A Complete Skull from Dmanisi

[dad]

Dad you have my official permission to believe whatever the h-e-double-hockey-sticks you like.

Did these sticks create themselves, and have craniums that were similar? Keep us posted. Denial and inability to address the actual issues is OK here. It goes toward showing the position a poster stands behind.

 

[StormanNorman]

Yet that is exactly what it could be studying. If everything were created by an intelligence then whatever science looks at and tests is not natural by default.

Science is not a study of the natural world. It is a study of the world, it's creatures and the universe. Whether natural or created by an ID.

Allowing the supernatural into science is like allowing dividing by zero into mathematics.... you no longer have a solid, well-defined framework in which to operate ...

 

[dad]

Allowing the supernatural into science is like allowing dividing by zero into mathematics.... you no longer have a solid, well-defined framework in which to operate ...

You don't have one to begin with. Science is ever shifting sands of physical only based religion. Omitting things beyond that hamster cage doesn't make them go away. A child playing in a sand box should be viewed in context.

 

[EternalDragon]

No, it couldn't. There's no way to study the supernatural through scientific means. It's not testable, it's not predictable, it's not falsifiable. In God's case, we're specifically told not to test him.

We aren't testing him. We are testing the natural world that he created.

This is my belief. Everything that science can see, test and repeat was created by the God of the bible. You may not like it or agree with it but science is continuously testing things created by an ID.

 

[StormanNorman]

We aren't testing him. We are testing the natural world that he created.

This is my belief. Everything that science can see, test and repeat was created by the God of the bible. You may not like it or agree with it but science is continuously testing things created by an ID.

That's your faith talking ... which is fine, but science doesn't really care about faith. It tests and explores the natural world based on the tangible, natural laws, and the scientific method. It cannot prove or falsify the existence of a god ... as any such god would inherently exist outside of those very natural laws on which science is based.

 

[lasthero]

We are testing the natural world that he created.

And if he actually exists and it's his world and all the processes are actually sustained and controlled by him, then you're testing him.

This is my belief. Everything that science can see, test and repeat was created by the God of the bible. You may not like it or agree with it but science is continuously testing things created by an ID

The problem is that your belief - even if it's true, and I'll freely concede it might be - is completely unfalsifiable. There's no way to prove it true or false, no test we can devise to see if it holds any water, no way to verify it empirically. As such, it has no place in science.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Did these sticks create themselves, and have craniums that were similar? Keep us posted. Denial and inability to address the actual issues is OK here. It goes toward showing the position a poster stands behind.

I absolve you of your trolls in the name of the Internet.

 

[mark kennedy]

Perhaps their conclusions are tainted with the wrong presupposition?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/s...mid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=SC_SFS_20131017&_r=1&

I have noticed that there are no Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil evidence, that is unless you go back a lot further then 2 Mya. I have often wondered if their ancestors are somehow getting passed off as our ancestors.

That everything is directed or based on a natural cause. That something outside nature or an intelligent source is not in any way a possibility for what we see all around us. That millions of years are required for their theory. That the fossil record is a representation of those millions of years and not representative of a recent worldwide deluge.

There is a presuppositional bias in favor of exclusively naturalistic causes, that's a given. At the point of origin, something like a creation event, we would be hard pressed to identify what the originally created kinds would have been with regards to traits and basic characteristics. Now following the Deluge (Flood), there would have been species representative of the originally created kinds after about 2,000 years. Emerging from the Ark you have not only human but reptile, mammal and avian (birds) representatives.

One would wonder, whether you buy into all of this or not. If this happened about 4,000 years ago what the representative emerging from the Ark would have been for primates like the African Great Apes. The only thing I could figure is that the antediluvian (period before the Flood) version would have been significantly bigger. In addition they would have accumulated fewer mutations and perhaps even had nearly pristine genomes resulting in greater variation.

Just some speculative thoughts but I think it's a lot more comprehensive then spanning this over a vast array of divergence covering millions of years. It does seem reasonable to at least consider whether a cranial capacity much closer to the of Chimpanzees might possibly be their ancestors. For some reason this possibility is never explored, I can't help but wonder if presuppositional considerations are not a factor.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[dad]

There is a presuppositional bias in favor of exclusively naturalistic causes, that's a given. At the point of origin, something like a creation event, we would be hard pressed to identify what the originally created kinds would have been with regards to traits and basic characteristics. Now following the Deluge (Flood), there would have been species representative of the originally created kinds after about 2,000 years. Emerging from the Ark you have not only human but reptile, mammal and avian (birds) representatives.

