World's oldest human remains claimed in Israel

Perhaps people will one day realize "modern man" has always existed since the creation.

Neanderthal man was probably the result of some sort of relatively minor genetic anomaly, such as can be seen in modern cases of dwarfism and midgetism. The dwarfs and midgets appear very different, much smaller physically, including proportional down-scaling in the case of midgets, and yet they can hold a phd, and are sexually compatible with normal people.

I would even argue that midgets are a good evidence against the conventional wisdom that cranial capacity is proportional to intelligence, because we have lots of midgets who have high intelligence and have become highly educated. Which makes it a modern evidence that a Neanderthal could have been just as intelligent as anyone alive today, regardless of cranial capacity.

It's probably something genetic that isn't even significantly different than race, color, or dwarfism today.

its kind of hard to dispute the traces from DNA which last I heard, proves mankind evolved out of eastern africa.
All this really means is that mankind left africa sooner than we thought.

QC-if weve existed since "creation", than so did our cousin species...the fact we had cousin species pretty much invalidates the bologna of all religions...would any "god" had made us in his image, yet made at least 2 other species as well that co-existed with us? i think not...its like saying dinosaurs never existed and its just a joke that god played on us..religion holds our species back, and ALWAYS has. We would have colonized space 100s of years ago if it werent for religious zealots (look at the dark ages where science was heressy). even the pope admitted that evolution is real...the difference is, he tried to say that religion and evolutionary science are not mutually exclusive.

Uh, Neanderthals had larger cranial capacity than modern humans...

yea and midgets dont have a smaller cranial capacity, only smaller bodies...which is why most of their heads look freakin huge on their bodies...but either way, my thinking is that the cranial capacity of any entity doesnt really matter. we could have a much smaller cranial capacity but more efficient neuron firing and be smarter than something with 5 times our brain size, simply because our brain can dot its "i"'s and cross its "t"'s better.

its kind of hard to dispute the traces from DNA which last I heard, proves mankind evolved out of eastern africa.
All this really means is that mankind left africa sooner than we thought.

QC-if weve existed since "creation", than so did our cousin species...the fact we had cousin species pretty much invalidates the bologna of all religions...would any "god" had made us in his image, yet made at least 2 other species as well that co-existed with us? i think not...

Have you...read...the Bible?

There are at least 4 different types of humanoid and psuedo-humanoid beings referred to as angels. Not to mention, by some interpretations, the possibility of hybridization between man and "angels" as seen in Genesis chapter 6, where the phrase "Sons of God" is the same as later used in the book of Job to refer to those beings known as "Angels".

The existence of other sentient, humanoid beings would therefore not invalidate the Bible in any case, but rather supports it.

actually i have studied the majority of major religions. they all have the same thing in common, a delusion that was founded by some schmuck with a desire for power and who quite frankly was too stupid to realize that it was a meteor streaking through the sky, and not some god in a chariot of fire. its understandable, because they were primitive with no scientific understanding. this is ESPECIALLY true of christianity, which btw is ONLY a non-extinct religion because a couple of people in power in alexandria and rome just happened to get good news and have successful campaigns after "praying" to air.
we do not have the same excuse in today's day and age.
and to add onto that, the lack of understanding and fear of death lead people to actually buy into that bs.

LuckyBrandon:

Nope.

By definition, a "Midget" is a small person who is proportional to a normal human.

A "Dwarf" is a small person with disproportioned body parts. i.e. "Big head and hips, but short arms and legs".

The smallest man alive is a midget, and he has an approximately proportioned size head.

Whereas the family you see on "little people," or whatever it's called, are "dwarves," because they have heads similar size to normal people, but have small bodies and especially small limbs.

Therefore a Dwarf is not the same thing as a midget. they are small for very different genetic reasons, and this is obvious from morphology. Not to mention, there is more than one type of dwarfism, and more than one type of midgetism. So if two dwarfs or midgets marry and they have different genetic types of the condition, the child could potentially have both forms of dwarfism and/or midgetism.

i was never debating the difference between dwarves and midgets...i could care less..
in a way i agree with you, because there are different flavors of every animal due to genetic variation and isolation, but guess what, that IS evolution. given what we know, god would have been a sloth like creature and our inbreeding and incesting made us into something that wasn't intended in the first place.

Perhaps people will one day realize "modern man" has always existed since the creation.

ninnyhammer

LB:

Come on now.

Anyone intelligent enough to compose any portion of the Bible would also be intelligent enough to know the difference between hearing an actual voice giving specific instruction from a burning bush, vs a meteor.

You do realize they knew what meteors were in the Bible, and they knew meteors and stars were not Gods too? As evidenced by the book of Jude, they also knew the difference between "fixed" stars as opposed to "wandering stars," which is what we call planets and comets in modern times. They just didn't have as precise of terminology as we use today. Even our own terminology on planets has been changed again in the past several years.

The Jews did not worship objects in the sky, in fact, it was specifically forbidden in the Torah, and the old testament prophets are often seen rebuking any sect who did something like that.

Try again dude. You can start by actually reading the text before you try to argue against it from ignorance.

I really hope this isn't some kind of Piltdownian hoax...this is a huge find if true.

ignorance is the belief that some higher being made everything. we can make a lab out of an island and watch adaptation, and in turn evolution, occur over a short time. this cant be said of ANY religion.

and btw, i have a preacher father in law, trust me, i know the bs he spits well, and all religious people can ever do when confronted with reproduceable fact is to say something like "god wanted it that way", which is a cop out by far. my example of the meteor was actually in reference to Thor's chariot. And btw, if you read closer, you'll find that books in the bible also reference god coming down in a fireball...i don't think ive ever seen an exception to that in any religion. there is always some small reference...

@ratfish-i completely agree, it will turn what we know upside down and cause a lot more research to be done :)

the difference is, he tried to say that religion and evolutionary science are not mutually exclusive.

Imagine an omnipotent being who wished to create a Universe(s), which followed Laws, Laws knowable by lesser minds,. These Chowder Heads have no problem with E=MC^2, or the square of the length of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides, do they?

Assuming one can wrapped their mind around the idea of an omnipotent being, it shouldn't be too difficult to imagine this putative Great Maker creating a Universe where life evolves from the simple to the complex. Can it?

Willful ignorance is a sin in any religion.

its kind of hard to dispute the traces from DNA which last I heard, proves mankind evolved out of eastern africa.
All this really means is that mankind left africa sooner than we thought.

This fossil no longer jives with that time scale for several reasons.

1) It now pre-dates the oldest african fossils by a factor of at least 200%. Since you've never foudn an african fossile anywhere near this old,nevermind older, you can no longer assume or hypothesize modern man came from Africa. Even within it's own dating regime, the standard theory of "human migration" is now directly contradicted by it's own evidence.

2) The conventional explanation of what happened to Neanderthals is that "modern humans" showed up at just the right time to out-compete them, or out breed them, or interbreed with them. Now that the actual fossil evidence says modern humans were there twice as early, that theory is no longer internally consistent either.

the difference is, he tried to say that religion and evolutionary science are not mutually exclusive.

Imagine an omnipotent being who wished to create a Universe(s), which followed Laws, which are knowable by lesser minds,. These Chowder Heads have no problem with E=MC^2, or the square of the length of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides, do they?

Assuming one can wrapped their mind around the idea of an omnipotent being, it shouldn't be too difficult to imagine this putative Great Maker creating a Universe where life evolves from the simple to the complex. Can it?

Willful ignorance is a sin in any religion.

that i can agree with...part of my comment that was cut out was to say that I don't discount there could have been something that snapped its fingers, made the big bang (or expansion) occur, which in turn caused all else to play out.
such a being would likely care of us as much as a grain of sand though

Gopher said the first teeth were discovered in 2006 but he and his team waited until they had several samples, then conducted years of testing, using a variety of dating methods, before publishing their findings.

Fine. Now, after publication, lets hope that other scientists will independently scrutinize the finds. Four eyes see more than two, you know.

Perhaps people will one day realize "modern man" has always existed since the creation.

Perhaps one day you will realize that the quantity of physical evidence that directly contradicts all of your irrational beliefs and the 2000 year old document that you base them on could fill a thousand libraries and museums from floor to ceiling...

Perhaps one day you will realize that your understanding of the breadth and depth of human knowledge is akin to a child's understanding of the depth of the ocean when looking at the waves on the surface...

such a being would likely care of us as much as a grain of sand though

what is your rational basis for that assumption?

If God is all powerful and intelligent, etc, and if he is also rational, then why would he waste his time by making something he doesn't care about?

Quantum Conundrum, I respect peoples religious beliefs they are just that BELIEFS. They have NOTHING to do with science unless there can be some evidence to prove ones ideas especially concerning gods and their supposed hand in creation of which there is none. Furthermore your confusion about humans origins can be summed up as follows; the dating of a the use of the cave has it been proven? Was the cave used exactly 250 000 years ago?

the level of scholarship in these online comment forums never ceases to amaze me.

Anyhow if you want to bring up gods then what proof do you have of that? Your first assumption is that god exists, which is unproven, the second is that a supernatural creature created humans which is also unproven. Finally even if the cave was in use and modern humans existed before what we currently understand to be true it still casts no doubt on evolution only the timeline of said evolution nor prove any assumptions about supernatural creatures.

Finally was this part of the article read?
"Digging continues at the cave, the university said, with researchers hoping to "uncover additional finds that will enable them to confirm the findings published up to now and to enhance our understanding of the evolution of mankind, and especially the appearance of modern man."
NOtice the "enable them to confirm." Which in plain english states that the university itself considers their findings intriguing but non-conformational of their theory.

Quantum Conundrum is pretty obviously a troll and I don't know why you guys are continuing to feed him...

that i can agree with...part of my comment that was cut out was to say that I don't discount there could have been something that snapped its fingers, made the big bang (or expansion) occur, which in turn caused all else to play out.
such a being would likely care of us as much as a grain of sand though

Sorry, wasn't arguing with you. Just using your statement to further the point.

(sigh)

...its understandable, because they were primitive with no scientific understanding. this is ESPECIALLY true of christianity, which btw is ONLY a non-extinct religion because a couple of people in power in alexandria and rome just happened to get good news and have successful campaigns after "praying" to air.

You forgot to mention Islam, didn't you, in the religions lucky enough to not be extinct?

The only reason they still exist are:
1) By geographical fortune, their camel herds just happened to be sitting on top of the civilized world's lifeblood, oil
2) Unlike Christianity, which mainly grew by persuasion, Muslims offered three choices once they gained power: a) convert, b) live as second class citizens and pay a hefty tax, c) die.

They still live by those rules and now, armed with several trillion extorted from the West, want to drag us back to the 7th century where they still reside.

