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

[PruePhillip]

Trying to juggle the books does not get you the brass ring. The natural evolution of life of over billions of years and the evolution of humanity is the science not supported by Genesis, and then we have to deal with the flood, for which htere i absolutely no evidence for the flood on either a world nor regional perspective.

State clearly where this list is wrong
God created:

1 - the heavens
2 - the earth
3 - the opening of the skies
4 - the creation of land
5 - the creation of life on land
6 - the creation of life in the sea
7 - man.

 

[shunyadragon]

State clearly where this list is wrong
God created:

1 - the heavens
2 - the earth
3 - the opening of the skies
4 - the creation of land
5 - the creation of life on land
6 - the creation of life in the sea
7 - man.

Trying to juggle the books does not get you the brass ring. The natural evolution of life of over billions of years and the evolution of humanity is the science not supported by Genesis, and then we have to deal with the flood, for which htere i absolutely no evidence for the flood on either a world nor regional perspective.

 

[PruePhillip]

Trying to juggle the books does not get you the brass ring. The natural evolution of life of over billions of years and the evolution of humanity is the science not supported by Genesis, and then we have to deal with the flood, for which htere i absolutely no evidence for the flood on either a world nor regional perspective.

Hello? There's an echo here !!!!
Echos aren't answers.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hello? There's an echo here !!!!
Echos aren't answers.

Echos are the only option for those that fail to respobd to the substance of the post.

 

[PruePhillip]

Echos are the only option for those that fail to respobd to the substance of the post.

Q - What was the substance?
A - there is no scientific sequence in Genesis.

I gave that sequence. There IS a valid sequence.
Certainly I see the seven days as being theological,
but the sequence was not believe just 15-20 years ago.
From about 1985-1990 it was first understood the early
earth was "wet" until 2019 it was agreed that life came
first from the "land" and then sea.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hello? There's an echo here !!!!
Echos aren't answers.

They are the only option when you fail to answer nor address the bottom line issues of my post.

Trying to juggle the books does not get you the brass ring. The natural evolution of life of over billions of years and the evolution of humanity is the science not supported by Genesis, and then we have to deal with the flood, for which there i absolutely no evidence for the flood on either a world nor regional perspective.

Still waiting . . .

 

[Jose Fly]

A quick seach by me revealed the same thing. Creationists at times seem to be unable to understand that it is variation (which includes mutation) and natural selection working together driving evolution. It is easy to "refute" evolution if one pretends it is only natural selection, which remioves "informatin" is the drviing force since no new traits can emerge, and the same bad arguments apply if one goes by mutation only snce that loads up both good and bad changes and no species change can occur. One has to continually emphasize that it is the two working together and it is rather foolish to try to refute evoluiton by focusing on only one.

Exactly. And when Dr. Nei said textbooks "still say natural selection causes evolution" I kinda thought to myself..."well, not exclusively". All the textbooks I'm aware of say natural selection is one of the mechanisms of evolution. I don't know of any that say it's the only mechanism.

So even there it seems like a big....meh.

 

[shunyadragon]

Q - What was the substance?
A - there is no scientific sequence in Genesis.

I gave that sequence. There IS a valid sequence.

For a Biblical view, but not a scientific view. It is not a valid a gerry rigged sequence alone without addressing the whole science of billions of years of evolution and the millions of years of human evolution.

Certainly I see the seven days as being theological,
but the sequence was not believe just 15-20 years ago.
From about 1985-1990 it was first understood the early
earth was "wet" until 2019 it was agreed that life came
first from the "land" and then sea.

The sequence of the origins of life and early evolution is still not conclusively determined. It has always been understood that life originated in water "wet?", and originated on dry land was never an option. It could have been volcanic springs in vents on land, in volcanic tidal coastal regions or mid ocean ridges. Either volcanic vent springs and mid ocean ridges are at present the best options.

Still waiting . . .

Trying to juggle the books does not get you the brass ring. The natural evolution of life of over billions of years and the evolution of humanity is the science not supported by Genesis, and then we have to deal with the flood, for which there i absolutely no evidence for the flood on either a world nor regional perspective.

