A Complete Skull from Dmanisi

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟15,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Yes i did i am the one having the conversation. did you read the rest of the conversation.
Yes. Especially the part where he addressed the exact same claim you then repeated. To clarify...

Where as gods truth and laws are the same always and i am referring to the teachings of Christ if you are wondering, not some extreme man made religion that allows killing and all sorts of stuff.
This is precisely what Biggles was addressing. I quote:

biggles53 said:
I see.........so, it's still ok to take slaves from the foreigners around us...? How about stoning adulterers..? Kill kids that are disobedient...? You still revere these "truths" that don't ever change...?

I think his point was that these are all stated in the Bible as God's laws. Not as those of changing human society. But today, most Christians (or Jews, for that matter) wouldn't argue that this is truly God's law, would they? And indeed, about stoning adulterers, Jesus himself said something about sin and casting stones.

Did God's unchanging laws change between books, then? Or is the Bible not God's truth but that of fallible humans? There's a whole lot of complexity to this question from where I sit, and your only response at that point was to repeat an assertion - that God's laws don't change - that can only be true if the Bible doesn't reflect God's truth.

Actually noticed a few atheists on here and i was wondering what you believe. do you believe in life after death. how do you judge what is right and what is wrong.
I don't believe in life after death, and I have no trouble with the idea of an internal moral compass. I feel bad about doing bad things. I can empathise with other people, and because I'm not a cackling comic book villain, I also feel bad about making them feel bad. Simple as that.

"Right" and "wrong" are human constructs, but they have very good reasons to exist. Namely, they allow us to work together as a society.

From your point of view, that could mean God made us in that way because, well, does an all-powerful God really need a reason? From mine, morality is an outcome of evolution - being able to cooperate helped our ancestors succeed at some point in their history, and having a concept of right and wrong enhances cooperation.

The Taung Child was regarded as a chimpanzee ancestor right up until the time of Piltdown's demise.
Yes. And indeed, the Taung Child was much closer to the chimp-human split than anything previously known.

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.
"Every indication" now? Where?

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.
If you read the actual quote, you'd notice that "the famous Dart find" was interpreted by critics as a gorilla when it was originally described. In the 1920s. So it's not "now" by any stretch. I don't think the hominin status of australopiths is in any serious doubt today.

Orrorin was described in 2001, and that quote says nothing about it being a gorilla. So how exactly is it a gorilla celebrated as a human ancestor for decades?

Thirdly, you can't have it both ways. You can't complain that all manner of apes are being "passed off as human ancestors" and then complain again when some of them are reinterpreted as chimp or gorilla ancestors.

They have been doing it for decades, Piltdown was an orangutan with a human jaw.
It was the other way round. The big brain is the whole point, the reason why things like the Taung Child had difficulty getting accepted as human ancestors.

It's the opposite of a genome riddled with mutations and bottlenecks.
That makes no sense. How does a genome devoid of mutations differ from a genome riddled with mutations? Genomes are all made of the same four bases, mutations just change their order and number. If someone sent me a "pristine" human genome and one that isn't, how could I tell the difference?

And, since you failed to answer the second part of my question, how does an "unmutated" genome result in greater variation?

Yet the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes has no viable cause.
No, you're not sucking me into this again. A basic compound interest calculation reveals that you only have to shift average brain size by a fraction of one per cent per generation to achieve this growth. Brain size is a trait affected by many genes that displays considerable variation in modern humans; there is no reason to assume that the same wasn't the case for our ancestors.

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.
It proves that your claim, I quote, "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..." is quite simply false.

You said the possibility is "never" explored. The Wolpoff letter proves you wrong. It's that simple.

You would seem a lot less like a raving conspiracy theorist and a lot more like you've actually "done considerable reading" if you didn't make factually wrong claims all the time.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes. And indeed, the Taung Child was much closer to the chimp-human split than anything previously known.

The Taung Child was regarded as a juvenile chimpanzee for nearly half a century while Author Keith and others celebrated the Piltdown hoax. The cranial capacity is small, even for a chimpanzee but no one would dare deny it's one of our ancestors. Raymond Dart, btw, is credited for coining the phrase 'Homo habilis' when Louis Leaky dismissed the cerebral rubicon.

"Every indication" now? Where?

I don't chase these posts in circles anymore.

If you read the actual quote, you'd notice that "the famous Dart find" was interpreted by critics as a gorilla when it was originally described. In the 1920s. So it's not "now" by any stretch. I don't think the hominin status of australopiths is in any serious doubt today.