As an atheist, if I had to choose which to live under, Islam would be a distant last.

2) Unlike Christianity, which mainly grew by persuasion, Muslims offered three choices once they gained power: a) convert, b) live as second class citizens and pay a hefty tax, c) die.

The moment Christians were in a similar position they started doing the same thing (though they quickly started dropping the "be a second class citizen" option). Islam just happened to have military power earlier in its lifetime.

Lol, the first guy who commented is clearly an idiot. Just another insecure guy with an inferiority complex that uses religion to assert his intellectual superiority despite not being intellectual, as well as using religion to overcome personal feelings of inferiority by putting himself and therefor his race on a pedestal. A homocentric idea of intellectual superiority. Like all absolutists if you really delve into their minds, the entire human race is structured on social pyramids, with the absolutist in question always somehow making it on top. The worst monopolies are run by men like this. Same with dictators and mass suicidal cult leaders. When you really get down to it, its impossible to say anything that gets through so someone like this. Immune to reason, true ignorance by definition. His own distaste for the society around him and frustration towards his real life uselessness are both the cause and result of this sad internalized cycle.

Lol, the first guy who commented is clearly an idiot. Just another insecure guy with an inferiority complex that uses religion to assert his intellectual superiority despite not being intellectual, as well as using religion to overcome personal feelings of inferiority by putting himself and therefor his race on a pedestal. A homocentric idea of intellectual superiority. Like all absolutists if you really delve into their minds, the entire human race is structured on social pyramids, with the absolutist in question always somehow making it on top. The worst monopolies are run by men like this. Same with dictators and mass suicidal cult leaders. When you really get down to it, its impossible to say anything that gets through so someone like this. Immune to reason, true ignorance by definition. His own distaste for the society around him and frustration towards his real life uselessness are both the cause and result of this sad internalized cycle.

Can we say ironic?

Gee and how far is Israel exactly from Africa? The notion that the earliest remains so far have been found in Israel seems more to bolster the out of Africa theory rather than undermine it. The fact that no earlier have been found, does not mean no earlier remains will ever be found, nor does it mean earlier remains were ever fossilized.

Gee and how far is Israel exactly from Africa?

From where we were previously thought to have evolved? About 2,500 miles "on foot".

The notion that the earliest remains so far have been found in Israel seems more to bolster the out of Africa theory rather than undermine it.

How so?

The fact that no earlier have been found, does not mean no earlier remains will ever be found, nor does it mean earlier remains were ever fossilized.

True, but do we base our science on what we might find, or what is possible rather than on the facts at hand?

Soooooo, how do you think they were able to date the teeth. Do you think they were able to test the teeth themself? If they are just going by the layers that the teeth were found then I would be less impress with their conclusion.

"testing of stalagmites, stalactites and other material found in a cave east of Tel Aviv indicates that eight teeth uncovered there could be the earliest traces so far of our species."

How are they getting these figures for the age of the teeth? Carbon dating (of charcoal in cave) is not accurate for anything that old (400,000 yrs) is it? Aren't they assuming that the 400,000 years worth of dripstones formed AFTER the teeth were deposited in the cave, or, were the teeth found inbeded in the dripstones? In other words how do they know that the teeth are as old or older than the dripstones?

For example, the fact that material(calcium carbonate and sediment) is flowing into the cave over time would seem to open up the possibility that the teeth may have originated outside of the cave, possibly from a nearby burial site where the teeth could have, through natural processes, been transported to and finally deposited in the cave itself. Look for nearby grave sites with missing teeth?

yes, i see 400,000 years ago, but was he jewish?

Anyone intelligent enough to compose any portion of the Bible would also be intelligent enough to know the difference between hearing an actual voice giving specific instruction from a burning bush, vs a meteor.

I would hope so, since we are now comparing apples and oranges. But would they know the difference between a meteor and a flaming sky chariot? Also, it is HIGHLY probable someone just lied about the bush. You do realize that believing this absolute nonsense means we should believe all the other ridiculous tales from around the world, right? All other holy books, and embellished stories. So good, Zeus was real after all, so says the texts. Even talking about the bible like it's not a fairytale makes me want to run down the street shaking people, screaming "How can you believe this crap?!" I feel like I'm in a twilight zone episode with nut jobs.

From where we were previously thought to have evolved? About 2,500 miles "on foot".

So assuming a child of ten years old walks .68 miles per day with his family, the individual would arrive 2,500 miles away in ten years at an age of 20. This sounds completely plausible since they hadn't perfected agriculture and thus probably covered much more than .68 miles per day while foraging and hunting. And this is assuming covering the 2,500 miles in one generation, ignoring children being born.

Have you...read...the Bible?

There are at least 4 different types of humanoid and psuedo-humanoid beings referred to as angels. Not to mention, by some interpretations, the possibility of hybridization between man and "angels" as seen in Genesis chapter 6, where the phrase "Sons of God" is the same as later used in the book of Job to refer to those beings known as "Angels".

The existence of other sentient, humanoid beings would therefore not invalidate the Bible in any case, but rather supports it.

lolololollolol.. get off this site you are embarrassing yourself.

So assuming a child of ten years old walks .68 miles per day with his family, the individual would arrive 2,500 miles away in ten years at an age of 20. This sounds completely plausible since they hadn't perfected agriculture and thus probably covered much more than .68 miles per day while foraging and hunting. And this is assuming covering the 2,500 miles in one generation, ignoring children being born.

People tend not to walk in straight lines when they don't know where they are going or why. Even in the colonial period when you had all the exploring mariners on ships with the use of sextants and star charts, they mostly still hugged the coast. The first exception being Columbus, and that only worked "by chance" because the earth was actually about twice as big as he figured it to be...

Even with very primitive technologies, such as stick and stone tools, and skin/fur clothing and tents, you'd need to carry all of your belongings with you...for 2500 miles.

People tend not to walk in straight lines when they don't know where they are going or why. Even in the colonial period when you had all the exploring mariners on ships with the use of sextants and star charts, they mostly still hugged the coast. The first exception being Columbus, and that only worked "by chance" because the earth was actually about twice as big as he figured it to be...

Even with very primitive technologies, such as stick and stone tools, and skin/fur clothing and tents, you'd need to carry all of your belongings with you...for 2500 miles.

Completely plausible. They likely walked more than .68 miles per day since I can walk that around my apartment in a day. And I assumed a single individual making the trip. What about 3 or 4 generations? hundreds or thousands of individuals radiating out in all directions? 2,500 miles is nothing for a population.

People were nomadic up until the last 15-20,000 years, often travelling 10 or 15 kms in a day with children. Everything was carried on their backs, regardless. Not to mention yes people did follow bodies of water, shorelines, as well as good weather, the rising or setting sun, and even the stars. Even in the modern day, other animals like caribou for example often change migratory patterns by thousands of km in a single year in response to climate change. They may not be travelling in straight lines, but it’s not zig zags either.

No way is anyone claiming that man traveled from Africa to Israel in a single year. It seems unlikely to me that it wouldn't happen. After all, prior to man leaving Africa and migrating to Europe, Europe was already populated by Neanderthals which are also native to Africa, along with the rest of the hominids. Whether we are native to Africa is not at question, when we left it is.

I agree with trekgeek1, completely plausible.

You all will note that, suddenly, QC has become completely uncritical of the dating of these remains, or the methods by which those dates were obtained, which is quite surprizing, since, on numerous previous occasions, he has refuted the reliability, or even the efficacy of any and all dating methods.

Either dispute these dates, or formally retract every prior instance of dating dispute, quaint "conundrum".

Additionally, the generations listed in Genesis, the One True Word of your Lord God, does not permit of the creation of _any_ "kind" of human much more than four to five thousand years ago.

You can't have your Creation and eat it, too.

2) Unlike Christianity, which mainly grew by persuasion, Muslims offered three choices once they gained power: a) convert, b) live as second class citizens and pay a hefty tax, c) die.

The moment Christians were in a similar position they started doing the same thing (though they quickly started dropping the "be a second class citizen" option). Islam just happened to have military power earlier in its lifetime.

But right now, at this particular moment, which religion is mostly benevolent and which mostly confrontational, and often violent?

I've been in too many debates where liberals defend the horror that Islam is inflicting all over the world today with the unbelievably inane and insane comparison to what the Christians did in the Crusades a thousand years ago.

Yes, Georgie, they are both the deformed abortions of the incestuous relations between cousin-humpers, and have got a long-standing tag-team match of atrocity going on.

Your best bet is to defend neither, and that way, you won't be bothered by any debates with pesky liberals, even if you do get taken to task by your own kind for not "defending the faith". At least you could "split the difference" in the abuse game, eh?

There are at least 4 different types of humanoid and psuedo-humanoid beings referred to as angels. Not to mention, by some interpretations, the possibility of hybridization between man and "angels" as seen in Genesis chapter 6, where the phrase "Sons of God" is the same as later used in the book of Job to refer to those beings known as "Angels".

In a different thread QC pleaded his achievement of educating himself despite his underprivileged surroundings and how it was frustrating for him trying to carry out an 'intelligent' conversation with his uneducated relatives and friends.

With statements like the above, he was clearly disingenuous in his boasts.

I think the most interesting question this find raises is that if Homo Sapiens lived amongst numerous other relatives, how is it that we're the only species left? That seems to suggest we had something going for us from very early on. This could detract a bit from the idea of the "great leap forward".

@QC, Mr. "im so educated" and all the other garbage you speak...it seems strange for how "smart" clam, you seem to be incapable of differentiating "FACT" from "opinion"...i've seen how you operate...stating facts to set your opinion of which you are convinced to be truth...i dont clam to be wrong or right,and im not saying you are wrong or right..but anyone with a brain that reads your garbage day after day can be sure of one thing...and thats your sure of everything you say...and i think many of us find it to be quite comical. i gave you the benefit of the doubt...and then..you said the word.."""CREATION"""..any academic with a career would hold their toung, because anacadmic how has an IQ knows, in the world of science there are no scientific basis for your claims. so go ahead and pick this post a part, correct me of my flaws in thought, and grammatical errors, and all the inaccuracies in my claims wallow in your truth, because it's yours and yours alone...ill go read bible now:)

Perhaps people will one day realize "the tooth fairy" has always existed since the creation.
This is the proof. Just like QC said 4 different types of humanoid beings and the tooth fairy must be one of them.
I am escaped with the skin of my teeth(and hid them in a cave).
-Bible (Old Testament)
Job19:20.
See further proof.