True. However, don't expect them in the fossil record..not unless the laws were the same. As it was, there were probably different things that worked to dispose of bones after death quickly. That would mean many creatures would not be able to fossilize, while only some would. Those that could are in the fossil record. After we entered this state (after the flood maybe 100 plus years or so) then we do see man and chimps and animals all start to enter the record. The absence of man or beast before this time does not in any way mean they were not here. I propose that it merely meant that they could not fossilize at one time. The why is not important, possibly bacteria and/or other creatures specialized in rapid disposal of man and beast.

One would wonder, whether you buy into all of this or not. If this happened about 4,000 years ago what the representative emerging from the Ark would have been for primates like the African Great Apes. The only thing I could figure is that the antediluvian (period before the Flood) version would have been significantly bigger.

Sure, why not?

In addition they would have accumulated fewer mutations and perhaps even had nearly pristine genomes resulting in greater variation.

The evolving in the former times had to have been very very fast, and unlike the modern processes. How else could we get, say, thirty some odd species of tigers in so little time from the one? (or, if tigers came from, for example the lion kind, even more so is the need for a rapid evoling in the past).

 

[StormanNorman]

I have noticed that there are no Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil evidence, that is unless you go back a lot further then 2 Mya. I have often wondered if their ancestors are somehow getting passed off as our ancestors.

No. The people who do this stuff for a living know the difference between a chimp fossil and a hominid fossil ... not to mention that the all of the hominid fossils that have been found in Africa have been found in East and South Africa where the jungles and dense rain forests receded. Chimpanzees live primarily in Western Africa where it is still predominantly dense forest.

As far as chimpanzee fossils, I agree that we do need to find them in order to nail down when (and maybe why) the lineages split. But, it's difficult ... just like there hasn't been much luck finding hominid fossils dating back to before 6 million years ago. The current best theory for that is because East Africa was also more densely forested then which isn't nearly as conducive to species fossilization.

 

[dad]

.. The current best theory for that is because East Africa was also more densely forested then which isn't nearly as conducive to species fossilization.

Ha.

 

[USincognito]

I have noticed that there are no Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil evidence, that is unless you go back a lot further then 2 Mya. I have often wondered if their ancestors are somehow getting passed off as our ancestors.

And it has been pointed out to you for the last 7 years that there is a dearth of any fossils for beings that live in an environment not conducive to fossilization nor recovery of those fossils.

 

[stevevw]

Perhaps their conclusions are tainted with the wrong presupposition?

that's right because the skulls have to be old and there has to be many evolving branches. the fewer the branches the less room there is to have all the necessary changes from ape to man. they need to have a long period of time to accommodate the changes and they need to have transitional changes. that means they need to find many different skulls showing the gradual change. if this discovery is true then it is showing all the skulls discovered so far are variations within the same species. therefore the model they have been using that says there are many different branches which shows natural selection at work to fit in with a slow evolving ape into a human maybe wrong.

 

[EternalDragon]

Perhaps their conclusions are tainted with the wrong presupposition?

that's right because the skulls have to be old and there has to be many evolving branches. the fewer the branches the less room there is to have all the necessary changes from ape to man. they need to have a long period of time to accommodate the changes and they need to have transitional changes. that means they need to find many different skulls showing the gradual change. if this discovery is true then it is showing all the skulls discovered so far are variations within the same species. therefore the model they have been using that says there are many different branches which shows natural selection at work to fit in with a slow evolving ape into a human maybe wrong.

They will just switch the rules around and say there was a fast spurt of evolution. (Fast as in a million years as apposed to 3 million years). That's the way they explain the Cambrian explosion and all the other gaps in the theory.

Evolution is like playdough or magic. It can do most anything with little evidence to back it up.

 

[stevevw]

it is also causing disagreement within the scientific world. once believed conclusions are now in question and a new set of possibilities has emerged with this discovery. its the same for the tissue/blood cells found in dinosaur bones. its also the same for other theories that science has had to do with matter and space and the discovery of the higgs boson. science/evolution say they base their conclusions on facts but a lot are just theories that have not been proven. they get to a point where they talk about it as a fact and its accepted by many. then something like this comes along and throws a spanner in the works.

 

[lasthero]

it is also causing disagreement within the scientific world. once believed conclusions are now in question and a new set of possibilities has emerged with this discovery

And you find this unusual? Bad? What?

its the same for the tissue/blood cells found in dinosaur bones.its the same for the tissue/blood cells found in dinosaur bones.

