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

[Subduction Zone]

Not two posts ago you were claiming that scientists said that Lucy's knee was found over a mile away. Now you're changing your story to "they made up the knee based on presumption!"

Which is it?

Great great grandma don't have a knee cuz great great grandpa has one

 

[nPeace]

You do realize that they use the exact same techniques forensic facial reconstruction experts use to accurately identify the remains of skeletons, right?

What are you talking about Flame?

 

[nPeace]

Maybee?
Please give me the link to substantiate this claim.
I never heard of DNA surviving in Lucy.
However, do you know that DR. Johanson who discovered Lucy claimed that the knee bone was the reason to claim Lucy walked upright.
The science goes like this.
1. Chimps and Gorillas have a 0 degree angle on their knee bone.
Humans 9 degrees, more angular results in "Knock knees".
Lucy had a 15 degree angle.
However, spider monkeys and lemurs have the same angle than humans.
Therefore creationists reject this as evidence that Lucy's knee bones prove she was a humanoid.

2. Johanson was asked by a Christian who was a biologist, where did they find Lucy's knee bones, knowing something not a lot of people knew, and Dr. Johanson had to admit, 200 feet deeper in the soil, and 1.5 miles away!

Do you think this paleontologist gives a damn for the truth, or is he constructing evidence to make money and to become famous?

Now, looking at the above, tell me why I should believe anything about Lucy as evidence of being a homonid in the tree of evolution?

Hey. I'm on your side here, bro. That was a bad joke... I guess.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What are you talking about Flame?

Scientists can actually draw a lot of reasonable conclusions from fairly little skeletal remains with surprising accuracy. They use the exact same techniques on the skeletal bodies of missing people and are able to very accurately predict how they actually looked. So much so that this has been used successfully in many missing person's cases to correctly identify the body.

 

[nPeace]

Scientists can actually draw a lot of reasonable conclusions from fairly little skeletal remains with surprising accuracy. They use the exact same techniques on the skeletal bodies of missing people and are able to very accurately predict how they actually looked. So much so that this has been used successfully in many missing person's cases to correctly identify the body.

What's your point?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What's your point?

That we actually have good reasons to believe that scientists can accurately reconstruct the appearance of ancient beings using their skeletal remains.

 

[nPeace]

That we actually have good reasons to believe that scientists can accurately reconstruct the appearance of ancient beings using their skeletal remains.

We have good reason for believing lots of things. I have no quarrel with people believing. Do you?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We have good reason for believing lots of things. I have no quarrel with people believing. Do you?

Then why do you appear to ridicule people for believing things that they have good reasons for believing?

Or do you equate all beliefs as being equal?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have good reason for believing lots of things. I have no quarrel with people believing. Do you?

Equivocation on your part. He does not mean 'believe' as a religious belief, but a a reasonable belief based upon reliable evidence.

 

[nPeace]

Then why do you appear to ridicule people for believing things that they have good reasons for believing?

Or do you equate all beliefs as being equal?

Can you give me an example of ridicule, and do you think good reason for believing is a subjective opinion, or do you think one belief is somehow fact, while the other is not?
All beliefs are not equal of course, based on the fact that a person can say, "I believe in aliens", but says so based on no reason at all.
However, who decides what "a good reason" is?
In that case, a hundred people can have "a good reason" for believing what they do, all of them are still beliefs.
A belief nonetheless is not a fact. Agreed?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Can you give me an example of ridicule,

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

and do you think good reason for believing is a subjective opinion, or do you think one belief is somehow fact, while the other is not?

It is not a "subjective opinion" that forensic reconstruction techniques can be used to produce accurate predictions of the appearance and structure of individuals. That's the point.

All beliefs are not equal of course, based on the fact that a person can say, "I believe in aliens", but says so based on no reason at all.
However, who decides what "a good reason" is?
In that case, a hundred people can have "a good reason" for believing what they do, all of them are still beliefs.
A belief nonetheless is not a fact. Agreed?

Agreed. Facts, however, are the best support we have for beliefs. To believe evolutionary theory is an example of an extremely well supported belief, because a tonne of facts support it.

You must also ask WHY a person believes a belief, because they can either believe it because it's where the evidence leads (science), or believe it in spite of what the evidence may say (faith). These are important distinctions to be made.