I love reading these boards because it's deliciously funny. Some may say, you can't put religion and science together. Well, that's true. Except for when religion claims it's self as truth based on assumptions and then states it self as scientific fact. Science could simply be the aspect of human reason that separates myth from fact. Science is fact(more or less), if it can't be proven then it isn't science and falls back into philosophy(faith/belief) what ever you want to call it. If something can be proven then it's scientific fact that it can be proven So, either way. Science is always fact that never claims anything. It's completely unbiased(at it's basic level).

@Shootist:

Assuming one can wrapped their mind around the idea of an omnipotent being, it shouldn't be too difficult to imagine this putative Great Maker creating a Universe where life evolves from the simple to the complex. Can it?

It actually can, especially if that Omnipotent being actually told you exactly that He created everything in just six days. Then there' absolutely no space for manoeuvre to incorporate the atheistic evolutionary theory. Those theistic evolutionists who are compromising on what stands quite clearly in the bible have been cowed and cajoled into submitting to that false god. They are taking what is outside of the bible, making that their authority on the creation and then bringing it back to others and telling them they are idiots not to accept the "scientific knowledge" of the atheists.
Yet the bible hold true with every new discovery found in nature. Take a look at what's happening in astronomy where just about every new observation is debunking BB

@Kevinrtrs:

"Take a look at what's happening in astronomy where just about every new observation is debunking BB"

Will you please cite some examples of this debunking of BB.

Can human being come into existence through evolution? Chances are too less for that to happen according to the fundamental postulate of statistical mechanics. I would like to hear if anybody have a different view.

Can human being come into existence through evolution? Chances are too less for that to happen according to the fundamental postulate of statistical mechanics. I would like to hear if anybody have a different view.

No, you wouldn't sockpuppet. You're just trolling.

Can human being come into existence through evolution? Chances are too less for that to happen according to the fundamental postulate of statistical mechanics. I would like to hear if anybody have a different view.

Have you not heard of the Chaos Theory? I have heard your argument before. Though basing your claims off of chances are simply unproven assumptions.

Take a look at what's happening in astronomy where just about every new observation is debunking BB

Only in your warped mind.

Can you please explain what Chaos Theory has to say?

@VeryEvilDudeofDarkness:
I looked at the video you send via PM, but couldn't find a reason to explain away the fundamental postulate of statistical mechanics. The probability of the origin of a human gene through random process alone is too slim. First of all you need the right chemical alone right in front of you. The processes has take place one after the other in a particular sequence. We find it very hard to do it on a super computer. Difficult to believe such a theory.

@VeryEvilDudeofDarkness:
I looked at the video you send via PM, but couldn't find a reason to explain away the fundamental postulate of statistical mechanics. The probability of the origin of a human gene through random process alone is too slim. First of all you need the right chemical alone right in front of you. The processes has take place one after the other in a particular sequence. We find it very hard to do it on a super computer. Difficult to believe such a theory.

So what are you basing your probability on then? Their is a flaw in the way your process logic. So your basically saying, since it's to slim it can't be falsifiable or it's illogical. I'm sorry, that doesn't work with me.

@VeryEvilDudeofDarkness:

So what are you basing your probability on then?

For a try let us base it say on the Big Bang model for the creation of universe. Now can this model predict the availability of required chemicals that can build up life at any point of time. It has to be those right combination. Then there must be some processes that will mix these chemicals in the right order. Can this happen right after the availability of those chemicals. Then these processes with its appropriate conditions has to remain for long enough to bring forth human being to existence and they must come in pairs- male and female, as we see them today.

Have you...read...the Bible?

There are at least 4 different types of humanoid and psuedo-humanoid beings referred to as angels.

Have you?

I haven't seen any evidence of neanderthals wiping out whole cities with a word in the fossil record.

Unlike Christianity, which mainly grew by persuasion, Muslims offered three choices once they gained power: a) convert, b) live as second class citizens and pay a hefty tax, c) die.

They learned that trick from the Christians, who learned it from the Jews. The three are more alike than you'd care to admit. We simply had our enlightenment after they did, and for a longer period of time without direct influence of the church thanks to Habeas Corpus and the division of the Protestants from the Catholics.

1 comment by someone who "uses the Flintstone's cartoon as a documentary" (comment from a comedian Lewis Black not related to this article) and the comment section becomes a quagmire of comments from people proving how little the mind of even "modern man" can understand the mind of a god and little to do with the article itself.

The article says they found only 8 teeth in layers dating from 200,000 to 400,000 yrs. ago. A group or community only loosing 1 tooth every 50,000 yrs. or so means they ad a great dental plan or weren't fighting over religion. I'm sure its extremely difficult to find 1 but with the caves in use for about 250,000 years wouldn't the layers be dotted with them? They look in quite good shape from the picture but are there any duplicates or difference in sizes to sow they came from more then 1 individual? Or different wear patterns from their diets?

see "Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end" here at PhysOrg.com Perhaps that'll do some modern-day quantum-convincing?

tk1

Do you think they were able to test the teeth themself?

No. Too old for C14 and not enough material to do potassium-argon. So it has to be indirect which almost certainly would entail testing the age of material in the same layer or trapping the layer between two testable layers.

Argon

Carbon dating (of charcoal in cave) is not accurate for anything that old (400,000 yrs) is it?

No. Nor is it usable if the cave is limestone. Old carbon contaminates new carbon.

Ethelred

Can human being come into existence through evolution?

Yes.

Chances are too less for that to happen according to the fundamental postulate of statistical mechanics.

Every shuffle of a deck of cards produces a sequence that is impossible by that standard. To put it another way YOU are assuming that WE are human beings had to come into existence. We are not a requirement of life. Just one of many possible results. It could have been a dinosaur that wrote exactly what you except in a different language.

I would like to hear if anybody have a different view.

Pretty much everybody here that isn't a fundamentalist. And they don't understand statistics any better then you do.

Ethelred

So assuming a child of ten years old walks .68 miles per day with his family, the individual would arrive 2,500 miles away in ten years at an age of 20. This sounds completely plausible since they hadn't perfected agriculture and thus probably covered much more than .68 miles per day while foraging and hunting. And this is assuming covering the 2,500 miles in one generation, ignoring children being born.

OK I'll play that game. Using your own logic then people could have originated Russia, or Europe too. Both of which are in the 2,500 mile range. You just cut the legs out from underneath your own argument...

I've been in too many debates where liberals defend the horror that Islam is inflicting all over the world today with the unbelievably inane and insane comparison to what the Christians did in the Crusades a thousand years ago. -- geokstr

Or what the Christians did to Native Americans with smallpox blankets a century ago, or what the Nazi Christians did to the Jews 70 years ago, or what the Christian Serbs did to the Kosovo Muslims a decade ago? Surely you wouldn't gloss over important parts of history to strengthen a weak argument?

No way is anyone claiming that man traveled from Africa to Israel in a single year

Quit assuming things into your argument.

You're making two unfounded assumptions:

1. That the man traveled any significant distance at all.

2. That if he did travel it must have been from Africa.

Neither of those two assumptions is evidence based.

Yes, Georgie, they are both the deformed abortions of the incestuous relations between cousin-humpers, and have got a long-standing tag-team match of atrocity going on.

Your best bet is to defend neither, and that way, you won't be bothered by any debates with pesky liberals, even if you do get taken to task by your own kind for not "defending the faith". At least you could "split the difference" in the abuse game, eh?

I'm an atheist, and my entire concern with religion right now is which one is by far the most dangerous to human civilization in the present. If you say that both are, then you are insane, or a leftling, but I repeat myself.

Of course, all religions over their lifetimes have good and bad periods. But at this moment, it is evident to any thinking being which is more a threat to our way of life in the West.

Or do you want to go back to the 7th century - no SUVs, no new CO2 sources, no need for oil, et al? Maybe that explains it.

No, you wouldn't sockpuppet. You're just trolling.

Just because he doesn't know what he is talking that does not constitute proof of either sockpuppetry or trolling. 25 percent of Americans are that ignorant. So there are a LOT of candidates for that post not just people that were already here.

Fundamentalists show up every time there is a major item with evolution. Some are new and some are the exact same actively ignorant regulars.

Don't piss on the newbies before trying reason. Ignorance is curable. So are bad manners.

Ethelred

1/3

Can you please explain what Chaos Theory has to say?

He is talking about non-linear equations in this case. Take life back a 10 million years and then run it forward again. You won't get the same results. Maybe you will still get a technological species but it not from the chimp-gorilla-human line but instead from the orangutan line. More likely you wouldn't get any technological species. Just because we exist it doesn't mean that we had to exist.

For a try let us base it say on the Big Bang model for the creation of universe.

Not needed for evolution to proceed. It is a process of LIFE. So it can't start until there is life.

Now can this model predict the availability of required chemicals that can build up life at any point of time.

Yes. Somebody got a Nobel and somebody else that should have got was ignored but those two or three people figured out how matter evolved from subatomic particles up to uranium.

More

2/3

It has to be those right combination.

No. It has to have ANY combination of matter that can lead to a self-reproducing molecule. Or even something that isn't a molecule as we know it. Its the self-reproduction that is needed for evolution in the biological sense.

Then there must be some processes that will mix these chemicals in the right order

No. Order isn't important. They just have to come together in ANY order.

Can this happen right after the availability of those chemicals.

Why not? If the physical laws allow it then there is no reason it can't happen.

Then these processes with its appropriate conditions has to remain for long enough to bring forth human being

Nope. Humans are needed for evolution to be real. You are laboring under the impression that the Universe needs you. It doesn't.

More

the generations listed in Genesis, the One True Word of your Lord God, does not permit of the creation of _any_ "kind" of human much more than four to five thousand years ago.

You can't have your Creation and eat it, too.

Eh, ~6,760 years, give or take a generation or two, by my personal calculations. There are two gaps that are hard to pin down exactly, but I don't "think" they are any longer than a few generations, given context.

This article interests me primarily because the findings, contradicts the standard theory, not because of the manner in which they contradict the standard theory. I still hold to my position of having no faith in the reliability of the presumptuous dating methods employed.

It's just that this site is further evidence that the historians and atheists, such as yourselves, really have no clue what you're talking about. You're just making all this crap up as you go along, and yet anyone who disagrees "must" be an idiot.

3/3

and they must come in pairs- male and female, as we see them today.

No. Neither pairs nor as we see them today. You really need to read up on this. You are arguing from YOUR ignorance. That is NOT an insult. You can repair ignorance. Remaining ignorant is up to you. You can be actively ignorant like Keven and OC or you can actually learn about chemistry, biology, and how life works. YOU are not important to the process of evolution. Neither is the human race. It is just a process. There is no goal to create humans.

And in any case why believe a book written so long ago that can't even keep the same order of creation in Genesis two that is in Genesis one. Two chapters in and its already contradicting itself and NEITHER match the physical evidence.

