A Complete Skull from Dmanisi

[biggles53]

Steve, USInc and others are correct....this thread should be about the evolutionary/creationist divide over the significance of the latest hominid discovery...

And there is a link between that and what we have been derailing the thread over....

The situation for creationists and committed Christians like yourself (I still don't know why you felt it necessary to lie about your religious beliefs initially..?) is that you commence with a foregone conclusion about what the truth MUST be, and then all understanding flows from this...

In other words, understanding is based upon faith...and that's a contradiction in terms...! You will see the contortions that creationists have to put themselves through in the earlier part of this thread (and in others), whereby the discovery of this skull somehow has to cast doubt on evolutionary theory......Why...? Because they have already made the decision that evolutionary theory MUST be false because it conflicts with their faith....and so, ANY piece of evidence which is uncovered from the fossil record MUST be made to fit that faith-based position...

In the same way that you have tied yourself in knots....because your faith instructs you that you must obey the wishes of your god, you place yourself in the position of agreeing to an action (the killing of your own son) which I think you would never really do.....but because you have backed yourself into a 'faith corner', you cant see how you can agree to anything else....right?

I think it's Peter Bagoosian (sp?) who describes 'faith' best....he says it's 'pretending to know what you can't know'.....

 

[stevevw]

Steve, USInc and others are correct....this thread should be about the evolutionary/creationist divide over the significance of the latest hominid discovery...

And there is a link between that and what we have been derailing the thread over....

The situation for creationists and committed Christians like yourself (I still don't know why you felt it necessary to lie about your religious beliefs initially..?) is that you commence with a foregone conclusion about what the truth MUST be, and then all understanding flows from this...

In other words, understanding is based upon faith...and that's a contradiction in terms...! You will see the contortions that creationists have to put themselves through in the earlier part of this thread (and in others), whereby the discovery of this skull somehow has to cast doubt on evolutionary theory......Why...? Because they have already made the decision that evolutionary theory MUST be false because it conflicts with their faith....and so, ANY piece of evidence which is uncovered from the fossil record MUST be made to fit that faith-based position...

In the same way that you have tied yourself in knots....because your faith instructs you that you must obey the wishes of your god, you place yourself in the position of agreeing to an action (the killing of your own son) which I think you would never really do.....but because you have backed yourself into a 'faith corner', you cant see how you can agree to anything else....right?

I think it's Peter Bagoosian (sp?) who describes 'faith' best....he says it's 'pretending to know what you can't know'.....

Yeah well i just though ive been rambling on for a while now and i have enjoyed it but have over stayed my welcome. Its a pity because i have enjoyed the tussle. I'm still finding my way around as i said i am new to forums let alone this one. Trust me to pick one straight into the lions den. I was beginning to think all my fellow Christians had deserted me. Still a bit confused as to how you can draw the line in this topic or any topic on evolution as unless you debate it with those who believe the same you are going to go down this track time and time again. Yet discussing it with those who agree will not challenge anything. Perhaps i will investigate these skulls and any others and what the experts say a bit more and come back on it.

It is not blind faith im am guided by that has no directions but faith in Jesus and if you look at the what Jesus said and his teaching then you will see how Christians try to live. I live to help others in life and this is what Jesus would do. I have been on both sides of the fence, been down in the gutter and traveled the world. I have had business most of my life and i have also lost a lot of money. I went for the dollar and in the end i found its not really worth it. What price can you put on life.

So i will keep on looking and learning and i guess at this point we will have to agree to disagree, which is OK. The beauty of it is that's how it is now, if we are open to all that life offers than you never know one day sometime i might see it your way or you may see it mine,(was that a no way i just heard) As long as we allow ourselves to be open and to face it fair and square and can look ourselves in the eye and are happy with that then that's OK.

 

[biggles53]

Still a bit confused as to how you can draw the line in this topic or any topic on evolution as unless you debate it with those who believe the same you are going to go down this track time and time again. Yet discussing it with those who agree will not challenge anything. Perhaps i will investigate these skulls and any others and what the experts say a bit more and come back on it.

Might I suggest that you just stick to the evidence, rather than relying upon the evidence-free world view provided by faith...its what those who work with evolutionary theory as a profession do....

It is not blind faith im am guided by that has no directions but faith in Jesus and if you look at the what Jesus said and his teaching then you will see how Christians try to live.

Jesus recommended that unruly children should be put to death and had no problem with people keeping slaves.......you want to live by that kind of example...??

