'Astonishing' skull unearthed in Africa

Originally posted by Truth

James, please understand that i know god exist and nothing can
make me not. I have what is called faith in believing what you know is true
but cannot see.

I have seen miracles and events in my life that let me know god exist on top of
my faith.

Not one 'legit" missing link has ever been found by scientists. this is a
fact. there have been missing links that have been proven fake.

we should have millions of these links if evolutions was true, but we
have not one.

Macro evolution is impossible, this is declared by scientists. One form
cannot change completely into aother. this has never been proved.

My point is is that we are living in a time where falsehood and 'lies" abound and
with the mixture of sin and technology the devils working at an all time level.


peace.

So, you believe stories written by people who did not possess the knowledge we have today, is that it? They wrote what they did to help explain and answer the questions that all humans asked back then and continue to do so today. If they knew then what we know now they would probably have incorporated these things into their teachings. But they didn't so we are left with fine moral lessons that never go out of style and an equal amount of hooey that has been proven completely false. Or didn't you happen to know that the Bible was wrong about the Earth being the center of the universe?

Have you ever stopped to consider that the way humans evolved was how a god wanted it to be? What, this god decided to speak to a few humans in a 1000 year period and then stop?

Try looking at science as far better way of getting closer to god than some man made book written by people who didn't know any better. You don't strike me as someone with unwavering faith, more like someone whose belief systems can't be defended save the tired 'the devil is at work with lies' routine that allows someone like you to ignore everything that is said and feel they are right.

You act as if Jesus had some hand in creating Christianity which he didn't. He was a rebel who fought against the established religion of his day. If he saw the ignorance inducing religion that was spawned from him he would probably hurl.

I respect your 'beliefs' but feel sorry for you. I believe in a higher power to some degree too but don't let myself get hamstrung by the evil that is man made religion. Its a fools errand. No one knows what this being might be, if you need religion to soothe your mind then fine, have fun. If your way was the truth there would be far more people believing in it after 2000 years. Quite frankly, I would be more impressed with a god that created the world in the way its being proven to have been than with the method described in the Bible.

Luckily for the rest of the world, religion and people who believe in it the way you do will never be in a position to hold back knowledge and the advancement of our species by forcing ignorance on the rest of us to protect a book of truths and historical ignorance.

Even the people who wrote the Bible would probably consider someone like you to be ignorant because for all they knew the Bible was as accurate as possible regarding science. They wrote what they did because they didn't know any better.

I have to Agree with weller. They were writing what they believed to be true at the time based on their knowledge of our universe. I am sure that if they knew (and understood) what we know to be true today they would have a much different view on the existence of god. One thing about him/her that has personally always puzzled me was the destruction of sodom and gamorah... These days homosexuality is far more widespread than it was back then and certainly not isolated to one place. But we have yet to see some all knowing, all powerfull being raining down fire on san francisco or turning those who look back on it into a pillar of salt.

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by Belgarath

That would mean it's even older than we thought.

Oh my God, are you trying to tell me that the skull is 7 million and...and...two years old!?!?!

A little light humor. And yes, if the scull was found two years ago and at that time was estimated to be exactly 7 million years old, that would make it 7 million and two years old.

I know I didn't contribute much to the discussion, I was just in one of those moods. Please forgive me.

The only thing they have done is proven just how confused they are about the origens of man.

Originally posted by Ignorance Is Bliss
One thing about him/her that has personally always puzzled me was the destruction of sodom and gamorah... These days homosexuality is far more widespread than it was back then and certainly not isolated to one place. But we have yet to see some all knowing, all powerfull being raining down fire on san francisco or turning those who look back on it into a pillar of salt.

Just like Noah's flood, which is retold in various cultures who were unconnected, it was probably destroyed by a natural disaster of some type that few understood. It could have been a natural fire that got out of control like the one that burned Rome, etc.

