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

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong.
I am using the term in the context of Deeje's comment.
Humans apparently did not evolve that very important component in their nature....the one that naturally prompts them to recycle their waste......we are so intelligent that we are drowning in the results of our own inventiveness. We can't dispose of our rubbish without making the planet pay.....greedily raping the earth of its resources and reaping the consequences of completely polluting the only home we have.....to the point of endangering our own existence. We are robbing the other creatures of their homes as well, leading to their extinction. How clever are we really? How much is science accountable for all that?

And she was speaking of evolution too. Again, you misapplied the definition that you chose.

 

[nPeace]

Dude! Way to shoot yourself in the foot. You used a openly biased source. It is worthless. They have an incorrect definition. Try finding a neutral source if you want to convince anyone.

Whether the source is biased or not, does not affect what i said.

 

[nPeace]

And she was speaking of evolution too. Again, you misapplied the definition that you chose.

Wrong again.
Where in that quote is she speaking about evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whether the source is biased or not, does not affect what i said.

Your source is biased and wrong so it makes what you said biased and wrong. Not a wise choice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong again.
Where in that quote is she speaking about evolution?

How about in the very first sentence?

"Humans apparently did not evolve that very important component in their nature....t"

 

[nPeace]

How about in the very first sentence?

"Humans apparently did not evolve that very important component in their nature....t"

You call that talking about evolution.
I see a remark made with sarcasm. Then I see seven lines on what is being talked about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You call that talking about evolution.
I see a remark made with sarcasm. Then I see seven lines on what is being talked about.

Really? Deeje is incredibly wrong. Now you are accusing her of lying besides that.

 

[nPeace]

Really? Deeje is incredibly wrong. Now you are accusing her of lying besides that.

I am? How?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am? How?

I seriously doubt if you would let yourself understand.

 

[Polymath257]

I never said we don't know anything. I don't know why you find that necessary to say.

And once again, we know the basics that planets form out of the clouds of gas and dust that we can see around other stars. We don't know the specific mechanisms.

That's your opinion.
Everyone has one.
We say the same thing about you theories.

Well, the difference is that htese are also the opinions of those who have studied the archeology and history of the relevant areas. The first few books of the Bible were written late and are more accurate descriptors of the time just before the Babylonian captivity than they are of earlier times. Pretty much anything they say about times prior to about 900BC is pretty unreliable.

You see the difference between opinions is that some are backed by evidence and reason while other are backed by denial and obfuscation.

So 'We don't know how planets formed' means 'we do know how planets formed'? Well, I'll be a munkey's uncle.
In case you believe I don't know how to read and understand, I think the better approach would be to give me something that I can read and understand, because what you said there, makes absolutely no kind of sense to me.
Papers?


Right. The evidence available was assumed to point in that direction.
Many times the views have been tested, and assumed to be right, until other evidence showed it was wrong, and the puzzling evidence, called for various adjustments in the theory. So that to this day puzzling finds call for continuous adjustments.

Each adjustment adding another decimal place to the accuracy. The theories that have been discarded as unsupported by the evidence are not resurrected.

So in each case, the theory has supportive evidence to prove it true.
Oh dear.

Yes, one theory gets things right to 3 decimal places. The next to 4, and the next to 5. That seems like progress to me. We go from general ideas to more and more specifics and details.

No.

OK, so we *can* know about events in the past. How about another question.

Which is more reliable, physical evidence or eyewitness testimony?

So?

So, most of the things you say are 'assumptions' are actually *conclusions* based on the science tested in the labs via experiments.

So you say. I wholeheartedly disagree, for the reasons I have given - now, and previously.

Except that you haven't shown why the *conclusions* (not just assumptions) are invalid.

 

[Polymath257]

You are free to believe whatever you wish. Science cannot prove what they theorize. Guesswork based on similarity is assumption, not fact. e.g. A similar earbone cannot make a four legged land dweller into a whale without a whole lot of supposition, followed by a bucketload of suggestions. You all swallow this stuff and then accuse those who support intelligent design of being short on evidence? That's funny.

Do you realize that a single earbone can classify an animal as a mammal? Those three earbones are very specific to mammals.