 

[stevevw]

Might I suggest that you just stick to the evidence, rather than relying upon the evidence-free world view provided by faith...its what those who work with evolutionary theory as a profession do....

I think i do a fair amount of research and try to know about the subject i am talking about. When it comes to evolution i try to source material from non religious reference as well. I agree we should provide backup for what we say. Trying to have evidence for faith will never work so i try and avoid going down that track.
Not because i dont have faith but because faith cannot be proven by the conventional ways of providing evidence. I believe There is an element of faith in evolution as there are some major questions that need to be answered. But we have been over this ground and so we will leave it at that.


Jesus recommended that unruly children should be put to death and had no problem with people keeping slaves.......you want to live by that kind of example...??

Once again you are quoting out of context. Jesus didn't say this this is from the old testament. By the fact that you say that shows you haven't read the bible from the old testament into the new to see how this all lead to the coming of Christ. This is what i was explaining with Abraham. But now we are moving into another subject with doctrine and i dont want to open up that can of worms.

Jesus came to fulfill the law by being crucified and then resurrecting on the 3rd day. He was the ultimate sacrifice and it is only by believing in him can we have a relationship with god. So Jesus doesn't promote this in fact it is the opposite to the point where he was willing to lay down his life for us and take the wrap for all our sins.

Anyway i think we've said what we have to say and i hope we will talk again sometime. I have found it very interesting and thought provoking, I still reckon its more fun than debating with Christians.

 

[biggles53]

Once again you are quoting out of context. Jesus didn't say this this is from the old testament.

Oh dear, dear........

15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

Uh, mate...? That's MATTHEW 15:4 in case you were wondering....!

And guess who's supposed to be speaking.......!?

And.....

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Feeling a bit silly....?

 

[stevevw]

Oh dear, dear........



Uh, mate...? That's MATTHEW 15:4 in case you were wondering....!

And guess who's supposed to be speaking.......!?

Jesus is quoting the old testament law (as it related to the ten commandments) to the pharisees who were strict on the law with punishment and had all these rituals. Jesus was using that as an example in saying you have all these things you have to do to make yourself clean before god yet your hearts are turned away from god.

That's why the pharisees are always seen as hypocrites< they strut around showing everyone that they are holy by the cloths they wear and rituals they perform.

Jesus came to do away with that law and ritual adherence through sacrifice when he died and was resurrected. He was the ultimate sacrifice that defeated the hold of sin over us and purchased a place for us with god. The lamb of god that takes away the sins of the world.

So he was saying washing your hands or the things that go into your mouth dont make you clean or unclean before god, it is what comes out of your heart that comes out of your mouth that makes you clean or unclean. So as you see by Jesus being the sacrifice this allows us to stand before god worthy. Jesus said it is what is in your heart that will determine who you are and what your true intentions are. Not what you present on the outside. As anyone knows the heart represents truth and love.

Anything Jesus himself says about treatment of children and how we should respect and love each other is through love. As for what Jesus actually said about how important it was to treat children , he said anyone who leads child to sin may as well throw himself into the sea.

And.....

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

There are heeps of verses like this esp in the old testament. You could have a field day. But it can go on and on. Maybe you ought to go into one of the doctrine forums and put that to them. It is good to challenge things it keeps you on your toes. I may get back on the slaves one, i will check it out. But i would also like to look into the skull thing a bit more and this recent discover of natural selection.

Feeling a bit silly....?

I had to reply this way as it kept say that my reply was to short. Short im getting writers cramp from all this writing.

 

[EternalDragon]

Might I suggest that you just stick to the evidence, rather than relying upon the evidence-free world view provided by faith...its what those who work with evolutionary theory as a profession do....



Jesus recommended that unruly children should be put to death and had no problem with people keeping slaves.......you want to live by that kind of example...??

No, because it is not true. You speak falsely. Educate yourself on the history of Israel during those times and what an indentured servant means.

 

[stevevw]

No, because it is not true. You speak falsely. Educate yourself on the history of Israel during those times and what an indentured servant means.

Just when i thought i was off. Damn it.

 

[FatBurk]

No, because it is not true. You speak falsely. Educate yourself on the history of Israel during those times and what an indentured servant means.

You are contradicting what the Bible tells you, you are making things up to fit what you want to believe,
If you want to be an Atheists read the 'whole' Bible, if you don't want to be an Atheist only read the parts you like.

