Skull find rewrites the history of man

[oldie]

Just read these posts. This is a great example of the people that think they know everything. We really know nothing of the past. It is all conjecture.

[TheSearcher]

@ Danielost and Oldie, how is what you're saying, pertaining to the discussion at hand? This is a thread about the discovery of skulls in Georgia, not about God does or does not exist. Also, saying that some think they know everything, this is true on both sides of the fence, so that's just pot and kettle calling eachother black. The argument itself can be seen as a Perpetuum Mobile, as it seems never ending

@ Abramelin : the skulls and skeletons were excavated between 1991 and 2005, so in a sense, yes it is old news, but the initial article dates from 09/09/2009, so in that sense the bot did his work properly. The article you refer to is from the same day. It must have been the day that Reuters Agency send the news out and it was picked up by various on and offline newspapers.

Now back to topic, even though the find itself is not a very new one, it's still quite interesting in the sense that it proves that our ancestor left Africa a lot earlier than previously believed. That's already a discovery that's worth mentioning. Added to that, different geno types must have coexisted in the same places, again quite amazing.

[SQLserver]

ok then explain to me what caused the big bang.

I know of no scientific theory which currently explains such, although there are currently a large number of scientific hypotheses. See:

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070702084231.htm

the theory of creationsm has more than a minor following.

This is wrong, daniel. The OPINION of Creationism, as Creationism is NOT a theory, has a following so minor it's laughable.

http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/07/views-evolution-among-public-scientists-004904

where is this empirical data that proves that the big bang could have happened without an outside source. for that matter if the universe is everything then where did it come from.

Just read these posts. This is a great example of the people that think they know everything. We really know nothing of the past. It is all conjecture.

So, do you think we "know" that the Holocaust happened? The evidence for common descent is just as good as the evidence for the Holocaust, if not better.

[danielost]

You can still hear the big bang with a radio telescope.

no you can hear background radiation which we assume came from the big bang,

[danielost]

I know of no scientific theory which currently explains such, although there are currently a large number of scientific hypotheses. See:

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070702084231.htm

This is wrong, daniel. The OPINION of Creationism, as Creationism is NOT a theory, has a following so minor it's laughable.

http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/07/views-evolution-among-public-scientists-004904

where is this empirical data that proves that the big bang could have happened without an outside source. for that matter if the universe is everything then where did it come from.

So, do you think we "know" that the Holocaust happened? The evidence for common descent is just as good as the evidence for the Holocaust, if not better.

sorry we have the results of the holocaust on film and we still have eyewitnesses to it or part of it i should say.

[SQLserver]

sorry we have the results of the holocaust on film and we still have eyewitnesses to it or part of it i should say.

EXACTLY, daniel. And the evidence for common descent is MORE powerful than simple tapes and eye witnesses. Far more powerful.

[SQLserver]

For example, strong DNA and physical evidence is usually preferred to a witness in a court case.

[danielost]

EXACTLY, daniel. And the evidence for common descent is MORE powerful than simple tapes and eye witnesses. Far more powerful.

i disagree that something WE THINK happened has more powerful evidence than something that WE KNOW happened.

[SQLserver]

i disagree that something WE THINK happened has more powerful evidence than something that WE KNOW happened.

That's the thing Daniel. There is no difference between the Holocaust and Common Descent.

It must be:

A. We either THINK both happened.

B. We either KNOW both happened.

Please explain why exactly we "know" the Holocaust happened, and yet for some reason we don't "know" all life has a common ancestor.

The thing is, you can't. We know that all life has a common ancestor in the same way that we know that the Holocaust happened, and there can be no denying this.

[Guyver]

So, do you think we "know" that the Holocaust happened? The evidence for common descent is just as good as the evidence for the Holocaust, if not better.

hahaha???!!! This is a joke right? I mean I'm laughing because you made intentional humor. I hope you weren't being serious. Cause if you are, I would really wonder about your grasp of reality.

There are survivors of the holocaust, still alive today, bearing their numbered tatoos on their arms, and original documents recovered that list their names and the number assigned to them. The Germans were meticulous in their record keeping. Many of the concentration camps exist to this day - you can tour them. I've personally been to Dauchau.