But, like the old saying goes, history is written by the victorious...or in this case the survivors. They could put any spin on it they wanted to, though to be fair, they may have believed deeply that it was the hand of a god lacking any other explanation.

ever cross your mind maybe different people have the same stories worldwide because maybe it really happened? if a water flooded entire globe why is it strange people in different lands have the same story?
hmmmm.

no heated debate here, but observe and enjoy.
the evolution theory is gettin old, movin on bout two hundred years. by now i think there would be one fossil of any of the thousand species in a stage of transition, yet there int a shred. furthermore, a leg would become a bad leg before it would become a good wing. required of course that the bird evolved and wasnt created as is. di you see my reasoning? also, a stage in transition would prove to be a handicap, dont you agree? in fact mutations are always negative and sometimes fatal for the unfortunate animal born with one. u must concede that survival of the fittest would eliminate the transitioning animal. by now, there would definitely be a fossil to prove the theory, yet, there isnt.
aquired characteristics, NEVER inherited. natural selection occurs but only by preexisting characteristics in the DNA activated by environmental circumstance resulting in a VARIATION of the same species and not a transition in evolution.
now, the skull. the effects of bone growth while in certain environments differ. for example, in a damp environment you might find in a cave would cause the hips to be wider, the back to arch and a general deformity. i believe that the skull is probably from the ice age and the individual was a cave dweller and no more no less human than u or me.
heres one for u. the age of the planet. stop looking at evidence on the planet, it borderline circular reasoning i tell u! look at the sun. thermal dynamics. the sun is burning out. find the rate add it to the sun go back in time to where the sun is touching the closest planet and bingo! go back further and no earth! ten thousand years, no mercury, 20 million years, no earth. .03 per century. add that.
the moon. drifting away. find out about roussia's limit in physics. bring the earth as close to the moon as u can and boom!
the earth is cooling, from the pressure leaving through volcanoes and holes in the crust. 4.6 billion years? come on...

Originally posted by malice_devious
no heated debate here, but observe and enjoy.
the evolution theory is gettin old, movin on bout two hundred years.

And its been challenged for a large part of those two hundred years (assuming of cuorse that you aren't talking about evolution specifically, but rather Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection) and in those two hundred years not a single argument against it has prevailed

by now i think there would be one fossil of any of the thousand species in a stage of transition, yet there int a shred.

A complete and horrible falshood, which must have been intentional lying since this thread is about yet anohter 'missing link' discovered in 2002.

furthermore, a leg would become a bad leg before it would become a good wing. required of course that the bird evolved and wasnt created as is.

Dinosaur paleontology clearly shows the evolution of birds from small bipedal dinosaurs. The vast preponderance of evidence favours them as comming from that spcific group.

[quote[also, a stage in transition would prove to be a handicap, dont you agree?
Irrelevant, since evolutionary biology does not suggest that organisms begin to change with some far off and ultimate goal in mind.

in fact mutations are always negative

Absolutely and completely wrong. Mutations can result in greater fitness (aka greater reproductive success), this has been demonstrated.

u must concede that survival of the fittest would eliminate the transitioning animal.

The funniest thing is that this was a problem for some people in darwin's time, and now we have it presented again, as if its never been answered before.

aquired characteristics, NEVER inherited. natural selection occurs but only by preexisting characteristics in the DNA activated by environmental circumstance resulting in a VARIATION of the same species and not a transition in evolution.

Completely and totally wrong. I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could possibly think that characteristsics are acquired and that they actually can't be inheritited. How did you come to this patently erroneous conlusion?

now, the skull. the effects of bone growth while in certain environments differ. for example, in a damp environment you might find in a cave would cause the hips to be wider, the back to arch and a general deformity.
Nothing of the sort has ever been shown. Are you actually trying to dismiss fossil evidence as being 'old and diseased individuals'? These organisms don't show [iany signs of disease or environmental damage. They have different and unique strucutres.

i believe that the skull is probably from the ice age and the individual was a cave dweller and no more no less human than u or me.

news.bbc.co.uk...
The braincase is ape-like, but the face is short and the teeth, especially the canines, are small, more like those of a human. In particular, Toumai has brow-ridges (bony structures on the skull above the eye sockets) of a kind not seen outside the Homo genus (which includes modern humans).

It differences are so great that its not even in the same genus as modern humans. Its got the brain case of an ape, and you are going to pretend that thats because it 'lived in a cave during the ice age'? What did an animal in africa care about ice sheets in europe anyways? And where does it say its a cave dweller?

heres one for u. the age of the planet. stop looking at evidence on the planet, it borderline circular reasoning i tell u!

Uhm, no its not. Its not even close to 'circular reasoning' to determine the age of the earth by, er, determining the age of the earth. And why would all the radioisotpic methods give similar ages (the ones that have appropriate ranges) if the samples hadn't in fact been around that long?

look at the sun.

That would be a bad idea, since its bright. Yes yes, a poor joke, but I couldn't resist.

thermal dynamics.