Your still neglecting that the geologic evidence for the origins and sequence of the evolution of life is in the sedimentary record is in terms of billions of years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly. And when Dr. Nei said textbooks "still say natural selection causes evolution" I kinda thought to myself..."well, not exclusively". All the textbooks I'm aware of say natural selection is one of the mechanisms of evolution. I don't know of any that say it's the only mechanism.

So even there it seems like a big....meh.

I think that all of our creationists are now looking for excuses rather than trying to learn at this point in time.

 

[PruePhillip]

For a Biblical view, but not a scientific view. It is not a valid a gerry rigged sequence alone without addressing the whole science of billions of years of evolution and the millions of years of human evolution.



The sequence of the origins of life and early evolution is still not conclusively determined. It has always been understood that life originated in water "wet?", and originated on dry land was never an option. It could have been volcanic springs in vents on land, in volcanic tidal coastal regions or mid ocean ridges. Either volcanic vent springs and mid ocean ridges are at present the best options.

Still waiting . . .

Trying to juggle the books does not get you the brass ring. The natural evolution of life of over billions of years and the evolution of humanity is the science not supported by Genesis, and then we have to deal with the flood, for which there i absolutely no evidence for the flood on either a world nor regional perspective.

Your still neglecting that the geologic evidence for the origins and sequence of the evolution of life is in the sedimentary record is in terms of billions of years.

No, as of this year there's a new consensus that
1 - life cannot have originated in high saline water
2 - life needs concentrated organics, not dilute by oceans

You have to Google this.
This life on land first was the last annoying error I could find in Genesis.
It is, for all intents and purposes, now removed. Life began in fresh
water and migrated to the oceans.

 

[PruePhillip]

I think that all of our creationists are now looking for excuses rather than trying to learn at this point in time.

I am a creationist - I believe the universe was created.
There's two other options
1 - the universe was always here (more of a dodge than an argument, really)
2 - the universe created it (I mean, how can it when it didn't exist?)

So forget natural selection, that's all covered in Genesis etc when it speaks
to God creating the universe by "command" (ie physical laws, "God commanded
the seas to bring forth life.) We need to go to the deeper issue, "Why is there
something instead of nothing?"

 

[We Never Know]

I am a creationist - I believe the universe was created.
There's two other options
1 - the universe was always here (more of a dodge than an argument, really)
2 - the universe created it (I mean, how can it when it didn't exist?)

So forget natural selection, that's all covered in Genesis etc when it speaks
to God creating the universe by "command" (ie physical laws, "God commanded
the seas to bring forth life.) We need to go to the deeper issue, "Why is there
something instead of nothing?"

Where did your creator god come from?

 

[PruePhillip]

Where did your creator god come from?

Ask any scientist "What does an expanding universe 'push into'?"
and he or she will tell you there's "nothing" out there - no time, no
space... nothing. The concept of something "outside" the universe
is "nonsensical."
And yet... out of this nonsensical nothing sprang the universe.
Simply put, we cannot answer the question of God, OR ANYTHING
ELSE, "outside" our universe. We can't observe it, theorize it --- or
try to figure out where itself came to be. This is not "special pleading"
but an observation of reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am a creationist - I believe the universe was created.
There's two other options
1 - the universe was always here (more of a dodge than an argument, really)
2 - the universe created it (I mean, how can it when it didn't exist?)

So forget natural selection, that's all covered in Genesis etc when it speaks
to God creating the universe by "command" (ie physical laws, "God commanded
the seas to bring forth life.) We need to go to the deeper issue, "Why is there
something instead of nothing?"

That is really not what is meant by "creationist".

And no, God's magic spells do not cover natural selection. You are trying to over interpret your holy book. Again, that makes it all but worthless because people can interpret the book any way that they want to by that standard.

 

[PruePhillip]

That is really not what is meant by "creationist".

And no, God's magic spells do not cover natural selection. You are trying to over interpret your holy book. Again, that makes it all but worthless because people can interpret the book any way that they want to by that standard.

Well, YOU interpret this, "and God commanded the seas to bring forth life."
Sounded strange in the ears of people for four or five thousand years - how
can water create life?
So please, give me your own interpretation.

ps do you think a "magic spell" caused the universe to appear, when there
were no magic spells to speak of, and no universe to hear them?