You have more evidence for the theory of common descent than that? You must've found a living specimen. Where is it?

[SQLserver]

You have more evidence for the theory of common descent than that? You must've found a living specimen. Where is it?

Yes, we do.

1 Common ERVs in related species.

2. Phylogenetic analyses of different proteins in different species lead us to statically identical trees.

3. The existence of slow, gradual macro-evolutionary change in the fossil record.

4. The evidence for an ancient earth.

5. Evidence for endosymbiosis.

6. Pseudogenes.

7. Evidence for a fusion in Human Chromosome 2.

This is just a small sampling of the empirical evidence for common descent.

Witnesses can lie. Endogenuous retroviruses in the DNA of related organisms cannot.

Tattoos of numbers can be fabricated. Protein sequences in related organisms cannot.

Records are pretty empirical evidence, if they are correct. The fusion of Chromosome 2 is just as empirical.

I'm not claiming that the Holocaust didn't happen; it obviously did. However, I am claiming that it is equally obvious that all life has a common ancestor.

It is also important to know that you CANNOT prove that the Holocaust happened. It could be a huge conspiracy. Everyone in the world could be lying to danielost and Guyver, and we could have set up the concentration camps as an act, we could have forged the documents, we could have faked the tattoos, the emotions, and the stories.

It's highly improbably, but it is possible.

The point I'm trying to make is that the Holocaust and Common Descent, while they may differ slightly in the exact amount of empirical evidence for each, are on the same scientific level. If one can be proven, so can the other. If one cannot be proven, the other cannot.

Additionally, I didn't fabricate this argument out of the blue. Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins completely agrees.

Edited September 11, 2009 by SQLserver

[SQLserver]

Guyver, after looking at your other post, it does seem like you have some misconceptions about what science is.

It should be important to understand that the conclusion that the Holocaust happened is a SCIENTIFIC one. It was reached using the EXACT same method the conclusion that all life on Earth has a common ancestor was. It was reached using PHYSICAL evidence that is no different in application than the evidence for common descent.

If Common Descent is "just a theory", the Holocaust is "just a theory". If the holocaust is a fact, than Common Descent is a fact. You cannot have double standards here.

Additionally, I find it strange how much emphasis you place on witnesses. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable, and may be lying even if they don't know it themselves. A witness is simply physical evidence, essentially the position of neurons in a brain, like ERVs for example are. And, witnesses are tentative.

Same with observation. While seeing something is powerful evidence, it doesn't mean it is true. Seeing something simply means interpreting signals from your optic nerve. This at its core is no difference than collecting evidence, from, say, protein analyses.

[SQLserver]

If any religion contradicts science in it's doctrine then it's wrong. Science is God, same thing. The Abrahamic God is fake.

I disagree. Religion contradicts science by definition. It doesn't matter if it happens to agree with the current scientific findings. In other words, a person who believes in naturalism is equally as unscientific as a Creationism.

[danielost]

and religious people have closed minds.

the bible actually agrees with the big bang. i have shown it and yet it must be wrong because it uses the word god to tell how it happened.

and yet science doesn't know everything. you people make me laugh.

[SQLserver]

We just believe in a higher power

Yes, and it is the belief itself that is unscientific. It doesn't matter if you believe in Evolution, Microsoft, Printers, or Walruses. All belief is unscientific.

If anything it's just arrogant to claim outright there's no God.

Science only claims that, from a scientific basis, there is no god. Few atheists claim there is no God from a literal basis, but rather from a scientific one.(There is no scientific evidence for god, and thus we shouldn't accept his existence.)

I enjoyed your analogy.

The problem is, the universe does not look designed, at least according to the majority of scientists. There are actually scientific(which a God is not) hypotheses which actually explain why the universe is here.

Cheers,

SQLserver

[danielost]

Yes, and it is the belief itself that is unscientific. It doesn't matter if you believe in Evolution, Microsoft, Printers, or Walruses. All belief is unscientific.

Science only claims that, from a scientific basis, there is no god. Few atheists claim there is no God from a literal basis, but rather from a scientific one.(There is no scientific evidence for god, and thus we shouldn't accept his existence.)