The point is that we have very, very good reasons to believe the conclusions of evolutionary theory, as it is based on solid, testable science that constantly produces positive results. Your ridicule and oversimplification of the hard-working scientists who produce these results is not an effective argument against their veracity, as your personal credulity is not a barometer for truth.

 

[nPeace]

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

Ridiculing an ideology is ridiculing a person?
I am learning some things on these forums, one doesn't normally find elsewhere.
I hope you asked yourself the same question then Flame... "Why do I ridicule people... and their beliefs?" Do you want any examples... how many?

It is not a "subjective opinion" that forensic reconstruction techniques can be used to produce accurate predictions of the appearance and structure of individuals. That's the point.

You have reason to believe, is a subjective opinion.
Forensic evidence whether objective or not, is not the point. The evidence may not be enough to conclusively prove anything, and therefore be factual.
If you disagree...With all the forensic evidence in this case, prove who committed this murder.

Agreed. Facts, however, are the best support we have for beliefs. To believe evolutionary theory is an example of an extremely well supported belief, because a tonne of facts support it.

You must also ask WHY a person believes a belief, because they can either believe it because it's where the evidence leads (science), or believe it in spite of what the evidence may say (faith). These are important distinctions to be made.

The point is that we have very, very good reasons to believe the conclusions of evolutionary theory, as it is based on solid, testable science that constantly produces positive results. Your ridicule and oversimplification of the hard-working scientists who produce these results is not an effective argument against their veracity, as your personal credulity is not a barometer for truth.

I really marvel are how persons on these forums like to say things because they can.
Give me one of the tons of facts supporting the theory that is not a hypothesis... just one.

 

[Jose Fly]

Don't forget.
They don't always find skulls.
Sometimes it's just parts of the teeth, the top of the skull, a jawbone, a leg bone, with perhaps one or two other pieces...
They can tell you a lot from just those bits - even the color of the ??skin??, and how much ??hair?? they had.

They sure can, just like forensic scientists can tell quite a bit from a single piece of evidence.

I'm curious.....do you think paleontologists are generally honest in their work?

 

[nPeace]

They sure can, just like forensic scientists can tell quite a bit from a single piece of evidence.

I'm curious.....do you think paleontologists are generally honest in their work?

By generally, I suppose you mean, as cops are generally honest, despite the many who cover up their crimes, and doctors are generally honest, despite many who drug and rape their patients. Then only God knows what is done to make things less ugly than they look. Sure.
Do you think paleontologist are infallible?
Do you think scientists are beyond bias?
Maybe it's only religious people who are dishonest, as some believe. Is that your view?
Do you think it is okay, if we believe something to be true if we have little evidence to support it, and if there are discrepancies with some of the evidence?

Tell me, do you think scientists think that scientists are dishonest when they disagree with them, and argue strongly against them, and when they hotly debate their ideas, and resort to name-calling, and ... and.... and...
Fly,.. man you got me pulling out my hair.
Why do believers in the ToE think that people should believe like they do, when scientists themselves cannot even agree on half of the ideas in support of the theory?
I'm stunned. Seriously.

 

[Jose Fly]

By generally, I suppose you mean, as cops are generally honest, despite the many who cover up their crimes, and doctors are generally honest, despite many who drug and rape their patients. Then only God knows what is done to make things less ugly than they look. Sure.

Of course with police, we have numerous documented examples of dishonest or unethical behavior. With paleontologists though? Not so much.

Do you think paleontologist are infallible?

Of course not.

Do you think scientists are beyond bias?

Of course not, but what's interesting about that is how scientists go out of their way to implement a system specifically designed to minimize bias. It's not perfect, but it's certainly better than nothing and as a scientist, I can say with absolute certainty that in my work we check each other for bias all the time.

Maybe it's only religious people who are dishonest, as some believe. Is that your view?

LOL....no, that would be a weird thing to believe.

Do you think it is okay, if we believe something to be true if we have little evidence to support it, and if there are discrepancies with some of the evidence?

In general, sure. People can believe whatever they like.

Tell me, do you think scientists think that scientists are dishonest when they disagree with them, and argue strongly against them, and when they hotly debate their ideas, and resort to name-calling, and ... and.... and...
Fly,.. man you got me pulling out my hair.

LOL....at least you have hair to pull out!