Ethelred

I still hold to my position of having no faith in the reliability of the presumptuous dating methods employed.

This is NOT an attack QC, but rather an honest question. Are there any methods of dating that you'd be willing to accept?

Thank you Ethelred for writing that much. It was very helpful. You explain things clearly. I will take the liberty to know more from you through private messages. Please don't ignore.

I'm an atheist, and my entire concern with religion right now is which one is by far the most dangerous to human civilization in the present. If you say that both are, then you are insane, or a leftling, but I repeat myself.

What's the difference between Al Quaeda and the RAF?
Nothing other than the church they worship at.

Of course, all religions over their lifetimes have good and bad periods. But at this moment, it is evident to any thinking being which is more a threat to our way of life in the West.

The threat to the west is theocracy, regardless of the faith that attempts it. Simply look at the Texas Board of Education.

Or do you want to go back to the 7th century - no SUVs, no new CO2 sources, no need for oil, et al? Maybe that explains it.

Nah I'd rather move from the 19th into the 21st and use nuclear.

It's just that this site is further evidence that the historians and atheists...

QC how dumb are you?

Lots of discussion here about the implications of this "discovery," but very little about the validity of it - which would seem to be in order before taking off on any tangents. This article and early article regarding "butchering of meat" - offer little information about the dating techniques used. It is implied that the dating was extrapolated from surroundings rather than the actual teeth - which makes all of the "conclusions" very unscientific speculation. Given that there are no other supporting data for modern humans in Israel at this time - the data appears as an outlier point at best, and requires such claims to be far better supported. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" - and there is none here.

I'm an atheist, and my entire concern with religion right now is which one is by far the most dangerous to human civilization in the present. If you say that both are, then you are insane, or a leftling, but I repeat myself.

Of course, all religions over their lifetimes have good and bad periods. But at this moment, it is evident to any thinking being which is more a threat to our way of life in the West.

Or do you want to go back to the 7th century - no SUVs, no new CO2 sources, no need for oil, et al? Maybe that explains it.

Maybe you should look at a non-Abrahamic religions then. One that does not try to convert you to their faith and believes that your god is on the same level as theirs then? Try Hinduism maybe?

I think it is the lack of education and knowledge of others that makes a population dangerous. The inherent belief that others are different from you and that they are out to get you.

1) It now pre-dates the oldest african fossils by a factor of at least 200%. Since you've never foudn an african fossile anywhere near this old,nevermind older, you can no longer assume or hypothesize modern man came from Africa. Even within it's own dating regime, the standard theory of "human migration" is now directly contradicted by it's own evidence.

I'll just point out how obviously wrong this statement is. The oldest which African fossils? Any? Hominid? Humanoid? Human? How easy is it to make a fossil? How close is Israel to Africa? You don't get to pick JUST this fossil and ignore the rest there, cherry picker.

I would advise no one jump the gun on preliminary dating findings from an initial release.

What does a religious troll use for fuel?
Pe-TROLL-eum!

There has been a lot of discussion of religion here, most of it from Christians....about a discovery in Israel by Jewish scientists. Never forget that Jesus was born and died and was buried in the Orthodox Jewish tradition. Prof Gaby Barkai from Tel Aviv University has said that on worldwide television. There is no real place for religious discussion about this, the teeth are here, are real, and dated meticulously individually and found to be human. Now which human of our varied ancestral tree has not been told to us yet.
My question however is why!? Why has man been around so long and did so little, and then suddenly progressed in the last ten thousand years, with the vast majority of the progress on an exponential curve arising from the 'noise' about two to three thousand years ago after some false starts. Written records go back about ten thousand years ago to the Black Sea Lake and the Persian Gulf Lake before both were drowned by the sea.

Written records go back about ten thousand years ago to the Black Sea Lake and the Persian Gulf Lake before both were drowned by the sea.

They might be written, but they certainly were not written 10,000 years ago. Humans have this phenominal population record that we're aware of.

We tend to stay fairly stagnant, then a technology, culture or process that allows us to multiply and survive pushes population up exponentially in a rather short geological timescale. The discovery or agriculture and animal domestication brought us from thousands to million, urbanization brought us from millions to tens of millions, and on and on and on.

We'll probably crown trillions once we start colonizing other planets.

This fossil no longer jives with that time scale for several reasons.

You realize, of course, this also no longer jives with the whole 6000 year old earth either.

i wonder how much taxonomic lumping when into this interpretation...

@StandingBear,

Largely agreed, but a couple of problems- there is no indication in the article as to how the dating was accomplished. It would have to be meticulously performed, indeed, given the circumstances.
By 10,000 years old, are you referring to the cuneiform script of Sumer?

Lastly, a few people have wondered regarding taxonomy. In the article, it states that these teeth are(paraphrasing) morphologically identical to those of modern humans, ie, Homo sapiens.

400,000 years old doesn't prove or disprove any of the current understanding of the Tree, but it does make it necessary(if the dating and ID stand) to make a few adjustments -which are long overdue, anyway, as there is plenty of anomalous material out there.

such a being would likely care of us as much as a grain of sand though

what is your rational basis for that assumption?

If God is all powerful and intelligent, etc, and if he is also rational, then why would he waste his time by making something he doesn't care about?

Why not? Who says god cares? answer: people who wrote and edited and rewrote bible that's who.

I of course assumed the unassumable by making assumption of supreme creator the only evidence of which is some text in books that could as easily have been written by the Brothers Grimm.

People tend not to walk in straight lines when they don't know where they are going or why. Even in the colonial period when you had all the exploring mariners on ships with the use of sextants and star charts, they mostly still hugged the coast.

Maybe they saw a star in the east. And the east *coast* of Africa runs right up the Red Sea. Can anyone in the class give me the modern name of a region close to the north end of the Red Sea?

I don't give a hoot about which model best describes the more recent stage of human evolution beyond curiosity. It has little effect on the timeline of hominid evolution. But a lot of statements are being made with no consideration of alternatives - even in the article.

Not having found older modern human fossils might have been complicated by the fact that much of North Africa had lots of predators and scavengers, low populations spread out over distances and are, in modern times, covered with and scoured by sand and patrolled by militants, bandits and evil desert spirits. If H. sapiens got it's finishing touches in North Africa it could have got to Israel well before going south (that North coast again. Likewise an out of India scenario could have left few fossils as they beach-combed their way west(ish).

I want more research done before I start calling somewhere the point of origin of modern Homos.

I want more research done before I start calling somewhere the point of origin of modern Homos.

You made me inhale my tea. My good spirits thank you, but my sofa does not...

They still need to prove the tooth have not been buried in the 400 000 old layer, and should also make a strong case about how human looking the tooth are.
The finding would be less sexy if it was a group of homo sapiens close predecessor, with already nearly human looking teeth, who happened to have migrated up to Israel.
There is reasonable theories about humanoids regularly leaning Africa to populate Europe and Asia.

1/6

From Agile_Mathew's PM. - I don't feel like writing for just one person when it is not actually personal.

Can you please explain from a fundamental stand point (1) What is meant by life?

Quick answer, NO.

There is no universally accepted definition. Some people think that viruses don't count as life. A decent working definition:
Life is a set of chemicals and processes, that uses energy and resources from outside the set to make close duplicates of the set that are capable of doing the same. This might even count viruses. I am not happy with this definition because I don't think that life it limited to chemical processes.

I say close duplicates because nothing that we call life makes exact duplicates all the time. In the long run exact duplication is a dead end. Which leads to the second question.

More

2/6

(2) What is the essence of evolution?

Inexact duplication with selection by some external process. The environment is the source of selection for life on Earth. It could be by intellect and in the future humans will be able to choose or even design the changes in the duplication. I don't see any need to claim an intelligence is responsible for the changes we see in life on Earth at present, except in the case of domesticated animals.

ID, the Intelligent Design idea is an attempt to claim that there are changes in life that MUST have had an intelligence involved. I have yet to see an example where anyone has give conclusive evidence to support this idea. I have seen some rather bad claims by Dr. Behe. Maybe somewhere he has done so but it sure isn't in the first part of Darwin's Black Box. I didn't finish it because he made the same mistakes chapter after chapter and gave ample evidence that he didn't want to know how things could have evolved by natural selection.

More

3/6

Natural Selection, which includes sexual selection by my thinking, is the process of life getting killed or failing to reproduce due to environmental hazard or because the opposite sex thinks it's hot to have some odd attribute.

We know that the genome of all species or lines of descent, is subject to mutation. There are different levels of mutation that are seen in nature. Single point substitution is the minimum but large sections of the genome can be duplicated, lost, garbled, replaced, swapped or even infiltrated by viruses. Duplication is the most interesting because a duplicate gene allows there to be a fully functioning original and another copy that is free to change without losing an important chemical. Such changes can be good bad or indifferent. Many are bad, many have little or no effect but a few can improve the chances of reproduction and that is where the selection process works.

More

4/6

A change that isn't fit for the environment or the potential mates will be Selected OUT. Sometimes quickly if very bad and sometimes slowly if only a little bad. In the bad cases it may spread bit in the gene pool but it won't ever amount to much. Changes that improve the reproduction rate will be conserved.

Computer studies confirm this. Lab studies are difficult due to the long time frame involved. With creationists lab studies are a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. If you don't run them then Creationists say you have tests. If you do run then, and it has been done, Creationists say it was the work of men and thus not proof.

A way of looking at evolution that I think shows how it works is to think of the mutations as the raw material of change, like a block of marble is the raw material for a statue. Natural selection cuts away the material that is not conducive to reproduction much like the sculptors tools cut away marble.

More

5/6

That is the basics. There are a number of details and side processes and just plain calamities involved in the paths that the process of evolution takes. There are no goals to evolution except continued reproduction and that only because if there is no reproduction then the process stops. It is completely opportunistic in that any change in the environment or the genome can change what improves or degrades the chances of reproduction. Since useful changes are inherently conserved and poor changes will be selected out there is a tendency for life to increase in complexity over time for at least some species.

Most species died out without any descendants BUT ALL life that exists has ancestors, as far as we can tell, that go all the way back to the beginning of life on Earth.

More

6/6

And no we don't know how life got started but evolution is a process of reproduction and won't go away just because we don't know everything. A lot of people on this site and elsewhere are laboring under the impression that if they point out that we don't know how life got started then the evidence for evolution will somehow go poof and science will stop showing that the Earth is older than their beliefs support. Then there is the problem some have with having apes as ancestors, I have news for those, we ARE pretty much apes even if most of the people in Anthropology don't the guts to say so.