It was originally interpreted as an ape, there was no real reason to conclude it was a hominid except the foramen magnum and the brow ridge. The fact that it stood 3' 6" (105 cm) and weighing about 20–24 pounds (9–11 kg). It had a cranial capacity of 400–500cc. That is a nearly identical description of a chimpanzee. BTW, I don't know how anyone could mistake it for a gorilla but I'm not chasing every little detail today.
That makes no sense. How does a genome devoid of mutations differ from a genome riddled with mutations? Genomes are all made of the same four bases, mutations just change their order and number. If someone sent me a "pristine" human genome and one that isn't, how could I tell the difference?

Mutations are copy errors and a failure of DNA repair, get a handle on that concept and we can stop chasing this one in circles.

And, since you failed to answer the second part of my question, how does an "unmutated" genome result in greater variation?

What happens when a mutation, say a point mutation is introduced to a protein coding gene?

No, you're not sucking me into this again. A basic compound interest calculation reveals that you only have to shift average brain size by a fraction of one per cent per generation to achieve this growth. Brain size is a trait affected by many genes that displays considerable variation in modern humans; there is no reason to assume that the same wasn't the case for our ancestors.

Brain size is effected by brain related genes, you never really did get catch on to that concept did you?

It proves that your claim, I quote, "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..." is quite simply false.

No chimpanzee ancestors but an awful lot of chimpanzee skulls passed off as our ancestors. It's pretty obvious.

You said the possibility is "never" explored. The Wolpoff letter proves you wrong. It's that simple.

That's not even evidence, that's a brief description of some general news item. Why, is what I would like to know about Wolpoff et al.

You would seem a lot less like a raving conspiracy theorist and a lot more like you've actually "done considerable reading" if you didn't make factually wrong claims all the time.

Wrong group, Christian apologetics calls it presupposition not conspiracy. Conspiracy theories are the pass time of your agnostic brethren.

Have a nice day :)
Mark
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟15,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I don't chase these posts in circles anymore.
I don't recall that you've ever offered this evidence aside from ranting about brain sizes and a lack of chimp fossils. Doing so now would hardly constitute "chasing circles".

It was originally interpreted as an ape, there was no real reason to conclude it was a hominid except the foramen magnum and the brow ridge. The fact that it stood 3' 6" (105 cm) and weighing about 20–24 pounds (9–11 kg). It had a cranial capacity of 400–500cc. That is a nearly identical description of a chimpanzee.
Pretty sure chimpanzees are quite a bit heavier than that. AFAICT, that's also the high end of chimpanzee cranial capacities, and Taung is, well, a child. Yet more factual errors?

Mutations are copy errors and a failure of DNA repair, get a handle on that concept and we can stop chasing this one in circles.
I know what mutations are, and I think you know I know. So please answer my question.

What happens when a mutation, say a point mutation is introduced to a protein coding gene?
Most of the time, nothing. I also do not see the relevance of this. I'll ask you again. How does a pristine genome lead to more variation?

Brain size is effected by brain related genes, you never really did get catch on to that concept did you?
That's not so much of a "concept" as a "complete triviality". Can you get to your point?

No chimpanzee ancestors but an awful lot of chimpanzee skulls passed off as our ancestors. It's pretty obvious.
And the evidence that makes it obvious is...?

That's not even evidence, that's a brief description of some general news item. Why, is what I would like to know about Wolpoff et al.
Once again, you claimed that the possibility that these aren't human ancestors is NEVER CONSIDERED. That is not true. That's all. Wolpoff et al's reasons are irrelevant, because your claim was not about reasons. (In any case, IIRC they state their reasons in their letter.)

Wrong group, Christian apologetics calls it presupposition not conspiracy. Conspiracy theories are the pass time of your agnostic brethren.
Call it whatever you want. You're still accusing the entire field of palaeoanthropology of lying about fossils.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Man made classifications does not make something related.

Then why are you using man made classifications? Why do you keep saying, " . . . but they are still fruit flies", when "fruit flies" is a man made classification?

For the record I do not consider man a primate or any member of the animal kingdom.

Then I do not consider chihuahuas and wolves to be dogs. That means that chihuahuas are a new kind that arose from wolves.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,567
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes. Especially the part where he addressed the exact same claim you then repeated. To clarify...