This happened when? And even if it did, what would be the problem?

its also the same for other theories that science has had to do with matter and space and the discovery of the higgs boson.

Again - why are you complaining about science discovering things?

science/evolution say they base their conclusions on facts but a lot are just theories that have not been proven.

Theories are never 'proven'.

 

[stevevw]

that's right but sometimes science or evolutionists will carry on as though what they are saying is accepted fact. they teach it in schools but it is not necessarily true. its almost as though it has become a religion in itself in that you have to have a bit of faith to believe some of the theories and you get brainwashed by all the constant talk about it being true and because a prominent scholar says its so well it must be true.

 

[lasthero]

that's right but sometimes science or evolutionists will carry on as though what they are saying is accepted fact.

When? When is 'sometimes'?

they teach it in schools but it is not necessarily true

Lots of theories are taught in school. Gravity is a theory that's taught in school. Tectonic plates are a theory that's taught in school.

its almost as though it has become a religion in itself

Not really.

in that you have to have a bit of faith to believe some of the theories

No faith. Evidence.

 

[stevevw]

tectonic plates is not a theroy they can measure it and virtually know it happens. gravity is an example of a theroey that scienctists believed was the only influencing factor and the reason why everything stayed in its place. now with the discovery of dark energy and dark matter it has now possibly turned it on its head. it seems gravity isnt the only influence affecting matter in the universe. dark energy plays a part as well, all that empty space isnt empty space. dark matter makes up 80% of the universe, what we see the planets and stars are only 20%. this dark energy has a very big influence on keeping everything in place yet its measurement is so minute. if it wasn't for dark matter than everything would be flying everywhere. the influence is so small they are questioning how could everything just have come from a big bang and have ended up is their exact positions just right to be keeping everything else in order. how the earth is in the perfect spot for life. the universe isn't slowing down as thought with the big bang theory and promoted throughout teaching that it is speeding up. im not even going to mention the higgs boson as that's another whole lot of new discovery they've made.

the theory that man evolved from several branches of ape is being question with the discovery of skulls that seem to point to their being maybe only i ot 2 lines of variation from apes. the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaurs bones which have been tested and react as cells showing it is not contamination. there have been other discoveries that have been turned into either a new species which proves their theories and later found to be false. you see it is looking into the past like a detective and there is no living evidence before you so you have to use a degree of speculation. some will believe it because it comes from an eminent scholar so it must be true. others will put the flesh onto a fossil and turn it into something perhaps its not or make out that it is something that fits into the theory. at one stage they turned a tooth into a completed ape man which turned out to be a pigs tooth.

some say that evolution is a fact but it hasn't been proven. there is not test we can do to prove evolution. we can look at the structures and say it must be that way because everything traces back to us all being connected through DNA. but the theory of evolution that we came from a primaeval sea and what ever was in that sea in the first place just got there somehow has about as much faith as religion. there is no evidence of one kind changing into another kind. we can see similarities and that we all have the same basic setups but we each were made that way. there is no evidence in the fossil records for transitional changes. if so you would have as many if not more fossils of transitional stages. they use some of the fossils of a bird with teeth. for what ever that is the fossil is of a bird with teeth. or its a reptile with wings. but each of theses are complete creatures not transition. we dont see a lizard with little wings then bit bigger wings then continuing to have this growth of wings coming out. then one day they became wings. that goes for every single kind that has ever been on this planet. that means with the transitional stages we should have a lot of transitional fossils at least as many as complete ones. in fact there would be thousands more transitional ones to a complete one as it would have to take many transition to get to where it is. otherwise they bring in the leap theory which says that there was an increase in the rate of evolution. but that's almost hinting at creation in itself. why not just say they were created by an intelligent creator. the more science looks into these things the more other baffling questions come up and lately they have been going totally against what the accepted theory has been for many years.

 

[stevevw]

And you find this unusual? Bad? What?



This happened when? And even if it did, what would be the problem?

well because you should have soft tissue in dinosaurs bones that are millions of years old, it decays fairly quick.
it seems i cant post link dont have privileged. but if you Google soft tissue dino bones you should get it.
Again - why are you complaining about science discovering things?
i am not complaining but merely asking the question and being the devils advocate. no religious inference intended.

Theories are never 'proven'.

i agree but sometimes people will make out they are true just like religion does.