Ethelred

The human genome has just over 3 billion base pairs and the age of earth is around 4.5 billion.

What does that mean for evolution?

The human genome has just over 3 billion base pairs and the age of earth is around 4.5 billion.

What does that mean for evolution?

Uh, nothing?

I want more research done before I start calling somewhere the point of origin of modern Homos.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of research? What research was it that convinced you of the "out of Africa" theory in the first place? Was it because Africa was where we found the oldest modern human fossils?

I really wish that the religious pseudo-scientists would abstain from corrupting every Internet forum with their incessant preaching. Is it really necessary to turn every article into Sunday School?

Aside from the occasional comic relief, I surmise that the majority of readers find these people and their personal feelings about evolution to be tiresome.

The human genome has just over 3 billion base pairs and the age of earth is around 4.5 billion.

What does that mean for evolution?

35 percent of the population or just over 102 million people consider themselves fundamentalist christians

In an academic test given to 15-year-olds from 34 countries, the United States ranked 25th in math and placed in the middle for science and reading

What does this say for the future of America?

@Ethelred - your comments are one of the reasons I read all the comments on this site reasonably carefully.

I agree with everything you said. I would like to add to your comment about Ignorance being curable. Its really true. However, much less amenable to cure is willful ignorance and close mindedness. I find these rampant whenever religion and particularly evolution is discussed.

People like QC and keninrts (and others) simply do not understand and probably never will understand the difference between fact and opinion. This is required before ignorance can be affected.

In an academic test given to 15-year-olds from 34 countries, the United States ranked 25th in math and placed in the middle for science and reading

All public schools are controlled by liberal teacher unions that oppose all attempts for parents to choose effective schools, public or private.

What does this say for the future of America?

All public schools are controlled by liberal teacher unions that oppose all attempts for parents to choose effective schools, public or private.

What does this say for the future of America?

Your statement itself, even if taken at face value, says nothing of relevance.

Your response as whole says everything. It says you are dogmatic in your beliefs and that you don't understand sarcasm or irony.

Additionally, although generalizations based on limited anecdotal evidence are rarely accurate, I believe you to be a typical example of fundamentalist ignorance as a whole.

The human genome has just over 3 billion base pairs and the age of earth is around 4.5 billion.

What does that mean for evolution?

35 percent of the population or just over 102 million people consider themselves fundamentalist christians

In an academic test given to 15-year-olds from 34 countries, the United States ranked 25th in math and placed in the middle for science and reading

What does this say for the future of America?

Rather simply, we're fucked.

Rather simply, we're fucked.

And that's really scary. With these fundamentalist whackjobs outbreeding the secular demographic, where birthrates are in decline, the prospect for an accelerated descent into ignorance is chilling.

I want more research done before I start calling somewhere the point of origin of modern Homos.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of research? What research was it that convinced you of the "out of Africa" theory in the first place? Was it because Africa was where we found the oldest modern human fossils?

For me, it has a lot to do with that. Also, there's the whole corroboration of the theory by DNA analysis. Furthermore, it's somewhat reassuring that it wasn't a theory promoted by raging bigots...

Your statement itself, even if taken at face value, says nothing of relevance.

Why not? Look at what Michelle Rhee did for DC schools. She was hated by the teachers and when an unfriendly mayor was elected, she resigned.
FL just revised their education system allowing students many options.
KIPP and many other charter schools are graduation students who are performing as are home-schooled students.
It is certainly relevant to the previous bigoted comment.

@ryggesogn2,

Charter schools get to pick and choose the cream of the crop, and their applicant pool consists of highly motivated students to begin with. So you can't compare them with public schools, any more than you can compare apples to oranges.

As to teacher unions, I think that applies just as equally to all the 24 other industrialized nations that routinely leave USA in the dust. Obviously, their "socialist" education systems are somehow superior, and the reason has nothing to do with "choice".

Perhaps it has something to do with a better structured, more integrated, more rigorous and uniform curriculum, higher academic standards, discipline (including dress codes), and emphasis on analysis, thinking, and deep comprehension rather than rote memorization and artsy-fartsy fluff busy-work masquerading as homework. For starters...

Maybe it's time America stopped trying to reinvent the wheel, and instead started borrowing from its betters all that actually, demonstrably, works.

@Ethelred:

Thanks for writing again. it is a joy to hear you. My next question is- (3) What about von Neumann machine? What is its present research status?

@Ethelred:

I have more questions, if you can answer I will be grateful.
(4) Does the time (13.7 billion years or so) given by Big Bang Theory enough for reaching the complexity seen in human species?
(5) Do we have any solid observation that confirms inter-species evolution other than the fossil records?
(6) What is your speculation on the origin of life?
(7) What happens if inter-species sex occurs? Does it lead to any new life form?

Does the time (13.7 billion years or so) given by Big Bang Theory enough for reaching the complexity seen in human species?

Impossible question to give you a definitive answer for, however, look at atomic complexity, solar complexity, solar system complexity, galactic complexity, intragalactic complexity, chaos, etc.

Aside from the fact that you and I are having this conversation, the answer is unequivocally yes.

Do we have any solid observation that confirms inter-species evolution other than the fossil records?

I can think of 3 off the top of my head. The leptorids (butterflies) of Hawaii eat dessert bananas. They're not native to Hawaii, they were introduced to the island about 1000 years ago. Dessert bananas are not native to their native habitat. They've evolved whole new mouth, esophagial tract, and stomache features to digest bananas. Same with the monitor lizards in Indonesia. (TBC)

The islands of Indonesia show allopatric speciation among monitor lizards. Similar to the Galapagos islands and Darwin's finches. As an experiment, monitor lizards were introduced to one of the islands where previously there had been no large reptiles. Over a mere 14 generations, unique stomache valves developed, enabling the monitor lizard to increase the food available. It began to consume plants in addition to animals and other monitor lizards. Effectively, we created a new species. Now this isn't unique to animals. We've seen this in plants as well. The dessert banana has been evolved through selective pressure applied by humans for thousands upon thousands of years. This is also reflected in corn, wheat, peas, peanuts, and almost every other large scale food crop. Of course, who would ever want to leave out the coal moths of the UK, or the rodents of Tunisia as well.

What is your speculation on the origin of life?

Not ethelred, but I go with the Shostak Hypothesis.

What happens if inter-species sex occurs? Does it lead to any new life form?

First you have to define what a unique species is.

If you're talking a horse and a donkey, they're so closely related that on occasion they can interbreed and create viable offspring. Same with the various types of baboons. They're so closely related that they create viable offspring no problem and something wildly interesting occurs.

They develop novel traits within two or three generations. It appears when you take two subspecies, that are on the verge of speciation, like the asian and african baboon sub species, and they breed you see a hypercharged frequency of allele substitution. This is considered to be a possibility within humans. Many think the reason why people are so different is due to interbreeding with other homonids when we left africa. Geographically isolated groups bred with other homonids of close but not exact species relation and boom, trait variance explosion, ie: race.

Dating was presumably done ".. by uranium isotopic series on associated speleothems and their implications." (From a 2003 paper).

Not that it matters to a troll: theory, hypothesis and evidence have nothing to do with belief. And as soon as belief begins to pretend that it can be supported by facts, it's not belief anymore.

But if you're talking across genus, no chance. A chicken and a goat, no chance of offspring. Goat and a pig, nope. Lykkan Pictus and a wolf (both dogs), no chance of offspring. They're too genetically dissimilar.

Observational evidence for how many years of seperation, or how many allele changes create a new species is very thin. As far as we can tell, the boundary condition for mammals is about 2 million years give or take. Horses and donkeys diverged about that long ago from what we know. Baboons diverged from each other about 1,200,000 years ago as far as we can tell.

Humans and neaderthals had diverged about 500,000 before they encountered each other, as far as we can tell.

I would like everyone to note the fact that Neanderthal man and his counterparts from the other eras of Human evolution have almost no basis in fact. Yes, they have "evidence", but this supposed evidence is a jawbone, a tooth, or other such insignificant body parts that do not give any real picture of the being or animal that possessed them. Scientist extrapolated the Human evolution tree from these parts, and I ask that you don't throw around terms like Neanderthal man like it has a basis in reality. The reality is that many of these scientific "discoveries" are made by people who only get money for results and many will falsify and have. Almost all of the stages of Humans are extrapolations, and cannot be put forth as fact, there are no full fossils, so do no write or speak as if these "facts" are the end all be all.

With respect.

With respect.

Sorry but that commentary you've gracefully posted is entirely incorrect.

We have almost complete representations of the majority of our fossil ancestors with a few exceptions.
In reference to Neaderthal itself:
http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

I'd suggest you read up on this topic a bit more.

Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Actually my post sent to incite such a response because I was interested in what would come up. I ask that you keep your childish insults to yourself. Thank you for your reply.

I shall now go enlighten myself on wikipedia.

Actually my post sent to incite such a response because I was interested in what would come up.

So you're trolling. I'd recommend you re-read the ToS for the site.

I shall now go enlighten myself on wikipedia.

I'd recommend you read the linked references at the bottom. Wikipedia articles are, at best, an overview.

I rarely ever post anything on this site. I find that people provide the best information when I post something to effect of what you say is wrong. I apologize for your inconvenience. I'm a high school student, I'm interested in learning, and I applied a technique I saw fit to get to an end. not to mention I don't even know what trolling is.

Also, I am looking at more than wikipedia, that was just the start.

I rarely ever post anything on this site. I find that people provide the best information when I post something to effect of what you say is wrong. I apologize for your inconvenience. I'm a high school student, I'm interested in learning, and I applied a technique I saw fit to get to an end. not to mention I don't even know what trolling is.

Also, I am looking at more than wikipedia, that was just the start.

In future, you might try Agile Mathew's strategy, ie, just asking. You'll generally get a courteous, thoughtful response, and not be exposing yourself to the level of ridicule that feigned stupidity/ignorance/ideologuery is likely to provoke.

At the same time, you may avoid developing the habit of "ends justifiy the means" behavior, which, while often effective, often also results in harsh consequences.

Unless, of course, you plan to enter upon a career in Politics/Corporatics/Finance-ics.

Happy Learning!

In an academic test given to 15-year-olds from 34 countries, the United States ranked 25th in math and placed in the middle for science and reading

All public schools are controlled by liberal teacher unions that oppose all attempts for parents to choose effective schools, public or private.

What does this say for the future of America?

Nothing, as the most successful countries, vis a vis education, are the most 'liberal' countries.

America's education problem isn't the result of Liberal vs Conservative. It is more likely the result of such failed policies as "no child left behind" - trying to give a college prep education to students with IQs of 85, or even 100, is bound to fail, particularly the high achievers.