 

[mark kennedy]

I highly doubt that. First, I highly doubt they'd mistake one for the other unless the fossil is very close to the split. And indeed, there has been such a debate over the classification of Sahelanthropus, which is one of the earliest possible hominins.

The Taung Child was regarded as a chimpanzee ancestor right up until the time of Piltdown's demise. There has been a mosaic of hominid ancestors since then even though there is every indication that chimpanzee ancestors are being mixed into the mythology. Three maybe four teeth of chimpanzee ancestors found in, of all places, the Rift Valley are just about all the evidence. First chimp fossil unearthed

In 1925, when Dart described Australopithecus africanus 1 as a hominid, critics interpreted it as a juvenile gorilla2, 3, 4. Last year, Wolpoff's colleagues (B.S. and M.P.) claimed that their Kenyan fossil Orrorin was a direct ancestor of Homo 5, and now Wolpoff et al. conclude that Sahelanthropus was an ape (specifically, a female gorilla ancestor6) — a belief that, to our knowledge, is not supported by published or unpublished data.​

Ok, now the famous Dart find is a gorilla, Orrorin is a gorilla and both of these finds have been celebrated by Darwinians as human ancestors for decades. Must be nice to just change the interpretation with the weather and never have your underlying premise questioned.

Second, I highly doubt they would pass off a chimp ancestor as a human ancestor because what gets you noticed in science is novelty. How many possible human ancestors have been published? How many chimp ancestors? Finding which of these would cause a bigger splash in the community?

They have been doing it for decades, Piltdown was an orangutan with a human jaw. Two others have been passed off as human ancestors, now their talking gorilla. Three maybe four teeth, found in the Rift Valley, site of the famous Olduvai Gorge where Louis and Mary Leakey fabricated so much Darwinian mythology.

What is a "pristine genome" and how does it result in greater variation?

It's the opposite of a genome riddled with mutations and bottlenecks.

Unfortunately, cranial capacity isn't the only trait these finds have. Besides, if humans came from an ancestral ape with a chimp-sized brain, then a chimp-sized brain alone is a very weak reason to consider chimp affinities for a fossil.

Yet the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes has no viable cause.

If you make absolute claims, a single counterexample can prove you wrong. Voilà.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v419/n6907/full/419581a.html

I've done considerable reading on the subject, what's this paragraph fragments from Nature's 'Brief Communications', supposed to prove? Violia huh? Don't you mean, Presto!, anything proves everything.

 

[biggles53]

No, because it is not true. You speak falsely. Educate yourself on the history of Israel during those times and what an indentured servant means.

Oh what rubbish...!

As Fay has said, this is a typical apologist tactic of only picking out those bits that suit your case.....and leaving out the rest..!

Your book of horrors clearly states that the Jews could BUY SLAVES from the foreigners around them..!

This has NOTHING TO DO with "indentured servants" (which raises its own ethical questions, by the way...). It is about the practice of OWNING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING and regarding that person as your PROPERTY...!

For Pete's sake......at least be honest about what it is you believe in.....!

 

[EternalDragon]

Oh what rubbish...!

As Fay has said, this is a typical apologist tactic of only picking out those bits that suit your case.....and leaving out the rest..!

Your book of horrors clearly states that the Jews could BUY SLAVES from the foreigners around them..!

This has NOTHING TO DO with "indentured servants" (which raises its own ethical questions, by the way...). It is about the practice of OWNING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING and regarding that person as your PROPERTY...!

For Pete's sake......at least be honest about what it is you believe in.....!

God states in the bible that buying and selling of people is wrong. Please present the verse.

Exodus 21:16 &#8220;Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

Jews could pay off peoples debt that could not afford to do so in return for having them work for them for a number of years. They were fed, clothed and sheltered and treated as family. Of course if they refused to work there had to be consequences. This is an indentured servant. Not a slave as you want to think it is.

Do you really think that the Jews, who themselves were actual slaves in Egypt would condone it and the God that chose them as His people would condone it, after freeing them from it? Really?

 

[biggles53]

God states in the bible that buying and selling of people is wrong. Please present the verse.

Exodus 21:16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

Jews could pay off peoples debt that could not afford to do so in return for having them work for them for a number of years. They were fed, clothed and sheltered and treated as family. Of course if they refused to work there had to be consequences. This is an indentured servant. Not a slave as you want to think it is.

Do you really think that the Jews, who themselves were actual slaves in Egypt would condone it and the God that chose them as His people would condone it, after freeing them from it? Really?