In my experience, when one of us identifies bias in a colleague's work, I've never seen anyone accuse them of being dishonest. It's usually more along the lines of them not realizing their own bias, which is why showing your work to your colleagues is vital to the process.

Why do believers in the ToE think that people should believe like they do, when scientists themselves cannot even agree on half of the ideas in support of the theory?
I'm stunned. Seriously.

It comes down to one main thing....education and public policy. If evolution deniers merely had their beliefs and left it at that, most scientists wouldn't care about them any more than we care about people who deny a spherical earth. I don't know where you live, but in the US there is a long history of creationists attempting to undermine science education, especially when it comes to evolution. As some of the papers we've been discussing show, understanding the evolutionary history of life on earth is vital to a number of specific avenues of research, such as bioinformatics. Figuring out what genetic sequences do and how they vary across people is important to medical treatments, and is very much based on evolutionary common ancestry. So the more we know and understand about our evolutionary history, the more likely we are to make important scientific advances.

So when we see people actively trying to undermine all that, we take both interest and action.

 

[nPeace]

Of course with police, we have numerous documented examples of dishonest or unethical behavior. With paleontologists though? Not so much.


Of course not.


Of course not, but what's interesting about that is how scientists go out of their way to implement a system specifically designed to minimize bias. It's not perfect, but it's certainly better than nothing and as a scientist, I can say with absolute certainty that in my work we check each other for bias all the time.


LOL....no, that would be a weird thing to believe.


In general, sure. People can believe whatever they like.


LOL....at least you have hair to pull out!

In my experience, when one of us identifies bias in a colleague's work, I've never seen anyone accuse them of being dishonest. It's usually more along the lines of them not realizing their own bias, which is why showing your work to your colleagues is vital to the process.


It comes down to one main thing....education and public policy. If evolution deniers merely had their beliefs and left it at that, most scientists wouldn't care about them any more than we care about people who deny a spherical earth. I don't know where you live, but in the US there is a long history of creationists attempting to undermine science education, especially when it comes to evolution. As some of the papers we've been discussing show, understanding the evolutionary history of life on earth is vital to a number of specific avenues of research, such as bioinformatics. Figuring out what genetic sequences do and how they vary across people is important to medical treatments, and is very much based on evolutionary common ancestry. So the more we know and understand about our evolutionary history, the more likely we are to make important scientific advances.

So when we see people actively trying to undermine all that, we take both interest and action.

Perhaps you are not seeing the broader picture. Some who disagree with the mechanisms, and "theories" are not Creationists.

 

[Jose Fly]

Perhaps you are not seeing the broader picture.

I'd like to think I am seeing it, since I've spent a lot of time on this, including a huge amount of time reading through creationist material.

Some who disagree with the mechanisms, and "theories" are not Creationists.

Who?

 

[nPeace]

I'd like to think I am seeing it, since I've spent a lot of time on this, including a huge amount of time reading through creationist material.


Who?

Ha ha. You are about to expose yourself here.
Before I answer that for you, let me get some clarity first.
So you are one who has the view that it is only Creationists with an agenda, who disagree with the popular opinions among scientists... particularly where the theory of evolution is concerned. Is that fair to say?

If your answer is no, then I don't need to give you names, since you would agree that there are scientists who are not Creationists who don't fully agree, and in some cases, are outright opposed to the mechanisms and "theories", related to the theory of evolution.
So which is it?

 

[PruePhillip]

But the Bible also say birds “winged fowls” were created (on the fifth day) at the same time as sea life. Which mean Genesis is wrong, scientifically.

Which means birds (5th day) were created BEFORE land animals (6th day), which again, mean Genesis is wrong with this order of creation.

No, it reads that life came out of the sea - then mentions some of these living things.
Same for the land - God commanded the earth to bring forth life (before the sea BTW)
and then lists land creatures. It's not necessarily saying the ocean was sterile while
land things developed.
And... birds are dinosaurs, which come from reptiles, which come from amphibians,
which come from lobe fins which come from fish.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, it reads that life came out of the sea - then mentions some of these living things.
Same for the land - God commanded the earth to bring forth life (before the sea BTW)
and then lists land creatures. It's not necessarily saying the ocean was sterile while
land things developed.
And... birds are dinosaurs, which come from reptiles, which come from amphibians,
which come from lobe fins which come from fish.

You really aren't aware just how comical this is, are you?