Wow. This, I beleive, comes from Kent Hovind, a creationist loon. At least he makes a similar arguement. How about, instead of pretending that this happens, you state the rate at which the sun is burning and loosing mass and the current mass and what not. Show the data, because anytime anyone has stated this absurdity their data has either been completely wrong, or they'd just been lying.

the earth is cooling, from the pressure leaving through volcanoes and holes in the crust. 4.6 billion years? come on...

Wow. You've basically been making arguements (short of the hovind-esque arguement) from areound two hundred years ago. Lord Kelvin estimated a young-ish age for the earth by estimateing its heat loss and cooling. He, however, didn't know what radioactiviy was and how it can heat the earth, so he at least had an excuse. Whats your excuse for not verifying your arguments or researching the subject matter? Why is it that you didn't bother to look it up, but still felt that you could make statements about it?

[edit on 9-10-2004 by Nygdan]

ok what about all the skulls of giants that have been found all over the world???
giants are in the bible arent they???

all this skull does is forward the RELIGION of evolution which is the worship of MAN.


you need more faith to believe in evolution than to belive in Jesus!!!

you guys have great faith!!! but in the WRONG thing!!!

Originally posted by TruthStrgnrThanFiction
ok what about all the skulls of giants that have been found all over the world???

What giants? The only 'giants' i am familiar with have been photoshopped pics. What giants are you talking about?

all this skull does is forward the RELIGION of evolution which is the worship of MAN.

This skull does not forward anything, it is a peice of biological history. Evolution is certainly not a religion and it doesn't 'worship' man in the least. Its focus is not on man at all and it doesn't elevate man to any philosophical heights or mystic realms. If anything the bible worships man, it puts man at the center of creation, it makes man the reason for the form of the world after the fall, and man is the creation that god in the bible talks to, lays laws down for, and is generally concerned with. The bible is man centric, biology obviously isn't.

you need more faith to believe in evolution than to belive in Jesus!!!

Evidence is what allows people to accept evolution as having occured and as having occured at times thru a mechanism of natural selection and adaptation. Evidence and only evidence, thats how the theories were constructed in the first place. Faith is not invovled at all. Beleif in Jesus is thru faith, not evidence. Only someone without faith would need evidence to beleive in jesus.

you guys have great faith!!! but in the WRONG thing!!!

How is that a rebuttal to the evidence for evolution, or any of the questions brought up?
edited to add:

u2u from malice_devious
i wish; however, that u refuted the evidence with evidance rather than words. you made statements but proved nothing! define your reasons for dismissing the arguement based on evidance and then you will actually win a case.

Really? A guy who didn't present any information, didn't address any of the statements made, and couldn't even respond publically is complaining that someone else wasn't specific enough? You are completely unaware of the fossil record then? You have never heard of the arguements against saltationist theories of evolution? You've never seen genetic evidence? And you think that the sun is loosing signifcant amounts of mass from burning? I addressed your issues in as much detail as you brought them up. What, in particular, do you think needs more detail? Or do you not understand the issue enough to be able to ask that?

[edit on 10-10-2004 by Nygdan]

Well, until someone comes up with evidence of any creature in a transitional stage, ( and that includes dinosaurs turning into birds ), I'm gonna believe the alien interventionist theory.

This has been mentioned by Edgar Cayce & Alex Collier, and these guys have a track record of verifiable information that, to the casual investigator, seems quite wacky.

Also, Lawrence Gardner goes into a fair bit of detail about the alien hybridisation of our species.

You must admit, these alien scientists have come up with some amazing designs for the various flora and fauna on this particular planet.

Supposedly, the different human races were a result of different alien genetic teams working in different areas on the planet.

This does not deny God's part to play in this, as the all pervading life force, creative impulse and interconnecting web of the universe.

Originally posted by Ganesh2005

Well, until someone comes up with evidence of any creature in a transitional stage, ( and that includes dinosaurs turning into birds ), I'm gonna believe the alien interventionist theory.

And why aren't archaeopteryx, caudipteryx, microraptor, sinosauropteryx, sinornithosaurus, or epidendrosaurus valid evidence of that? For that matter why aren't hesperonis or confuicusornis evidence of the dino-bird transition?

Now, what is the evidence for alien intervention? What is the 'alien interventionist' theory?

Lawrence Gardner goes into a fair bit of detail about the alien hybridisation of our species.

Hows that?

You must admit, these alien scientists have come up with some amazing designs for the various flora and fauna on this particular planet.

No, I don't have to admit it. There is no evidence to support that idea.

Supposedly, the different human races were a result of different alien genetic teams working in different areas on the planet.

Unfortunately races don't exist, certainly not on the biological level, so that idea sort flys out the window.