My Bobbleheads Challenge

[Kylie]

I am saying that becasue most fossils and the geologic column are
composed of sedimentary rock layers, that is, layers of sand and silt,
your proposed methodology is worthless.

But we do get layers of igneous rock with sedimentary rocks in between.

So if we find a fossil in a layer of sedimentary rock, and there's a layer of igneous rock above and below, we can date those two igneous layers. And if we find the lower one is 1.3 million years old, and the upper layer is 1.1 million years old, we can conclude that the middle layer of sedimentary rock is about 1.2 million years old.

And if that layer has a particular fossil that is only ever found in that one layer, then we know that any layer that has that fossil is also 1.2 million years old, even if there are no nearby igneous rock layers to date radiometrically.

Really not a difficult concept...

If somebody wants to know when a rock was formed....so what?
Rocks don't form, turn to sand, then sprinkle out over the land
like fairy dust encapsulating potential fossils in the mix.

And if I had claimed that they do, your point would be valid. But I never made that claim, so your point is irrelevant.

 

[HitchSlap]

Take a good look at this picture:

These are touted as TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS OF HOMINID SKULLS.

But aside from the fact that they are staged, posed, and otherwise manipulated for viewing, I have a simple question:

How do we know these skulls are in chronological order?

Through a wide body of research over the last 150 years, that's how.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Take a good look at this picture:

These are touted as TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS OF HOMINID SKULLS.

Every fossil is transitional, these and all others. Don't see the resemblance between them?

But aside from the fact that they are staged, posed, and otherwise manipulated for viewing, I have a simple question:

-_- they are all turned to face the same direction for two views, what better way should they be positioned for a more accurate comparison? Some of them are tilted, so they could be straighter, but it isn't by much, so it shouldn't make a difference.

How do we know these skulls are in chronological order?

-_- they aren't; some lived at the same time as each other, in terms of species.

 

[AV1611VET]

Through a wide body of research over the last 150 years, that's how.

You would also know how to pose them, wouldn't you?

 

[AV1611VET]

-_- they aren't;

Interesting.

In my opinion, they're all human beings.

 

[Jimmy D]

Interesting.

In my opinion, they're all human beings.

Even the Chimp?

 

[AV1611VET]

Even the Chimp?

Which one is the chimp?

 

[Jimmy D]

Which one is the chimp?

There is a simple key that accompanies the picture even a five year old could understand.
A =
B =
etc.

 

[HitchSlap]

You would also know how to pose them, wouldn't you?

If you think that's important.

 

[PsychoSarah]

There is a simple key that accompanies the picture even a five year old could understand.
A =
B =
etc.

-_- but humans didn't evolve from chimps, and chimps aren't hominids, so a chimp skull shouldn't even be there. Chimps are a modern species as much as we are, so placing that type of skull at place A would be entirely out of order and pretty much pointless. What you take for a chimp skull might be one of a hominid with a similar skull structure to a chimpanzee that is more distinguished by other bones, such as the hips. Or it might be a chimp skull that has no place being there.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Interesting.

In my opinion, they're all human beings.

Nah, all human skulls pretty much look the same, barring severe defect. You'll never find a modern human skull like this http://www.skullsunlimited.com/userfiles/image/variants_4489.jpg

Besides, it's not just the skulls that are different, but the entire bodies if you look up skeletons. Rib position and shape, hip size and shape, stature, body proportion... the list goes on. Just by the teeth alone one can tell that they don't belong to humans.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nah, all human skulls pretty much look the same, barring severe defect.

Like ... say ... a severe bone defect from God in the form of a judgmental plague?

Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

Read Psalm 38 slowly and visualize what King David is going through.

Especially ...

Psalm 38:3 There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger; neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin.

Psalm 38:6 I am troubled; I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Like ... say ... a severe bone defect from God in the form of a judgmental plague?

Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

Read Psalm 38 slowly and visualize what King David is going through.

We can tell the difference between diseased bones and typical bone structure. Diseased bone structure is more irregular. Consider this diseased human skull, for example http://www.theculturemap.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Skull-Hunterian-Museum.jpg
as well as this human skull that was elongated through a process done in infancy http://soulhealer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/skull-paracas.jpg
We can still tell that both skulls are human, despite this.

Especially ...

Psalm 38:3 There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger; neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin.

Psalm 38:6 I am troubled; I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long.

Even if I take those statements very literally as being his physical condition, that wouldn't explain the sheer variety of skulls for hominids and their consistency. Also, don't forget that there are transitional fossils for other species on Earth besides ourselves.

Additionally, we have Neanderthal DNA, we know they weren't the same species as ourselves. Side by side of a Neanderthal skull and a skull from our species http://public.media.smithsonianmag.com/legacy_blog/skulls.jpg

And you want to call these two the same species? http://c8.alamy.com/comp/D6TYGN/aus...s-5-mrs-ples-vs-homo-sapiens-skull-D6TYGN.jpg They both are hominids, AV, but they aren't both human. Or do you think god got ticked off at a group of chimpanzees and made them have hips for walking upright and teeth intermediate between those of humans and chimps?

 

[AV1611VET]

We can tell the difference between diseased bones and typical bone structure.

Is that why they attribute those possessed by demons back then as having schizophrenia?

 

[HitchSlap]

Is that why they attribute those possessed by demons back then as having schizophrenia?

On point!

 

[AV1611VET]

On point!

I'm just wondering:

Who determines that those people back then had schizophrenia?

(Please answer this, or I'll push for one.)

Are they the same people who are qualified to diagnose us today as having schizophrenia?

And how do you put people back in Biblical times through the same qualifying tests as you would put a person today through?

I mean, are they going to suddenly come back to life and submit themselves for examination?

Or ... as I suspect ... is this just a case of scientists denying that part of reality that cannot be empirically observed (the supernatural)?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Is that why they attribute those possessed by demons back then as having schizophrenia?

That, and other issues. Ergot poisoning was pretty common, and that makes people act temporarily crazy. I have no reason to think otherwise.

Also, in my opinion, if there were demons possessing people, they would do it as covertly as possible, not make some huge fanfare of flailing limbs and speaking in tongues and other such nonsense.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm just wondering:

Who determines that those people back then had schizophrenia?

(Please answer this, or I'll push for one.)

Are they the same people who are qualified to diagnose us today as having schizophrenia?

And how do you put people back in Biblical times through the same qualifying tests as you would put a person today through?

I mean, are they going to suddenly come back to life and submit themselves for examination?

Or ... as I suspect ... is this just a case of scientists denying that part of reality that cannot be empirically observed (the supernatural)?

I suspect you'll believe what you need to.

 

[AV1611VET]

I suspect you'll believe what you need to.

That's right.

And I'll do it in spite of what science has to say otherwise.

 

[HitchSlap]

That's right.

And I'll do it in spite of what science has to say otherwise.

It's easier that way.