Identifying skulls and bones

[peace4ever]

If I find skull and bone fragments in the desert, bring them into a courtroom and say, "this is an example of an aueirothtieytpaknshathecus that lived 5,000,000 years ago, who once had black hair, brown eyes, and wore a Tarzan outfit", would you think I was credible? If so, why?

If a scientist found skulls and bones in the desert, brought them into a courtroom and said; "This is an aueirothtieytpaknshathecus that lived 5,000,000 years ago who once had black hair, brown eyes, and wore a Tarzan outift", would you question him? If so, then why do you never question evolutionary scientists? If not, then why would you blieve him and not me for saying the same thing? Or do you believe that scientists are infallible gods who don't need to be questioned? Thank you.

 

[Mallon]

Straw man.

 

[gluadys]

If I find skull and bone fragments in the desert, bring them into a courtroom and say, "this is an example of an aueirothtieytpaknshathecus that lived 5,000,000 years ago, who once had black hair, brown eyes, and wore a Tarzan outfit", would you think I was credible? If so, why?

If a scientist found skulls and bones in the desert, brought them into a courtroom and said; "This is an aueirothtieytpaknshathecus that lived 5,000,000 years ago who once had black hair, brown eyes, and wore a Tarzan outift", would you question him? If so, then why do you never question evolutionary scientists? If not, then why would you blieve him and not me for saying the same thing? Or do you believe that scientists are infallible gods who don't need to be questioned? Thank you.

I would not believe either of you on the black hair, brown eyes or Tarzan outfit since fossils don't provide that information.

As to the age, I would believe the person who was able to explain what method was used to ascertain the age and how that method was determined to be reliable for dating purposes.

What would your reply be to "How did you determine how old the fossil is?"

 

[peace4ever]

I would not believe either of you on the black hair, brown eyes or Tarzan outfit since fossils don't provide that information.

As to the age, I would believe the person who was able to explain what method was used to ascertain the age and how that method was determined to be reliable for dating purposes.

What would your reply be to "How did you determine how old the fossil is?"

You're right. No one can prove what kind of skin, color of hair and eyes those skulls and bones had. Yet since scientists think that the imagination is evidence, they make up stories about the skulls and bones they find and call them facts. You put blond hair, blue eyes and creamy skin and most of the skulls and bones would look no different than the humans of today look. But to try to dupe the world that the skulls and bones were ape men, scientists have dressed them up to look like ape men (calling that science) and bingo, it fools the public into believing that creatures that looked like that actually lived. But as Hitler once said, "People are so stupid. It's not hard to fool the public." And no one knew better than he did how true that is..especially when people look to others as infallible and never question their authority.

 

[sfs]

If I find skull and bone fragments in the desert, bring them into a courtroom and say, "this is an example of an aueirothtieytpaknshathecus that lived 5,000,000 years ago, who once had black hair, brown eyes, and wore a Tarzan outfit", would you think I was credible? If so, why?

I would not think you credible until you had established credibility by showing that you knew what you were talking about.

If a scientist found skulls and bones in the desert, brought them into a courtroom and said; "This is an aueirothtieytpaknshathecus that lived 5,000,000 years ago who once had black hair, brown eyes, and wore a Tarzan outift", would you question him?

Of course.

If so, then why do you never question evolutionary scientists?

I question evolutionary scientists all the time, especially when I'm reviewing their papers for publication.

If not, then why would you blieve him and not me for saying the same thing?

I've read too many of your posts. You display neither knowledge nor curiosity about science.

 

[Mallon]

Is restoring a fossil hominid to a life-like appearance really any different than this?

 

[peace4ever]

I would not think you credible until you had established credibility by showing that you knew what you were talking about.

That proves that your faith isn't in the "evidence" that scientists present or the story of evolution, but in scientists as being infallible gods. So thanks for proving my point. In that case, you'd make a great brainwashing subject.

I question evolutionary scientists all the time, especially when I'm reviewing their papers for publication.

That contradicts your fist statement. And considering that you defend everything they say, none of your statements here show that you question them at all. So which is it? Do you believe scientists because they're scientists or because of the evidence? After all, in my example, we both presented the same evidence. Gluadys was correct when she said that what they wore and the color of their eyes and hair can't be proven so there's no evidence of what those creatures looked like. So why would you believe them and not me if you're just looking at the "evidence" we presented?