 

[ratiocinator]

I am a creationist - I believe the universe was created.
There's two other options
1 - the universe was always here (more of a dodge than an argument, really)
2 - the universe created it (I mean, how can it when it didn't exist?)

Theists do love the 19th century view of time. The universe could be a timeless four-dimensional manifold (general relativity view), with time entirely internal to it, is just one other possibility.

We need to go to the deeper issue, "Why is there
something instead of nothing?"

A question that the existence of a god would not answer. Why does your god exist rather than nothing or a different god(s)?

 

[PruePhillip]

Theists do love the 19th century view of time. The universe could be a timeless four-dimensional manifold (general relativity view), with time entirely internal to it, is just one other possibility.
A question that the existence of a god would not answer. Why does your god exist rather than nothing or a different god(s)?

Whatever time proves to be - it will still be part of the universe.
The bible speaks of a time before and after when "there is no
more time."

When people ask about a belief in the Judeao Christian God
they posit you believe because you are brought up in this
manner, and your belief is just one of many.
But I was brought up to also believe in the Scientific Method
and Liberal Democracy - there are many other ways of
gaining knowledge or running a nation - my belief isn't just
a bias.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ridiculing an ideology is ridiculing a person?

It's not an ideology, for a start.

Secondly, claiming that the basis for a belief is foolish is ridicule, yes. Especially when you aren't actually informed what that basis is.

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?

Go right ahead.

You have reason to believe, is a subjective opinion.

False. We can base your belief on objectively true statements.

Forensic evi[dence whether objective or not, is not the point. The evidence may not be enough to conclusively prove anything, and therefore be factual.

You appear to be missing the point. You ridiculed the idea that scientists can make accurate conclusions about the physiological structures of organisms based on bone fragments - yet this exact same thing is done to produce accurate images of dead bodies today. It is factually and objectively wrong to claim scientists cannot do this.

If you disagree...With all the forensic evidence in this case, prove who committed this murder.

Perhaps you're confusing identification of a victim with identification of a perpetrator.

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.

Genetics.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, as of this year there's a new consensus that
1 - life cannot have originated in high saline water
2 - life needs concentrated organics, not dilute by oceans.

Please cite references this is bogus.

You have to Google this.
This life on land first was the last annoying error I could find in Genesis.

There is more than annoying references, and the Genesis view is an ancient mythical view of Creation, and no relevance to science.

It is, for all intents and purposes, now removed. Life began in fresh
water and migrated to the oceans.

There is no scientific basis for life beginning in fresh water(?) and migrated to the oceans. Springs in volcanic vents, tidal zones nor mid ocean ridges are not fresh water.

 

[PruePhillip]

Please cite references this is bogus.
There is more than annoying references, and the Genesis view is an ancient mythical view of Creation, and no relevance to science.
There is no scientific basis for life beginning in fresh water(?) and migrated to the oceans. Springs in volcanic vents, tidal zones nor mid ocean ridges are not fresh water.

I just did what I suggested you do, Google'd it
Did life begin on land rather than in the sea? A paradigm-shifting hypothesis could reshape our idea about the origin of life

"But Deamer, who describes himself as a scientist who loves playing with new ideas, thought the theory
had flaws. For instance, molecules essential for the origin of life would be dispersed too quickly into a
vast ocean, he thought, and salty seawater would inhibit some of the processes he knew are necessary
for life to begin...
In Deamer's vision, ancient Earth consisted of a huge ocean spotted with volcanic land masses. Rain
would fall on the land, creating pools of fresh water that would be heated by geothermal energy and then
cooled by runoff. Some of the key building blocks of life, created during the formation of our solar system,
would have fallen to Earth and gathered in these pools, becoming concentrated enough to form more
complex organic compounds.
The edges of the pools would go through periods of wetting and drying as water levels rose and fell. During
these periods of wet and dry, lipid membranes would first help stitch together the organic compounds called
polymers and then form compartments that encapsulated different sets of these polymers. The membranes
would act like incubators for the functions of life..."



Genesis states there was no land at some point in the early Earth. Just a sterile ocean under a thick cloud cover.