University should be for the top 10%, the rest should seek vocational training. After all, we need plumbers, carpenters and auto mechanics more than we need lawyers.

ACK! Twip!

Sorry, poor response.

If quantum conundrum thinks atheists and scientists are making it all up, why is s/he on a science website? :S

If quantum conundrum thinks atheists and scientists are making it all up, why is s/he on a science website? :S

Need for attention.

It is a pity about the dross that clogs up what might have been an interesting discussion.

It seems entirely plausible that humans developed in isolation out of Africa in Israel, and then re-colonized Africa.

It would be advantageous to isolate the descendant from the common gene pool in order to create a different "species".

Darwin noted this effect in his study of Galapagos finches.

Ok here is the deal, you are all look at this evidence all wrong. Just like the vast majority of people, you guys take one look at an article, etc. and you create a firm opinion about it, when you don't even understand half the things you are reading. You can always look at a broad scienticic article like this and say it supports and/or rebukes a claim to something. To all of you religious individuals who decided to go on a scientific website and make your self sound ignorant, just remember the fact that the bible was written hundreds apon hundreds of years ago. Now, the reason I don't give and exact date is because nobody knows. Nobody knows when Jesus was born, when these events in the bible are literal, or figurative. Plus, the bible was written from hundreds of different documents spread out across the entire middle east, then translated and interpreted years later by MAN. Nobody knows what Jesus's/ gods original teachings are, come on...

To all of you religious individuals who decided to go on a scientific website and make your self sound ignorant,

Do you feel the same about the atheists who decide to go on a scientific website and sound ignorant?

...And to all you atheists(like me) who are criticizing everything these religious people have been told to belief all their lifes, just remember that they belief in the concept of ignorance is bliss. Lol

humanities knowledge of the universe, of our past, present, and future, is extremely limited, despite countless of people, religious and atheist alike, trying to understand who we are. Ignorance is Bliss. This applies to all people. Right now I don't belief in god. However, if some credible evidence/event occured to change my mind, I would be forced to reevaluate my beliefs. I a'm constantly reevaluating what I belief in. This approach is critical. Without it, humanity would still believe earth is flat, earth is the center of the universe, etc. Yet, scientists are always critizing unorthodox beliefs. sure some of them at first glance seem rediculous, but if you look at just about any belief from a certain angle, they make perfect since. all religios beleifs are based off of faith for their very existance. however, science gives people a way to understand out surroundings, truly understand them. I belief that the truth is right under our noses. That is why when i first did research...

...And to all you atheists(like me) who are criticizing everything these religious people have been told to belief all their lifes, just remember that they belief in the concept of ignorance is bliss. Lol

'Told to believe'?
Another arrogant atheist.
BTW, atheists here have agreed that one can't be a true atheist until one dies. And even then, no one can be certain you were a true atheist. (You may have told yourself that you believe in God and kept it a secret.)
Those who call themselves atheists state CS Lewis was not a 'real' atheist. Lewis stated he was just as all atheists here.
There is no way any atheist can objectively prove they are true atheists so maybe it is best atheists focus on objective facts.

on ancient astronaut theory, I didnt automatically call is bs and the invention of a crazy conspiracy theorist nutcase, etc. You see, all scientific theories start out as just that, theories. But over time, new scientific findings and research will prove, disprove, and hone a theory, and than it will become more well known because it makes since more than another theory. Sciece is like a puzzle. We do not have enough knowledge to make this puzzle perfect, but that what PROGRESS is.

...And to all you atheists(like me) who are criticizing everything these religious people have been told to belief all their lifes, just remember that they belief in the concept of ignorance is bliss. Lol

'Told to believe'?
Another arrogant atheist.
BTW, atheists here have agreed that one can't be a true atheist until one dies. And even then, no one can be certain you were a true atheist. (You may have told yourself that you believe in God and kept it a secret.)
Those who call themselves atheists state CS Lewis was not a 'real' atheist. Lewis stated he was just as all atheists here so state.
There is no way any atheist can objectively prove they are true atheists so maybe it is best atheists focus on objective facts.

Perhaps,however I can also say that there is no way you truly believe in god, you just say you do because your family and friends told to say. btw you didnt actually say how I was arrogant by stating that.

There is no way any atheist can objectively prove they are true atheists so maybe it is best atheists focus on objective facts.

We can all demonstrate that we're against theist doctrine and dogma rather easily. It can be objectively measured in our responses to your posts and activities.

Let me reword that, you just say that because supposedly the majority of people are christian. However, it is apart of being human to want to feel accepted, you are quite possibly just another statistic. Sorry if that offends you. I hereby apologize

To all of you religious individuals who decided to go on a scientific website and make your self sound ignorant,

Do you feel the same about the atheists who decide to go on a scientific website and sound ignorant?

And as a matter of fact, I do...

To all of you religious individuals who decided to go on a scientific website and make your self sound ignorant,

Do you feel the same about the atheists who decide to go on a scientific website and sound ignorant?

And as a matter of fact, I do...

Do you happen to know the difference between falsifiable and non-falsifiable statements?

There is no way any atheist can objectively prove they are true atheists so maybe it is best atheists focus on objective facts.

We can all demonstrate that we're against theist doctrine and dogma rather easily. It can be objectively measured in our responses to your posts and activities.

Prove you are not lying.
You lie about me, why should you be believed regarding anything else?

Personally,I think the whole You can't prove someody belief thing is highly irrelevant and obvious. You can argue that you can't prove the pope is a believer,nor can you prove Richard Dawkins is a non-believer. Yea, that is true. ok than what are you trying to point out because that is pretty irrelevant in my eyes.

that is pretty irrelevant in my eyes.

Diego, you raised the issue now you say it is irrelevant?
"How arrogant!" is an exclamation in English.

Forgive me,ryggesogn2, what did I say that you interpreted me suggesting that you can't prove a person's beliefs?

BTW do we really need to have idiotic adds in the middle of this page lol

Prove you are not lying.

Read my post history.

You lie about me,

Prove it.

why should you be believed regarding anything else?

I shouldn't be believed, you should follow up on what I say and check the sources. You shouldn't believe anyone whole cloth without reason. That would be why I provide sources for what I say. If I recommended you jsut accept what I say without evidence, I'd be no better than your common religious adherant.

BTW, atheists here have agreed that one can't be a true atheist until one dies

This Agnostic doesn't agree with that nonsense.

Those who call themselves atheists state CS Lewis was not a 'real' atheist.

I am an AGNOSTIC. And I showed WHY he was not an Atheist. He believed in Jehovah or he wouldn't have been pissed off at Jehovah.

Lewis stated he was just as all atheists here so state.

No. He said was angry with god. Which is something that few long term Atheists or Agnostics would say. Those that do say silly things like that simply aren't really Atheists.

There is no way any atheist can objectively prove they are true atheists so maybe it is best atheists focus on objective facts.

It is an objective fact that I have always BEHAVED as if I don't believe in Jehovah since deciding I was an Agnostic. It is an OBJECTIVE fact that Lewis did not do that.

Thick doesn't begin to describe you on this.

Ethelred

nxtr

Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I argue with idiots frequently here. Here is how.

DON'T be dragged down to their idiocy.
I am more experienced than they at this.
I don't delude myself that I can change their minds. They ARE idiots. Many have CHOSEN to be idiots.

However some of them are merely ignorant and that is curable. You can't change the mind of the ignorant by assuming they are among the idiots.

Ethelred

Regarding Education:
I am almost 69 yrs old. From 1947 through 1955 I attended public schools and never saw a classmate with disabilities. I saw a pluralistic white (Jews, Christians) group and some 5% to 10% blacks. This was 10 miles from New York in New Jersey. The entire city was this same mixture. When I attended Engineering college, we car-pooled to Newark and about a dozen of us (same mixture) went together every day to a non-dorm school. Most of us were poor.

That generation produced the wealth and power that stopped the Soviets cold in their tracks. Somewhere in between then and now we decided that the public school system should educate to the lowest common denominator: This gave us the greatest game playing population in human history since the Roman Circuses. Former president "W" was a star example of this system, and he famously decided "no child should be left behind" while making sure that no money would back this great idea. We now have a caste system for schools:

More

If God did not create the Big Bang, then explain the origin of the Big Bang. However, do not tell me the Big Bang came from nothing or from a void.

The rich send their kids to private schools and have tutors, the smartest middle class kids go to Magnet schools, the average middle class fight to get into charter schools, the unfortunate middle class w/o charter schools get into standard public schools with every disabled kid in the city. Some brave people "home school" their kids. Many send their kids to parochial schools that can reject whomever they want like charter schools.

The lower down this schooling totem pole you go, the closer you get to fundamentalists. Since neither charter schools nor magnet schools are available to most kids, most kids are denied the education I had. The road to hell was paved with good intentions and theres no $ to pay for them.

PinkElephant is exactly correct in response to @ryggesogn2.

One should also note that the power of knowledge is now shifting heavily to the wealthy classes and away from the average American. This religious rant is an example of what results of an uneducated population.

Winthrom:

If you are so educated and smart, then explain the origin of the Big Bang!

TabulaMentis:
I do not think the Big Bang happened without a predecessor. I think our "universe" cycles through convulsions in the larger "real universe" and that we are a product of the latest convulsion that we call the big bang. Since we do not have enough objective evidence to support this or any other theory like it, my thoughts are pure speculation, and not science. If I had the ability and facilities to pursue this speculation, perhaps I could find out if I am right about it.

Wintrom:

Predecessor? At some point there was an absolute beginning. Forget about cyclic universe little bangs providing an answer to the origin of the Big Bang.

Wintrom:

Predecessor? At some point there was an absolute beginning. Forget about cyclic universe little bangs providing an answer to the origin of the Big Bang.

Prove it, Nickelbag.

the unfortunate middle class w/o charter schools get into standard public schools with every disabled kid in the city

Forgive my limited knowledge of the English language - but isn't Stephen Hawking one of these "disabled" persons?

the unfortunate middle class w/o charter schools get into standard public schools with every disabled kid in the city

Forgive my limited knowledge of the English language - but isn't Stephen Hawking one of these "disabled" persons?

frajo, I think you entirely missed the point of winthrom's excellent post.

If God did not create the Big Bang, then explain the origin of the Big Bang

It happened because it could happen. The rules of the Universe allow it. The Universe is allowed by logic and mathematics so why shouldn't it exist?

However, do not tell me the Big Bang came from nothing or from a void.

OK it came from logic and math.

And which god it yours? There are rather a lot of them. According to Exodus even Jehovah believed that other gods existed. So which one have you picked out as the putative Creator?

At some point there was an absolute beginning.

That is philosophy and may or may not be true. However that thinking also applies to any god. Where did YOUR god come from?