 

[Sphinx777]

Bones are rigid organs that form part of the endoskeleton of vertebrates. They function to move, support, and protect the various organs of the body, produce red and white blood cells and store minerals. Bone tissue is a type of dense connective tissue. Because bones come in a variety of shapes and have a complex internal and external structure they are lightweight, yet strong and hard, in addition to fulfilling their many other functions. One of the types of tissue that makes up bone is the mineralized osseous tissue, also called bone tissue, that gives it rigidity and a honeycomb-like three-dimensional internal structure. Other types of tissue found in bones include marrow, endosteum and periosteum, nerves, blood vessels and cartilage. There are 206 bones in the adult human body, and about 300 in an infant.

Bones have ten main functions:

Mechanical...

* Protection — Bones can serve to protect internal organs, such as the skull protecting the brain or the ribs protecting the heart and lungs.

* Shape — Bones provide a frame to keep the body supported.

* Movement — Bones, skeletal muscles, tendons, ligaments and joints function together to generate and transfer forces so that individual body parts or the whole body can be manipulated in three-dimensional space. The interaction between bone and muscle is studied in biomechanics.

* Sound transduction — Bones are important in the mechanical aspect of overshadowed hearing.

Synthetic...

* Blood production — The marrow, located within the medullary cavity of long bones and interstices of cancellous bone, produces blood cells in a process called haematopoiesis.

Metabolic...

* Mineral storage — Bones act as reserves of minerals important for the body, most notably calcium and phosphorus.

* Growth factor storage — Mineralized bone matrix stores important growth factors such as insulin-like growth factors, transforming growth factor, bone morphogenetic proteins and others.

* Fat Storage — The yellow bone marrow acts as a storage reserve of fatty acids

* Acid-base balance — Bone buffers the blood against excessive pH changes by absorbing or releasing alkaline salts.

* Detoxification — Bone tissues can also store heavy metals and other foreign elements, removing them from the blood and reducing their effects on other tissues. These can later be gradually released for excretion.

 

[peace4ever]

Bones are rigid organs that form part of the endoskeleton of vertebrates. They function to move, support, and protect the various organs of the body, produce red and white blood cells and store minerals. Bone tissue is a type of dense connective tissue. Because bones come in a variety of shapes and have a complex internal and external structure they are lightweight, yet strong and hard, in addition to fulfilling their many other functions. One of the types of tissue that makes up bone is the mineralized osseous tissue, also called bone tissue, that gives it rigidity and a honeycomb-like three-dimensional internal structure. Other types of tissue found in bones include marrow, endosteum and periosteum, nerves, blood vessels and cartilage. There are 206 bones in the adult human body, and about 300 in an infant.

Bones have ten main functions:

Mechanical...

* Protection — Bones can serve to protect internal organs, such as the skull protecting the brain or the ribs protecting the heart and lungs.

* Shape — Bones provide a frame to keep the body supported.

* Movement — Bones, skeletal muscles, tendons, ligaments and joints function together to generate and transfer forces so that individual body parts or the whole body can be manipulated in three-dimensional space. The interaction between bone and muscle is studied in biomechanics.

* Sound transduction — Bones are important in the mechanical aspect of overshadowed hearing.

Synthetic...

* Blood production — The marrow, located within the medullary cavity of long bones and interstices of cancellous bone, produces blood cells in a process called haematopoiesis.

Metabolic...

* Mineral storage — Bones act as reserves of minerals important for the body, most notably calcium and phosphorus.

* Growth factor storage — Mineralized bone matrix stores important growth factors such as insulin-like growth factors, transforming growth factor, bone morphogenetic proteins and others.

* Fat Storage — The yellow bone marrow acts as a storage reserve of fatty acids

* Acid-base balance — Bone buffers the blood against excessive pH changes by absorbing or releasing alkaline salts.

* Detoxification — Bone tissues can also store heavy metals and other foreign elements, removing them from the blood and reducing their effects on other tissues. These can later be gradually released for excretion.

We all know what bones are. We can recognize them on sight. But making up stories about whose bones they are, what kind of skin they had, clothes they wore, what color eyes and hair they had, what they did during the day is all imaginary. And making up characters and stories from the imagination is called science fiction, not science. Sorry.