I enjoyed your analogy.

The problem is, the universe does not look designed, at least according to the majority of scientists. There are actually scientific(which a God is not) hypotheses which actually explain why the universe is here.

Cheers,

SQLserver

you quote some one who claims it is arrogant to just claim there is no god. and then proceed to say there is no god.

this is why i say that if they had a body of bigfoot freshly killed you would say it was a fake.

how many scientist claimed that the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe for how many hundreds of years.

true the church forced the issue but how many of them came up with math models to prove and make it work that way.

science is a good tool. i believe in using science. but it is only a tool no better no worse than a shovel or wrench. religion is also a tool. again no better no worse than a shovel or a wrench. where the problems come from is who is in charge of those tools and how they use them.

for instance the problem with pluto. is it a planet yes. official it is a dwarf planet but mars, earth, venus, and mercury are rocky planets. where as saturn, jupiter, unranus, and neptune are gas planets. they are all planets. so i consider there to be 11 planets now not 8 planets.

[SQLserver]

you quote some one who claims it is arrogant to just claim there is no god. and then proceed to say there is no god.

Daniel, I have explained this. From a scientific perspective, there is no God. I speak from a scientific perspective.

From a literal perspective, it is impossible to say whether there is a god or isn't.

this is why i say that if they had a body of bigfoot freshly killed you would say it was a fake.

This is nonsense, daniel.

how many scientist claimed that the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe for how many hundreds of years.

The evidence they collected at the time led them to accept such a position. Note that it was the CHURCH, and not the scientists, that believed these positions and prosecuted anyone who didn't.

true the church forced the issue but how many of them came up with math models to prove and make it work that way.

for instance the problem with pluto. is it a planet yes. official it is a dwarf planet but mars, earth, venus, and mercury are rocky planets. where as saturn, jupiter, unranus, and neptune are gas planets. they are all planets. so i consider there to be 11 planets now not 8 planets.

This is why you aren't a scientist. Quite frankly, nobody cares about whether you consider Pluto a planet. It is like me claiming that I consider you an HP Photosmart D74600. It's crazy, and nobody's going to listen to me, or care about my view.

[danielost]

Daniel, I have explained this. From a scientific perspective, there is no God. I speak from a scientific perspective.

From a literal perspective, it is impossible to say whether there is a god or isn't.

This is nonsense, daniel.

The evidence they collected at the time led them to accept such a position. Note that it was the CHURCH, and not the scientists, that believed these positions and prosecuted anyone who didn't.

This is why you aren't a scientist. Quite frankly, nobody cares about whether you consider Pluto a planet. It is like me claiming that I consider you an HP Photosmart D74600. It's crazy, and nobody's going to listen to me, or care about my view.

that's right i disagree with you so you can now break down and start calling names. i am not a professional scientist. but i can look around me and see that there is far more to life than just an accident. everything fits together just right. the moon, the sun, the location of the earth. all of that is just an accident. you do know that mars spends part of it's year in the goldilock zone don't you.

[Raptor]

that's right i disagree with you so you can now break down and start calling names. i am not a professional scientist. but i can look around me and see that there is far more to life than just an accident. everything fits together just right. the moon, the sun, the location of the earth. all of that is just an accident. you do know that mars spends part of it's year in the goldilock zone don't you.

And every puddle looks at it's hole and thinks "Wow! This hole was made exactly for me to fit in it!".

Take a step back for a moment. Zoom out from your house, your town, the United States, the Earth, the Solar System, the Galaxy. Think about all of the millions of different stars there are, and all of the millions of planets and all of their variations. If life is a natural occurrence then of course, it's only going to arise in the places where conditions are just right. If the conditions aren't right then life wouldn't arise in the first place!

[SQLserver]

that's right i disagree with you so you can now break down and start calling names. i am not a professional scientist. but i can look around me and see that there is far more to life than just an accident. everything fits together just right. the moon, the sun, the location of the earth. all of that is just an accident. you do know that mars spends part of it's year in the goldilock zone don't you.

I did not call you a name.