This is precisely what Biggles was addressing. I quote:



I think his point was that these are all stated in the Bible as God's laws. Not as those of changing human society. But today, most Christians (or Jews, for that matter) wouldn't argue that this is truly God's law, would they? And indeed, about stoning adulterers, Jesus himself said something about sin and casting stones.

Did God's unchanging laws change between books, then? Or is the Bible not God's truth but that of fallible humans? There's a whole lot of complexity to this question from where I sit, and your only response at that point was to repeat an assertion - that God's laws don't change - that can only be true if the Bible doesn't reflect God's truth.

I agree its more complex than just making statements, that why i said maybe this is the wrong place to debate this as the topic was about the skulls found at Dmanisi. I'm sure there are sections that will go more into doctrine and their meanings. Broadly speaking i think the laws, rituals and punishments in the old testament were mans laws to make themselves clean before god. Jesus came to do away with this and to make a way for man to come to god by having forgiveness for those sins and breaches of law through the blood of his son Jesus. It also allowed man to have Jesus in his heart which meant you have the power to overcome the weakness of always falling into sin. So it is not by keeping the laws and following a strict regime of codes to feel clean but you are born again in Jesus and want to live that life.

I don't believe in life after death, and I have no trouble with the idea of an internal moral compass. I feel bad about doing bad things. I can empathise with other people, and because I'm not a cackling comic book villain, I also feel bad about making them feel bad. Simple as that.

"Right" and "wrong" are human constructs, but they have very good reasons to exist. Namely, they allow us to work together as a society.

I was saying mans interpretation of what is right and wrong is always open for interpretation and corrupted and that gods was always the same. The old testament laws need to be understood in their context. You may feel that way but others wont. What you consider to be good and right can be seen differently by others. There are many cases where people dont treat others good and there are other ways in which we think that this is the right thing to do only to find it lead to creating other problems. So mans interpretation is always corrupted and tainted and misses the mark. This is because we cant rely on our interpretation of what is good and right as we always get it wrong in the end.

From your point of view, that could mean God made us in that way because, well, does an all-powerful God really need a reason? From mine, morality is an outcome of evolution - being able to cooperate helped our ancestors succeed at some point in their history, and having a concept of right and wrong enhances cooperation.

But then you have moved it from a biological point to another level. evolution deals with the physical and biological process of species evolving from one to another.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

biggles53

Junior Member
Mar 5, 2008
2,819
63
70
Pottsville, NSW, Australia
✟10,841.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
AU-Greens
Steve,
if you're going to stay with us, you MUST learn how to use the quote function.....your comments are almost unintelligible, because as well as rambling, your comments are hopelessly intertwined with those of others, so we have trouble working out which are your words and which are the people you're trying to quote.

Please try to fix it....
 
Upvote 0

biggles53

Junior Member
Mar 5, 2008
2,819
63
70
Pottsville, NSW, Australia
✟10,841.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
AU-Greens
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....

Mate.......if you can't see what "you may BUY slaves from the heathens among you" means.......if you can't see what "you may beat your slaves as long as they don't die within a day or two" means.....if you don't know what "you may pass your slaves on as PROPERTY to your children" means.................then I'm afraid I'm witnessing one of the most blatant examples of wilful ignorance, or cognitive dissonance, or just plain dishonesty that I've ever seen....!
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,567
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Steve,
if you're going to stay with us, you MUST learn how to use the quote function.....your comments are almost unintelligible, because as well as rambling, your comments are hopelessly intertwined with those of others, so we have trouble working out which are your words and which are the people you're trying to quote.

Please try to fix it....

Ok Im learning. It was just when i was doing that, it was a bit confusing as i couldn't tell what i had said with the responses so i had to keep going back and forth. I see it with other posts so a few are doing the same. So how do you quote then.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,567
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Mate.......if you can't see what "you may BUY slaves from the heathens among you" means.......if you can't see what "you may beat your slaves as long as they don't die within a day or two" means.....if you don't know what "you may pass your slaves on as PROPERTY to your children" means.................then I'm afraid I'm witnessing one of the most blatant examples of wilful ignorance, or cognitive dissonance, or just plain dishonesty that I've ever seen....!



http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/does-god-command-you-beat-your-slaves

This reference should help you to understand the context in which these verses mean. As it says the "if " in the verses has significance. It is talking about possible situations within a whole legal system and how they should be dealt with.