 

[sfs]

That proves that your faith isn't in the "evidence" that scientists present or the story of evolution, but in scientists as being infallible gods. So thanks for proving my point. In that case, you'd make a great brainwashing subject.

You didn't ask whether the evidence was persuasive. You asked whether you would be credible. You wouldn't be. If you want an answer to one question, don't ask a different question.

That contradicts your fist statement.

I'm sorry, but "I would not think you credible until you had established credibility by showing that you knew what you were talking about" and "I question evolutionary scientists all the time" are not contradictory statements. You currently have zero credibility with me about scientific matters. I do not think you know enough to accurately describe a scientific find, much less draw conclusions from it.

Scientists, on the other hand, usually have enough knowledge that their basic description of, say, a fossil find can be accepted at face value. That means they have enough credibility that's it's worth listening to their arguments. Accepting their conclusions is a different matter. That's where assessing the evidence and the arguments comes in. As far as I know, there is no way to determine skin or eye color from bones, and so I would be very skeptical about those claims, but I don't know everything, so I'm willing to be persuaded. (And the shape of a Tarzan outfit might well be detectable, if such a thing existed -- as an impression in fine-grained sediment.)

And considering that you defend everything they say, none of your statements here show that you question them at all.

Since I doubt you have ever read anything I've written about anything at all, you're not exactly in a position to make that judgment, are you? As it happens, I just finished a post on christianity.com, sketching why I think a paper about human evolution was very bad and should be ignored. (I'm also an author on a couple of papers whose sole point is that previous claims about human evolution were wrong.) Why do you just make things up and treat them as if they were true? It's one of the reasons why I do not find you credible.

So which is it? Do you believe scientists because they're scientists or because of the evidence? After all, in my example, we both presented the same evidence. Gluadys was correct when she said that what they wore and the color of their eyes and hair can't be proven so there's no evidence of what those creatures looked like. So why would you believe them and not me if you're just looking at the "evidence" we presented?

I didn't say I would believe them, did I? I said I wouldn't believe you, which is rather a different thing. You made up the "fact" that I would believe them, so please don't ask me to explain it.

Real scientists criticize each other's work constantly, often viciously. It's both unpleasant and an essential part of science. As one distinguished scientist put it, the best thing you can have in science is a good enemy.

 

[sfs]

I see, by the way, that there are reports of melanin, the pigment that gives black hair its color, can survive in fossils for more than 100 million years. So determining the hair color of five million year old specimen is not necessarily impossible -- although I would still be highly skeptical of any particular claim.

 

[peace4ever]

I see, by the way, that there are reports of melanin, the pigment that gives black hair its color, can survive in fossils for more than 100 million years. So determining the hair color of five million year old specimen is not necessarily impossible -- although I would still be highly skeptical of any particular claim.

Good. Then we don't even need DNA in forensics. All a criminal investigator has to do is find skulls and bones and not only does he know who the victim is, he knows who the killer is because he can make up any story he likes about the skulls and bones he finds and those will be facts.! In your dreams.

 

[sfs]

Good. Then we don't even need DNA in forensics. All a criminal investigator has to do is find skulls and bones and not only does he know who the victim is, he knows who the killer is because he can make up any story he likes about the skulls and bones he finds and those will be facts.! In your dreams.

Do you even read what you're responding to? Why are you bothering to write here?

 

[peace4ever]

Do you even read what you're responding to? Why are you bothering to write here?

Non-responsive. Claiming that one can make up stories about the skulls and bones he finds and calls that evidence means that the imagination is reality. By that reasoning, I can find any skull and bone I want, dress it up to look like a creature of my imagination and by the world's standards, I will have found a new tribe of people in history that no one has ever witnessed.

That's so easy, even a child can do it...the oly difference is, most children know the difference between humans and animals so they won't be tempted to mix the two like evolutionary scientists do. So the imaginations of children are more credible than the imaginations of scientists.

 

[gluadys]

You're right. No one can prove what kind of skin, color of hair and eyes those skulls and bones had. Yet since scientists think that the imagination is evidence, they make up stories about the skulls and bones they find and call them facts. You put blond hair, blue eyes and creamy skin and most of the skulls and bones would look no different than the humans of today look. But to try to dupe the world that the skulls and bones were ape men, scientists have dressed them up to look like ape men (calling that science) and bingo, it fools the public into believing that creatures that looked like that actually lived. But as Hitler once said, "People are so stupid. It's not hard to fool the public." And no one knew better than he did how true that is..especially when people look to others as infallible and never question their authority.