You can ridicule the information that can be obtained by sometimes small objects, but that is simply a form of denial.

Yes, we can tell how different species are related by looking at their bones. I really hope that isn't a surprise.

 

[PruePhillip]

Now this is always amusing to me....that evolution can sway people away from direct creation and into trying to fuse the two together somehow. IMO they do not fuse. You have to accept one or the other.
God did not create evolution...he either created all that he said he did....or he didn't. You can't hedge your bets on this one.

Don't believe in the fashionable false dichotomy about this.
Genesis 1: "... and God commanded the seas to bring forth life."
Early earth was an oceanic, cloud planet according to NASA. Their
interest in Saturn's moon Titan is because of this - Titan is called
an "earth analogue."
The sequence of events in the creation of earth is surprisingly similar
between that of Genesis and our current scientific notions.

 

[PruePhillip]

I do not believe the question of God existing is a subject of this thread. I believe in God, but that is topic of another thread.

As for the question of Genesis. It is neither true nor false. It is simple not a factual history of our universe, solar system, earth, nor the history of life on earth including human history.

How many times do I type this?
The Sequence in Genesis
1 - God created the heavens
2 - and the earth
3 - and the earth was dark and totally oceanic
4 - the the skies cleared
5 - and the continents rose
6 - and life came from the earth (not the seas, land first, ie clay, fresh water etc..)
7 - and life came out of the sea (inc birds)
8 - and finally man.

 

[PruePhillip]

Well, the difference is that htese are also the opinions of those who have studied the archeology and history of the relevant areas. The first few books of the Bible were written late and are more accurate descriptors of the time just before the Babylonian captivity than they are of earlier times. Pretty much anything they say about times prior to about 900BC is pretty unreliable..

Reading yesterday about the list of biblical names during the days of King David.
Researches have been able to tease out the origins of these names, such as
what is Canaanite and what is Jewish.
At the same time other people are saying Jews are just Canaanites and there
was no King David.
Make up your own mind - but keep an open mind.
When Jews of Babylonian times read the early texts they must have been rather
amused at the culture of earlier Jews, such as Boaz taking off his shoe to sign
a property deal. One odd one was pilgrims in Canaan buying burial plots along
some of the main thoroughfares in the land (such as what Abraham did) We now
know of these little parcels of foreign land - there was no archaeology in Babylonian
times so how did people know of these Bronze Age practices from maybe 1500
years earlier? Either by word of mouth, or by texts. Either way, that is where your
bible comes from.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How many times do I type this?
The Sequence in Genesis
1 - God created the heavens
2 - and the earth
3 - and the earth was dark and totally oceanic
4 - the the skies cleared
5 - and the continents rose
6 - and life came from the earth (not the seas, land first, ie clay, fresh water etc..)
7 - and life came out of the sea (inc birds)
8 - and finally man.

This seems a pretty deliberate over-simplification of the Biblical account that misses a lot of specific details that don't fit. Here's a more complete sequence:

Pre-creation:
1 - creates the heaven and earth
2 - the earth is "without form" and was dark

Day one:
3 - light is created
4 - light is divided from darkness, creating day and night

Day two:
5 - God creates the firmament
6 - separates the waters above and below and named the firmament heaven

Day three:
7 - gathered the waters below the firmament to create land
8 - called the land earth and the waters the sea
9 - created grass, herb-yielding seeds and fruit-bearing trees on the earth

Day four:
10 - creates seasons and the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night, including stars

Day five:
11 - created great sea monsters, creatures that creep on land and every winged fowl

Day six:
12 - created living creatures on the land such as cattle, "creeping things" and beasts
13 - creates man and woman

Day seven:
14 - rests

 

[Skwim]

[QU

Paleontology is a lot more interesting than it was 50 years ago.
The recreation looks familiar.....Uncle Angus!

Uncle angus??

