon]

If the forces changed, then the atoms were affected. Trying to claim that 'chemicals' are the same is absurd. Just because forces affect rocks and isotopes and all things at all layers does not mean that the chemicals and physical nature of the materials was the same in the far past!

IF . . . you have provided no evidence even for the possibility.

In other words you want someone in this nature to form lamina fast. Ridiculous. The idea is that it formed fast in some nature you never saw and know diddly about.

Science is based on the evidence Still waiting . . .
Arguing from ignorance is a fallacy in logic as well as science. Still waiting for you to provide evidence to the contrary,

That is NOT evidence of a same nature. That is evidence you want to believe that the deposits were all laid down in this nature.

There is no evidence otherwise. Still waiting . . .

There is none. All can be explained by a different nature past also.

OK! There is no evidence to support your argument. Good! We are in agreement.

There is absolutely no evidence that the natural laws and time was any different at any time in the past.

Still waiting . . .

One would not use this nature to 'prove' there was another one! But let's face it you wave away history and God and the spiritual and Scripture records of the past while at the same time screaming for evidence of what the past was like!

No screaming just objectively verifiable evidence.

Still waiting for you to provide objective verifiable evidence to support your assertions. So far nothing . . .

Still waiting . . .
You are not qualified to say when that was since we know you date things only with your religion.
You apply a same nature in the past belief to it all, ratios and layers! That is not hard evidence that is believing real hard.

Example?

The 800,000 years of consistent uniform lamela in Japanese lakes.

 

[dad]

IF . . . you have provided no evidence even for the possibility.

I do not need to. I believe the bible. The issue is you pretending science knows better.

Science is based on the evidence

You call smearing beliefs on layers or isotopes evidence.

Arguing from ignorance is a fallacy in logic as well as science.

Origin fables from science argue from ignorance, douse it with fantasy, glue it together with beliefs, and paint it with attitude.

Still waiting for you to provide evidence to the contrary,

Fables do not require contrary evidence.

There is absolutely no evidence that the natural laws and time was any different at any time in the past.

I other words the nature science always knew looks like the nature science always knew. Too bad science is just a toddler in the world history stage. That is about as valid as a toddler saying 'I know my high chair is the only one in the world, or I would have seen others'

The 800,000 years of consistent uniform lamela in Japanese lakes.

I have no reason to think that slow deposition we see today represents the deep past there. Your only reason is belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no reason to think that slow deposition we see today represents the deep past there. Your only reason is belief.

No dad, we have testable confirmable models. Mere belief is all that you have. You are once again falsely claiming that others have your flaws.

Oddly enough you recognize the fact that mere belief is not enough and yet that is all you ever have. A book refuted over 200 years ago and you still believe the fairy tales in it.

 

[dad]

.. we have testable confirmable models. .

Let's see you provide one for the KT layer or below. What was tested how!? Ha.

 

[shunyadragon]

I do not need to. I believe the bible. The issue is you pretending science knows better.

This is the bottom line where you cannot provide any, absolutely no evidence to support your assertions, answere only 'I believe in the (literal) Bible. This degates any dialogue based on science.

Still waiting . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

Let's see you provide one for the KT layer or below. What was tested how!? Ha.

First you have to provide evidence other than 'I believe in the Bible,' because any other discussion of the science of the history of the earth. If you wish the evidence for the history of the earth below the KT boundary you simply can read the scientific literature on the subject, but, an . . . you only 'believe in the Bible.'

Why ask any more questions concerning science if 'you only believe the Bible?'

 

[shunyadragon]

Let's see you provide one for the KT layer or below. What was tested how!? Ha.

First you have to provide evidence other than 'I believe in the Bible,' because any other discussion of the science of the history of the earth. If you wish the evidence for the history of the earth below the KT boundary you simply can read the scientific literature on the subject, but, an . . . you only 'believe in the Bible.'

Why ask any more questions concerning science if 'you only believe the Bible?'

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's see you provide one for the KT layer or below. What was tested how!? Ha.

What aspect did you want tested? That is an observation that can be seen again and again. You need to work on your questions. They make us much sense as your claims.

 

[dad]

What aspect did you want tested? That is an observation that can be seen again and again. You need to work on your questions. They make us much sense as your claims.

You're the one that claimed 'testable confirmable models' you tell us!

 

[dad]

This is the bottom line where you cannot provide any, absolutely no evidence to support your assertions. .

My assumption is that science does not really know that past was the nature that they use in all models. That is what you can't support, so you try to look at other beliefs instead, as if that helps your epic fail.

 

[dad]

First you have to provide evidence other than 'I believe in the Bible,' because any other discussion of the science of the history of the earth. If you wish the evidence for the history of the earth below the KT boundary you simply can read the scientific literature on the subject, but, an . . . you only 'believe in the Bible.'

None of the lit proves that nature and laws were the same. They just base their claims on it. Might as well read weekly comics for info.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're the one that claimed 'testable confirmable models' you tell us!

Nope, you made an unclear demand. I know that as often as I show you to be wrong it may seem to you as if I am a mind reader but I really am not. You need to be clearer in your demands.

And one reminder, until you learn what is and what is not evidence you cannot demand any. That does handicap you quite a bit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My assumption is that science does not really know that past was the nature that they use in all models. That is what you can't support, so you try to look at other beliefs instead, as if that helps your epic fail.

But they an and have supported their claims. You are the one that won't let yourself learn so that you can understand this. As a result you keep bearing false witness against your neighbors.

As a Christian it is fine if you do not believe in reality. That is not a sin. But it is a sin to bear false witness. That means when one does not understand something, rather than making false claims about others it is wisest to keep one's mouth shut.