Fail...!

The key part of that provision is that it is the THEFT of another's property that is the crime NOT the keeping if the slave....

Exodus 21:20-21
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Leviticus 25:44-46
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.


And there are many more....as you well know...! As I said, the least you could do is to be HONEST about this evil philosophy. For all his faults, William Lane Craig at least acknowledges that slavery was approved by your god - he simply falls back on the excuse that anything approved by your god must be 'good'......

 

[biggles53]

Oh, and this....

Do you really think that the Jews, who themselves were actual slaves in Egypt would condone it and the God that chose them as His people would condone it, after freeing them from it? Really?

Where do you think that we get the phrase "when the shoe is on the other foot from"? Why do you think it is that violent people were often raised violently themselves...? Why do you think it is that pedophiles were often abused as children...?

The fact that the Jews may have been slaves themselves would not act as a barrier to them becoming slave owners.......particularly when their god was supposedly exhorting them to do it...!

 

[EternalDragon]

Fail...!

The key part of that provision is that it is the THEFT of another's property that is the crime NOT the keeping if the slave....

Exodus 21:20-21
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Leviticus 25:44-46
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.


And there are many more....as you well know...! As I said, the least you could do is to be HONEST about this evil philosophy. For all his faults, William Lane Craig at least acknowledges that slavery was approved by your god - he simply falls back on the excuse that anything approved by your god must be 'good'......

You are just confused about the word "slave" and the history of that time period. No Jew was selling or buying human beings.

 

[dad]

Oh what rubbish...!

As Fay has said, this is a typical apologist tactic of only picking out those bits that suit your case.....and leaving out the rest..!

Your book of horrors clearly states that the Jews could BUY SLAVES from the foreigners around them..!

They can buy shirts from Bangladesh now too...so??

This has NOTHING TO DO with "indentured servants" (which raises its own ethical questions, by the way...). It is about the practice of OWNING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING and regarding that person as your PROPERTY...!

Whoopee do. That is human experience in all BUT the Christian era, and will be again big time soon when we leave! That is the truth of the matter.

 

[dad]

The fact that the Jews may have been slaves themselves would not act as a barrier to them becoming slave owners.......particularly when their god was supposedly exhorting them to do it...!

Slavery was as much a part of life as Wal Mart or the military, drug addicts and prostitution and jobs now are.

 

[biggles53]

You are just confused about the word "slave" and the history of that time period. No Jew was selling or buying human beings.

Oh what crap....!

They were directed to BUY slaves from the foreigners around them. They were told that they could BEAT THEM to death, as long as they survived for a few days first. They were told that these people were their POSSESSIONS which they could pass on to their children...!

Only someone hopelessly devoid of any contact with reality could possible see this as anything other than slavery...!

As I said earlier, at least be as honest as William Lane Craig, who openly admits that slavery was approved and supported by your god, that he has no explanation for it, but he simply assumes that god knows best...!

 

[biggles53]

Slavery was as much a part of life as Wal Mart or the military, drug addicts and prostitution and jobs now are.

What wonderful company you place your god with....!

And it's nonsense, of course........please explain how any of those groups takes ownership of a person, can treat them as they please and can pass that ownership on to their children in perpetuity....!?

Please tell me again about the sublime quality of your god's moral code.....

 

[EternalDragon]

Oh what crap....!

They were directed to BUY slaves from the foreigners around them. They were told that they could BEAT THEM to death, as long as they survived for a few days first. They were told that these people were their POSSESSIONS which they could pass on to their children...!

Only someone hopelessly devoid of any contact with reality could possible see this as anything other than slavery...!

As I said earlier, at least be as honest as William Lane Craig, who openly admits that slavery was approved and supported by your god, that he has no explanation for it, but he simply assumes that god knows best...!

You've grossly misunderstood the scriptures, probably so you have some ammunition against believing in God. No amount of yelling and swearing will change the fact that the bible condemns slavery.

In bible times people sold themselves to get out of debt and other problems. It was called being an indentured servant. Never was it the buying or selling of kidnapped humans as in the case of African slaves which is the point you may be confused about.

The Bible speaks of justifiable forms of servitude as punishment for crime (Ex. 22:1-3), for unpaid debt (Lev 25:39), and as a deterrent against warfare. In fact it is still done today. You applied for a job, sold yourself to the employer and now work for them, being subject to them. Nearly the same thing. Assuming you work....