It is absolutely impossible to argue with you. As soon as I reply to something you say, you ignore it and change the topic. Now, of course, you are completely off track, and I will not respond to it.

[Siara]

Then how can they say that there is absolutly no god. Then how can they say that life started purely by chance. I don't mean scientists or real ones. I mean the ones on here. To pick one theory over another and jam it down someones throat in school as fact.

I think that around UM you're generally told that science and religion aren't necessarily incompatible, over the centuries there have been many religious scientists, and so on. I suspect that the reason you keep forgetting about this is that someone where you are keeps telling you that evolutionists don't believe in God. Where ever you get this impression, it isn't here.

------------------------------------------

From a Peking Man and homo floresiensis standpoint it makes sense that part of evolution happened in Eurasia.

I'm a bit fuzzy on what these scientists are claiming. They can't be saying that the Asian populations are descended from a first wave of migration out of Africa and other groups are descended from a second wave? Can they? Aren't we all way too similar for that?

I assume they're saying that the ancestors of Asian homo sapiens started in Africa, moved out of Africa, evolved, moved BACK to Africa, then left again and migrated to the far east. Simultaneously part of the same group migrated north and east to populate Europe.

Isn't it more likely that these skulls are a cousin species that died out and was followed by a different group of hominids. Why are they so convinced these skulls are in the direct homo sapien line (ie- that these skulls pertain to our evolution)?

Edited September 15, 2009 by Siara

[danielost]

And every puddle looks at it's hole and thinks "Wow! This hole was made exactly for me to fit in it!".

Take a step back for a moment. Zoom out from your house, your town, the United States, the Earth, the Solar System, the Galaxy. Think about all of the millions of different stars there are, and all of the millions of planets and all of their variations. If life is a natural occurrence then of course, it's only going to arise in the places where conditions are just right. If the conditions aren't right then life wouldn't arise in the first place!

what are the right conditions. the conditions where we live is right for us. but what about on mars, ganymede, triton, or planet around a blue star. open your mind up. life does not have to work or look like us. in fact there may be a life form on earth that we don't think of as life. that would be clay.

[danielost]

I think that around UM you're generally told that science and religion aren't necessarily incompatible, over the centuries there have been many religious scientists, and so on. I suspect that the reason you keep forgetting about this is that someone where you are keeps telling you that evolutionists don't believe in God. Where ever you get this impression, it isn't here.

------------------------------------------

From a Peking Man and homo floresiensis standpoint it makes sense that part of evolution happened in Eurasia.

I'm a bit fuzzy on what these scientists are claiming. They can't be saying that the Asian populations are descended from a first wave of migration out of Africa and other groups are descended from a second wave? Can they? Aren't we all way too similar for that?

I assume they're saying that the ancestors of Asian homo sapiens started in Africa, moved out of Africa, evolved, moved BACK to Africa, then left again and migrated to the far east. Simultaneously part of the same group migrated north and east to populate Europe.

Isn't it more likely that these skulls are a cousin species that died out and was followed by a different group of hominids. Why are they so convinced these skulls are in the direct homo sapien line (ie- that these skulls pertain to our evolution)?

i don't know where you get that. i believe in god and i know that evolution takes place on limited lvl. i don't think your going to get a bird from a frog.

[danielost]

Guyver, after looking at your other post, it does seem like you have some misconceptions about what science is.

It should be important to understand that the conclusion that the Holocaust happened is a SCIENTIFIC one. It was reached using the EXACT same method the conclusion that all life on Earth has a common ancestor was. It was reached using PHYSICAL evidence that is no different in application than the evidence for common descent.

If Common Descent is "just a theory", the Holocaust is "just a theory". If the holocaust is a fact, than Common Descent is a fact. You cannot have double standards here.

Additionally, I find it strange how much emphasis you place on witnesses. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable, and may be lying even if they don't know it themselves. A witness is simply physical evidence, essentially the position of neurons in a brain, like ERVs for example are. And, witnesses are tentative.

Same with observation. While seeing something is powerful evidence, it doesn't mean it is true. Seeing something simply means interpreting signals from your optic nerve. This at its core is no difference than collecting evidence, from, say, protein analyses.

i have a question why do fish have finger bones.