One of the points mentions that within the same section where it talks about beating a slave it says even if you damage the slaves eye or tooth then you will set him free for the sake of that eye or tooth. So this contradicts the other verse about beating a slave. Why would you condone beating when at the same time it says if you damage their tooth just one part of their body then the slave is free. The actual meaning of slave is not how we would imagine but more a bonds man or bonds maiden or servant.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

EternalDragon

Counselor
Jul 31, 2013
5,757
26
✟21,267.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Mate.......if you can't see what "you may BUY slaves from the heathens among you" means.......if you can't see what "you may beat your slaves as long as they don't die within a day or two" means.....if you don't know what "you may pass your slaves on as PROPERTY to your children" means.................then I'm afraid I'm witnessing one of the most blatant examples of wilful ignorance, or cognitive dissonance, or just plain dishonesty that I've ever seen....!

I understand exactly what those verses mean. You do not. It was common practice back then to sell yourself so you debt is paid off. No one was buying kidnapped people. If those that had their debt paid off refused to work and just lived in your house eating your food there were rules/ Do you not want there to be rules?

These were indentured servants selling THEMSELVES to pay off their debt or have a place to live.

If you are ignorant about the history of that period and what a slave meant at that time, then it is you who are being dishonest.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I understand exactly what those verses mean. You do not. It was common practice back then to sell yourself so you debt is paid off. No one was buying kidnapped people. If those that had their debt paid off refused to work and just lived in your house eating your food there were rules/ Do you not want there to be rules?

These were indentured servants selling THEMSELVES to pay off their debt or have a place to live.

If you are ignorant about the history of that period and what a slave meant at that time, then it is you who are being dishonest.

Would you explain this then, in context?

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
I understand exactly what those verses mean. You do not. It was common practice back then to sell yourself so you debt is paid off. No one was buying kidnapped people. If those that had their debt paid off refused to work and just lived in your house eating your food there were rules/ Do you not want there to be rules?

These were indentured servants selling THEMSELVES to pay off their debt or have a place to live.

If you are ignorant about the history of that period and what a slave meant at that time, then it is you who are being dishonest.

It was also common practice for people to be born into slavery, and to make slaves of people captured in warfare.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.....
You must have missed something. I am not talking about the employees of Wal Mart being slaves. I am saying that slavery was as much a part of life as stores and etc are now. Therefore one had to deal with reality in that day. The reality was slaves existed as commodities.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.​
I think that science should have a broad spectrum of samples of creatures, before making big claims based on fragmentary evidence.


Yet the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes has no viable cause.
They need it to be so. What else matters?
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,567
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You must have missed something. I am not talking about the employees of Wal Mart being slaves. I am saying that slavery was as much a part of life as stores and etc are now. Therefore one had to deal with reality in that day. The reality was slaves existed as commodities.


They weren't allowed to treat them as they please there was a whole lot of rules and regulations.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

biggles53

Junior Member
Mar 5, 2008
2,819
63
70
Pottsville, NSW, Australia
✟10,841.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
AU-Greens
You must have missed something. I am not talking about the employees of Wal Mart being slaves. I am saying that slavery was as much a part of life as stores and etc are now. Therefore one had to deal with reality in that day. The reality was slaves existed as commodities.

No. I have missed nothing......but, unfortunately, you have missed everything....!

The key point that you ignore is that that evil book of yours is supposed to contain the unchanging, immutable, universal moral code of your god...!

If that's the case, why did its code change...?? Did it make a mistake, change its mind, what....?

"Oops....got that one wrong people....from now on, no more slaves....right!"

If you are saying that it changes its view on these things depending upon the time and the situation it is dealing with, then why do we need its guidance at all....? We can make our own way in determining what is 'right' and 'wrong'......which is exactly what we do...!
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,567
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The old testament laws and practices were fulfilled with the coming of Christ. They no longer had to sacrifice animals and follow all those rituals. Christ was the ultimate sacrifice, the lamb that takes away the sins of the world. So by receiving Christ we have the power over sin and forgiveness for our sins. Death and sin have been defeated by the sacrifice of Jesus being crucified on the cross and resurrecting from the dead.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What does slavery have to do with the Dmanisi skull???
I think that science should have a broad spectrum of samples of creatures, before making big claims based on fragmentary evidence.

If a skull of early post flood man was indeed different, fine. However if all we have is some fragmentary evidence based on precious little fact and a lot of evo doctrine, golly gee, how can we know if it was an ape, chimp or early post flood man? - (There are no remains, if I understand it, of pre flood man, and even very early post flood man, as that was apparently not in this present state and nature)
 
Upvote 0