I asked:

What would your reply be to the question "How did you determine how old the fossil is?"

You have not answered that question.

 

[peace4ever]

I asked:

What would your reply be to the question "How did you determine how old the fossil is?"

You have not answered that question.

That's another excellent question. But I have answered it many times. Speculating about what a fossil is is no different than looking at leaves on a tree and speculating what shapes they form. They are as subjective as each individual imagination.

Inf act, that's proven by the latest "missing link" that looks more like a lizard than a human! But scientists have decided that they want that small creature to be the missing link! So they look for any trait or evidence on those bones that look even remotely human and bingo, they've claimed it's the missing link! But since they have no idea what the common ancestor looks like, then of course they can claim that any animal is the missing link. Pretty convenient.

But since they've brainwashed the world that they know better than anyone else does, then of course, they can say anything they want and people will believe it hook, line, and sinker, which the world proves.

 

[sfs]

Non-responsive. Claiming that one can make up stories about the skulls and bones he finds and calls that evidence means that the imagination is reality. By that reasoning, I can find any skull and bone I want, dress it up to look like a creature of my imagination and by the world's standards, I will have found a new tribe of people in history that no one has ever witnessed.

That's so easy, even a child can do it...the oly difference is, most children know the difference between humans and animals so they won't be tempted to mix the two like evolutionary scientists do. So the imaginations of children are more credible than the imaginations of scientists.

You haven't answered my questions. Why are you doing this? You repeatedly just make up stuff, and treat it as if it were true. You just did it again here. No one has said that inventing stories about bones would constitute evidence. That's something you invented, using that imagination you keep talking about. You obviously know nothing about how scientists get information from bones, and show no interest in learning. You'd rather just keep making up your own stories. Then you mock people for their ridiculous beliefs -- beliefs that exist only in your mind.

Why? What's the point? You're not convincing anyone of anything. You're not presenting a point of view about science, since you're not even talking about science, just your own fantasies. You're certainly not making Christianity look good, or even sane. What do you think you're accomplishing?

 

[peace4ever]

You haven't answered my questions. Why are you doing this? You repeatedly just make up stuff, and treat it as if it were true. You just did it again here. No one has said that inventing stories about bones would constitute evidence. That's something you invented, using that imagination you keep talking about. You obviously know nothing about how scientists get information from bones, and show no interest in learning. You'd rather just keep making up your own stories. Then you mock people for their ridiculous beliefs -- beliefs that exist only in your mind.

Why? What's the point? You're not convincing anyone of anything. You're not presenting a point of view about science, since you're not even talking about science, just your own fantasies. You're certainly not making Christianity look good, or even sane. What do you think you're accomplishing?

Wrong again. In your first response to me, you admitted that no one can know what color hair or eyes skulls and bones had. yet scientists dress their skulls and bones up in whatever clothes suit their fancy, give them brown eyes and black hair to make them look like half-men, half apes, and pass them along as real creatures! They did that using their imagination since you admitted that clothes, eye and hair color can't be proven. So what those creatures looked like are not facts, but fantasy, which a story from their imaginations.

Christianity never looked good to the secular world which is precisely why Jesus was killed. And it never will look good to the secular world because Jesus condemns humanity as evil which is why humanity needs redemption. "The world will hate me because I testify that what it does is evil." And that, they do. "Remember, if they hate you, they hated me first."

 

[sfs]

Wrong again. In your first response to me, you admitted that no one can know what color hair or eyes skulls and bones had.

No, I didn't. Go back and read my first response. Really -- go and look at it. Read all of my responses. You'll find that this is yet another fiction you've invented.

 

[gluadys]

That's another excellent question. But I have answered it many times.

No, you haven't. You haven't answered it even once.

Speculating about what a fossil is is no different than looking at leaves on a tree and speculating what shapes they form. They are as subjective as each individual imagination.

Is this your answer? Are you saying you would determine how old the fossil is by picking a number out of thin air?

By the way, sfs is right. I was the one who said fossils don't reveal hair colour, not him. Do you not look to see who it is that you are responding to?

Also I was wrong. sfs knows more about fossils than I do and corrected me with information I was unaware of.