Ethelred

the unfortunate middle class w/o charter schools get into standard public schools with every disabled kid in the city

Forgive my limited knowledge of the English language - but isn't Stephen Hawking one of these "disabled" persons?

frajo, I think you entirely missed the point of winthrom's excellent post.

Winthrom's posts would be ecellent in my opinion, too - if there were not this remark about "every disabled kid in the city" which sounds quite pejorative in my ears.
I just want to learn whether the word "disabled" has a meaning I didn't know of until now.
IF, however, "disabled" denotes handicapped people of all kinds (as I have been assuming until now) THEN winthrom's post is not really excellent as it disparages handicapped people.

I think Winthrom was avoiding saying precisely what he meant. By context, I think he meant those without enough mental capacity to study the harder stuff. Not physically disabled.

Of course YOU mentioned Hawking who:

When to school in England not the United State.

Didn't have any physical problems till he was at University. I think that is the British way of saying it.

Is a lot smarter than Winthrom likely is. Or me or pretty much anyone here based on some of the stories from when he was at University.

And I agree with you in any case. It went over the top on that point. Unfortunately everyone is NOT equal but he certainly had a poor choice of words. And the US equal opportunity is usually considered a good thing.

Ethelred

Sorry to go off topic, but one of the magor reasons why I don't believe in the bible is because of the story of Adam and Eve. To my knowledge this is what the bible is basically stating. Adam and Eve had Sexual Intercourse. Their children grew up, and had sexual intercourse. Adam and Eve's grandchildren had sexual intercourse. A'm I the only one seeing a pattern here? The last time I checked, this is called Incest, and results in some magor magor birth defects. This also happens to apply to the story of the ark. These animals continuoas interbreeding would likely have resulted in some serious complications. So to all of you religious Individuals on this site, please explain my "ignorance" away.

I am an AGNOSTIC. And I showed WHY he was not an Atheist.

Then I was not talking to you.
I do think you are dishonest. An agnostic claims to not know.

Then I was not talking to you.

Of course you were. I was the only person saying Lewis was not an Atheist.

I do think you are dishonest

You just lied in the first sentence and in a VERY large proportion of you posts so I don't really care if you want to tell more lies about me as well. You aren't considered a reliable source by anyone.

An agnostic claims to not know.

Agnostics don't claim to be stupid. I don't know if there is a god. I do know that SOME gods don't exist. Not my fault you can't see the difference. Or want to lie about if you do see the difference.

Which is the problem with habitual liars. You can't be certain when they are being stupid instead of lying yet again. Not that it makes any difference in your case.

Troll
Liar
Idiot
Ignoramus

You either have it all or you are a MAJOR piece of Troll. Which would still leave you as a liar.

Its not an ad homonym when it is true.

If you don't like that YOU MUST CHANGE. Not just your name.

Ethelred

Ethelred:

Quote: It happened because it could happen. The rules of the Universe allow it. The Universe is allowed by logic and mathematics so why shouldn't it exist? OK it came from logic and math.

Answer: Wrong answer.

Quote: And which god it yours?

Answer: I think you are asking which one is my favorite God. I like the Holy Ghost the most.

Quote: So which one have you picked out as the putative Creator?

Answer: Most people prefer Father in Heaven, but there is more to it than that.

Quote: Where did YOUR god come from?

Answer: An atheist asked me a similar question years ago. It took a lot of luck and hard work to figure out the answer to that question. I am not in the business of giving away valuable information for free. I just wanted to show that the atheists and agnostics are not as smart and educated as the think.

An atheist asked me a similar question years ago. It took a lot of luck and hard work to figure out the answer to that question. I am not in the business of giving away valuable information for free. I just wanted to show that the atheists and agnostics are not as smart and educated as the think.

Saying "wrong answer" to a fully qualified and vetted resposne doesn't assist you in this aim. Neither does "not being in the business of giving away valuable information for free". You information has no value as it is not demonstrable. Further, you refuse to demonstrate it, meaning that not only do you have no information, but you refuse to allow any information you think you have to be reviewed.

You've wasted a post and make ridiculous statements on a topic in which there is no new information thus far. Come back when you're willing to actually say something of merit or without merit, or really, anything at all.

Answer: Wrong answer.

Nonsense. If you don't like it say why.

Answer: I think you are asking which one is my favorite God. I like the Holy Ghost the most.

No I asked which of the many gods people believe in is the one you believe in. However that is enough to see that you are a Trinitarian.

Answer: Most people prefer Father in Heaven, but there is more to it than that.

Most people aren't Abrahamic. Barely. 2 billion Christians, 1 Billion Moslems and a scattering of Jews, Samaritans. Funny that you simply couldn't grasp the idea that there other choices than the Trinity.

Old Earth or Young Earth Trinitarain?

I am not in the business of giving away valuable information for free.

So you are selling the Secret of the Universe then? 42?

I just wanted to show that the atheists and agnostics are not as smart and educated as the think.

You failed. You didn't even understand my questions much less my answer.

Ethelred

Of course you were. I was the only person saying Lewis was not an Atheist.

Don't flatter yourself. Most atheist web sites and blogs claim Lewis was not atheist in spite of his self acclimation.
And that is the point. Lewis claimed to be atheist. If Lewis was not atheist than Ethel is not agnostic or atheist or whatever he wants to call himself.

And that is the point. Lewis claimed to be atheist

Unfortunately Lewis' claim was contrary to his prior statements on the matter. You can't be angry at a god if you don't believe that one exists. There was a predetermined opinion of existence, precluding Lewis from being an atheist.

You are all Bigots

Sorry to see the thread de-railed somewhat, but it was after all inevitable.

I watched an interesting history channel documentary on human evolution this weekend. I was struck by something I'd not known before. It was our upright gait, use of tools, and then language in that order that seems to have driven the development of our brains (not to mention a diet that included copious amounts of meat). I always thought the brain came before the tools or the language.

It makes me wonder what kinds of older hominids in Israel there were around the same time and I'm more interested in what their necks looked like (ie language capacity) rather than their cranial volume.

Skeptic Heretic:

Quote: Saying "wrong answer" to a fully qualified and vetted resposne doesn't assist you in this aim.

Answer: I asked the above atheist and agnostic bloggers a serious question, that they do not have an answer. They acted as if they know everything, but they do not.

Quote: You information has no value as it is not demonstrable. Further, you refuse to demonstrate it, meaning that not only do you have no information, but you refuse to allow any information you think you have to be reviewed.

Answer: I will answer that question when I am in a position to be rewarded for years of hard work, but in the meantime I am sitting back listening to the atheists and agnostics make fools of themselves.

Quote: You've wasted a post and make ridiculous statements on a topic in which there is no new information thus far. Come back when you're willing to actually say something of merit or without merit, or really, anything at all.

Answer: I do not take orders from you!

And that is the point. Lewis claimed to be atheist

Unfortunately Lewis' claim was contrary to his prior statements on the matter. You can't be angry at a god if you don't believe that one exists. There was a predetermined opinion of existence, precluding Lewis from being an atheist.

You only know what was documented.

To DamienS - Ethelred - frajo - :
frajo is correct; I did not choose my words carefully. I was referring to mentally handicapped kids, who, through no fault of their own, the Federal Government expects to perform at a norm established for the general population. The physically handicapped did not figure into my discussion.
I have a 5-year-old granddaughter with cerebral palsy that severely retarded her mental development. She cannot speak, nor does she understand more than a few simple words. I love her very much and she is the sweetest and most cheerful person. She enters public school soon at a likely cost to the school district of about $200,000/yr. We can never expect her to do much in life since she does not have the ability to learn. Children like this need care for their whole lives and it should not be at the expense of the school districts. If anything, this is a good use for Medicare/Medicaid.

Answer: I asked the above atheist and agnostic bloggers a serious question, that they do not have an answer. They acted as if they know everything, but they do not.

Your question was

If God did not create the Big Bang, then explain the origin of the Big Bang. However, do not tell me the Big Bang came from nothing or from a void.

Which means that if the answer actually is "nothing or a void" which as so far it is, you won't accept it. Well reality doesn't care what you accept. You cannot pretend the truck screaming down the road at your child isn't there because you choose to not believe in it.

I will answer that question when I am in a position to be rewarded for years of hard work, but in the meantime I am sitting back listening to the atheists and agnostics make fools of themselves.

Meaning you don't have an answer. If you're Christian, or some flavor thereof, your reward has already been granted for your understanding. It appears you understand nothing.

Which means that if the answer actually is "nothing or a void" which as so far it is, you won't accept it.

Why should one accept illogical inconsistencies? To accommodate an atheist worldview? I'll go with the first law of thermodynamics...unless you've invented a new physics to share with us...

The answer is there, but the atheists and agnostics do not have it.

Skeptic Heretic:

Quote: Which means that if the answer actually is "nothing or a void" which as so far it is, you won't accept it. Well reality doesn't care what you accept.

Answer: Did you not know that from nothing comes nothing? The same can be said about voids!

Religious beliefs are surely not for the weak minded. I suggest that those of you who claim so check out a few of the many smart people, much smarter than you and I , that have believed in a higher power.
As for Brandon saying he has studied all of the major religions and found that, well we can pretty much be sure that thats a lie. Unless he considers reading the Wikipedia article on each, studying and if so then he is just stupid.
As for Religious people, like myself, who are stuck thinking that a literal interpretation of everything written in the Bible or other holy book is true. Just think a bit about how much people knew back then, even if it is Gods word, then I would bet he dumbed it down for his world is flat believers.

Did you not know that from nothing comes nothing? The same can be said about voids!

Did you know that the net energy balance of the Universe is zero within all relevant and logical frameworks of theory?

Which means from nothing would come, absolutely nothing. 0=0 but 0 also = negative 1 plus 1.

Religious beliefs are surely not for the weak minded. I suggest that those of you who claim so check out a few of the many smart people, much smarter than you and I , that have believed in a higher power.

I've seen particle physicists play minesweeper. That doesn't mean minesweeper takes the intellect of a particle physicist to understand.

As for Brandon saying he has studied all of the major religions and found that, well we can pretty much be sure that thats a lie.

I've studied them all, care to quiz me?

Why did god not protect the people praying to it in Egypt on New Years Day.

It does say on every church,
'god loves ,saves you and protects you.'

This factual statement has been proven wrong.

I would like an answer from you religious.
Why did god not save or protect these people?

god doesn't exist.

p.s
Has anyone done the physics for Noahs Ark yet. Rough calculations show the numbers to be Hilarious.

Has anyone done the physics for Noahs Ark yet. Rough calculations show the numbers to be Hilarious.