.​

 

[PruePhillip]

This seems a pretty deliberate over-simplification of the Biblical account that misses a lot of specific details that don't fit. Here's a more complete sequence:

Pre-creation:
1 - creates the heaven and earth
2 - the earth is "without form" and was dark

Day one:
3 - light is created
4 - light is divided from darkness, creating day and night

Day two:
5 - God creates the firmament
6 - separates the waters above and below and named the firmament heaven

Day three:
7 - gathered the waters below the firmament to create land
8 - called the land earth and the waters the sea
9 - created grass, herb-yielding seeds and fruit-bearing trees on the earth

Day four:
10 - creates seasons and the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night, including stars

Day five:
11 - created great sea monsters, creatures that creep on land and every winged fowl

Day six:
12 - created living creatures on the land such as cattle, "creeping things" and beasts
13 - creates man and woman

Day seven:
14 - rests

Until 10-15 years ago the idea of a dark, oceanic earth was nonsense. Then came the zirconian crystal studies
from Australia - earth was wet almost from the time it formed. And dark too, according to NASA's estimation -
the earth was a cloud planet like Venus. There existed no land, or at least, continents. Water is required, oddly,
to create granite continents.
So at what point does the author of Genesis begin his narrative? We simply have no idea how many steps were
involved to bring about the earth. Do we go back to the primordial debris ring surrounding the sun? What about
the earlier formation of "metallic" elements? What about the early universe's plasma state? Or how about the
supposed hyper-dimensional membrane which triggered the Big Bang. Maybe further back, before there was
an time or space, to the formation of these membranes?
No - the bible is a theological book, speaking to Bronze Age people. It took them back as far as they could
understand (remember, there was no notion of a round earth, a planet was a wandering star etc..) and as far
back as you could reasonable expect to be an observer - that of the cold, dark and oceanic world. You have to
begin somewhere.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Until 10-15 years ago the idea of a dark, oceanic earth was nonsense. Then came the zirconian crystal studies
from Australia - earth was wet almost from the time it formed. And dark too, according to NASA's estimation -
the earth was a cloud planet like Venus. There existed no land, or at least, continents. Water is required, oddly,
to create granite continents.
So at what point does the author of Genesis begin his narrative? We simply have no idea how many steps were
involved to bring about the earth. Do we go back to the primordial debris ring surrounding the sun? What about
the earlier formation of "metallic" elements? What about the early universe's plasma state? Or how about the
supposed hyper-dimensional membrane which triggered the Big Bang. Maybe further back, before there was
an time or space, to the formation of these membranes?
No - the bible is a theological book, speaking to Bronze Age people. It took them back as far as they could
understand (remember, there was no notion of a round earth, a planet was a wandering star etc..) and as far
back as you could reasonable expect to be an observer - that of the cold, dark and oceanic world. You have to
begin somewhere.

But surely you realize that by oversimplfying and omitting certain details of the genesis account you can make it fit practically any narrative you like. The fact is that the sequence of events it describes are contradicted by the evidence (earth existing before light, the existence of a firmament, the first life being plants, birds existing before land mammals, etc.). If you omit the details that are contradicted, and choose only to focus on the parts you can interpret as fitting reality, you're misrepresenting the text and loading the deck.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you realize that a single earbone can classify an animal as a mammal? Those three earbones are very specific to mammals.

Or as a whale. When Pakicetus was first discovered one of the first questions asked by the paleontologist investigating it was "What is this land animal doing with the ears of a whale?"

That is a paraphrase of course, but you get the idea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Until 10-15 years ago the idea of a dark, oceanic earth was nonsense. Then came the zirconian crystal studies
from Australia - earth was wet almost from the time it formed. And dark too, according to NASA's estimation -
the earth was a cloud planet like Venus. There existed no land, or at least, continents. Water is required, oddly,
to create granite continents.
So at what point does the author of Genesis begin his narrative? We simply have no idea how many steps were
involved to bring about the earth. Do we go back to the primordial debris ring surrounding the sun? What about
the earlier formation of "metallic" elements? What about the early universe's plasma state? Or how about the
supposed hyper-dimensional membrane which triggered the Big Bang. Maybe further back, before there was
an time or space, to the formation of these membranes?
No - the bible is a theological book, speaking to Bronze Age people. It took them back as far as they could
understand (remember, there was no notion of a round earth, a planet was a wandering star etc..) and as far
back as you could reasonable expect to be an observer - that of the cold, dark and oceanic world. You have to
begin somewhere.

Citation needed.