Did em a long time ago. Based on the building materials available, and the dimensions of the ship it would have been too rigid to stay in one piece. Simple deck flex would sink the ship before any amount of load or water would do so. It is a physically impossible thing, yet people believe it whole cloth. I'll never understand why.

Sorry to go off topic, but one of the magor reasons why I don't believe in the bible is because of the story of Adam and Eve. To my knowledge this is what the bible is basically stating. Adam and Eve had Sexual Intercourse. Their children grew up, and had sexual intercourse. Adam and Eve's grandchildren had sexual intercourse. A'm I the only one seeing a pattern here? The last time I checked, this is called Incest, and results in some magor magor birth defects. This also happens to apply to the story of the ark. These animals continuoas interbreeding would likely have resulted in some serious complications. So to all of you religious Individuals on this site, please explain my "ignorance" away.

As I stated in a above commen

Which means from nothing would come, absolutely nothing. 0=0 but 0 also = negative 1 plus 1.

So it's OK for the universe to violate the first law of thermodynamics because...0=-1+1...mmmkay. About as convincing as Genesis, only far less poetic.

So what does the -1 look like if the universe is the +1? How can something be less than nothing?

I don't expect an intellectually honest answer, but it will be amusing to see the philosophical knots you tie yourself into trying to answer...

So it's OK for the universe to violate the first law of thermodynamics because...0=-1+1...mmmkay. About as convincing as Genesis, only far less poetic.

Perhaps you should learn more about quantum physics before posting. The concept of a negative and positive being derived from zero has been tested and proven. As far as Genesis is concerned, any tests of that theory have resulted in genetic abnormalities. Incest is wrong and always should be no matter what the Bible has to say.

Ekim:

Quote: The concept of a negative and positive being derived from zero has been tested and proven.

Comment: Before the Big Bang there was no vacuum.

Before the Big Bang there was no vacuum.

How do you know, did god tell you? Do you often hear voices telling you things inside your head?

Comment: Before the Big Bang there was no vacuum.

Time and space dimensions formed with the big bang.
The concept of before time is irrelevant.
This belief arises from the mistaken conclusion that time is linear.
This happens because we perceive our memories as linear.
Much as the sun was once believed to move around the earth, our perceptions can deceive us.
There is no beginning or end, just the middle.
Let me know if you ever find the other side of the Möbius strip.

Comment: Before the Big Bang there was no vacuum.

Time and space were formed with the big bang.
The concept of before time is irrelevant.
This concept arises from the perception of linear time.
This belief is flawed, just as the sun was once thought to travel around the earth.
There is no beginning or end to time, only the middle.
Trying to find the beginning of time is like trying to find the other side of a Möbius strip.

Time and space dimensions formed with the big bang.

You can't say that with certainty - it depends on which theoretical model you subscribe to.

The concept of before time is irrelevant.

No it isn't. While most cosmologists would have been equally dismissive thirty years ago, it isn't the case now. More and more cosmologists are asking the 'before' questions.

This belief arises from the mistaken conclusion that time is linear.

Again, how can you be so adamant? Some are also asking whether time exists at all. Does time exist without matter? How do you measure time in an empty universe?

I guess you can dismiss these types of questions and ideas as being purely philosophical, but asking and attempting to answer them may lead to unexpected and profound insights that may yield to scientific corroboration.

Incest is wrong and always should be no matter what the Bible has to say.

I beg to differ. "Incest" has (at least) two very different meanings:
[1] The generation of offspring by the mating of two near relatives. This is wrong for several reasons and I don't think anybody will object.
[2] The mating of near relatives without producing offspring. Why should this be wrong?

So it's OK for the universe to violate the first law of thermodynamics because...0=-1+1...mmmkay.

Tell us how it is a violation?

About as convincing as Genesis, only far less poetic.

Sorryd, I'm not inventing this, I'm merely following the math of multiple theoretical frameworks, including quantum mechanics.

So what does the -1 look like if the universe is the +1? How can something be less than nothing?

Everything is composed of energy, positive energy, (emission) is balanced by negative energy (attraction). If these two quantities are in balance, which all observations are indicating as alpha is approximately 1, then the universe is actually made of nothing.

I don't expect an intellectually honest answer, but it will be amusing to see the philosophical knots you tie yourself into trying to answer...

No knots whatsoever.

Lawrence Krauss explains this better than I in his lecture "A Universe from Nothing". Available on youtube if you haven't seen it.

@DamienS:

Quote: How do you know, did god tell you? Do you often hear voices telling you things inside your head?

Quote: You can't say that with certainty - it depends on which theoretical model you subscribe to.

Quote: While most cosmologists would have been equally dismissive thirty years ago, it isn't the case now. More and more cosmologists are asking the 'before' questions.

Quote: I guess you can dismiss these types of questions and ideas as being purely philosophical, but asking and attempting to answer them may lead to unexpected and profound insights that may yield to scientific corroboration.

Answer: Funny how you criticize someone's model in one statement and then say it depends on which theoretical model one subscribes to in another statement. And then you dig the hole deeper with further statements the makes you sound phony and prejudiced.

Tell us how it is a violation?

Tell me how it ISN'T a violation. It's the ultimate violation of the first law. The BB theory isn't an answer to anything, it's the epitome of "begging the question"...

If you can't HONESTLY see the weakness in the theory I can't help you.

Everything is composed of energy, positive energy, (emission) is balanced by negative energy (attraction).

So where's the -1? Negative energy is something. You can't steal the concept of nothing by calling it something "negative". Nothing is nothing. Your concept of -1 must be LESS than nothing to "work" in the manner you're suggesting. Try again.

No knots whatsoever.

Nothing but knots...

I'll check out the Krauss vid, but if it's what you just spouted it's inane BS. You still haven't shown how nothing can create something, much less how it can do so and still be consistent with the 1st law.

Tell me how it ISN'T a violation. It's the ultimate violation of the first law.

Energy isn't being created. There is a net zero total of energy in the Universe. This is verified by quantum mechanics where we see false vaccuum. Particle antiparticle pairs are created and then destroyed constantly. At any two samples of time, the energy balance is still exactly zero. No violation whatsoever.

If you can't HONESTLY see the weakness in the theory I can't help you.

You need to point it out so I can help you understand why there isn't a weakness. ie: your thermodynamics argument and my response of energy content value according to QM.

Negative energy is something. You can't steal the concept of nothing by calling it something "negative".

I think you're getting confused with the concept of anti-matter, which is made of positive energy. Compare gravity and dark energy. DE is the positive balance to gravity's negative energy.

Nothing but knots...

Point em out.

I'll check out the Krauss vid, but if it's what you just spouted it's inane BS. You still haven't shown how nothing can create something, much less how it can do so and still be consistent with the 1st law.

You told me a few months ago when I posted it, that you had watched it. I'm guessing that wasn't true.

This is verified by quantum mechanics where we see false vaccuum. Particle antiparticle pairs are created and then destroyed constantly.

I'm not talking about false vacuum. I understand that, and as far as that goes you're correct.

I'm talking about the rest of the universe. All the stuff in it, including antimatter, dark matter, dark energy it's all SOMETHING.

You need to point it out so I can help you understand why there isn't a weakness.

ie: Don't confuse you with the facts?

I think you're getting confused with the concept of anti-matter, which is made of positive energy. Compare gravity and dark energy. DE is the positive balance to gravity's negative energy.

You're the one who's confused. You can't call energy negative and claim it balances a philosophical equation. I'm talking about the REAL world. In order for your position to be logically consistent you have to show how something can be less than nothing. Which is impossible...

I'm not talking about false vacuum. I understand that, and as far as that goes you're correct.

I'm talking about the rest of the universe. All the stuff in it, including antimatter, dark matter, dark energy it's all SOMETHING.

It's all energy and what holds it all together? Gravity. So we're looking at a periodic equilibrium between forces that gives rise to something. Paint in the correct balance makes a work of art, but it's still just paint. All the something is still just a dance between negative and positive energy.

Don't confuse you with the facts?

No, I'm asking you to give me your evidence that I am wrong. If you're not going to present it, then why are you arguing?

You can't call energy negative and claim it balances a philosophical equation. I'm talking about the REAL world.

So am I. Quantum mechanics and the energy equations determined from observing reality are not philosophy, they're evidenced and accurate to 10 decimal places in predictive ability.

In order for your position to be logically consistent you have to show how something can be less than nothing. Which is impossible...

That isn't my stance. Something is certainly something. Don't strawman if you don't understand. Ask questions or attempt to point out the flaws. Stop this passive aggressive nonsense.

Having trouble posting. Test

Religious beliefs are surely not for the weak minded. I suggest that those of you who claim so check out a few of the many smart people, much smarter than you and I , that have believed in a higher power.

Religious beliefs surely ARE for the weak-minded.

See that - Are you going to buy into that? Of course not. The question is why you thought that your statement was somehow meaningful.

Religious beliefs are surely not for the weak minded. I suggest that those of you who claim so check out a few of the many smart people, much smarter than you and I , that have believed in a higher power.

Religious beliefs surely ARE for the weak-minded.

See that - Are you going to buy into that? Of course not. The question is why you thought that your statement was somehow meaningful.

Religion is complicated and for some reason you cannot figure it out.

Funny how you criticize someone's model in one statement and then say it depends on which theoretical model one subscribes to in another statement.

Reading comprehension lesson - you said with absolute certainty:

Before the Big Bang there was no vacuum.

A statement of fact and certainly not presented as a model. I pulled you up on it asking how you could possibly know that for a fact (admittedly with some condescension, given your track record).

You replied by quoting my thoughts on a different matter which were all qualified and presented as alternative theories. Note, they were not stated as FACTs. I even linked them to philosophy as there is no current evidence that supports them.

And then you dig the hole deeper with further statements the makes you sound phony and prejudiced.

Except that you're the one doing the digging as you completely misinterpreted what I said.

[2] The mating of near relatives without producing offspring. Why should this be wrong?

Last time I checked mating was still the leading cause of offspring. Accidents do happen. That's why it's wrong. Of course your argument could be one of homosexual incest where procreation can't happen. I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't endorse that sort of behavior though.

Religion is complicated and for some reason you cannot figure it out.

The only thing that makes religion complicated is making sure it is "unchanging". This practice requires you to constantly make up new lies and falshoods to further the argument for unchanging dogma.

You could very simply, just change the dogma, but you refuse to. Therefore, religion is only complicated to those who have an unhealthy view of how it should be and what it states.

I guess you can dismiss these types of questions and ideas as being purely philosophical, but asking and attempting to answer them may lead to unexpected and profound insights that may yield to scientific corroboration.

Recent experiments with weak quantum measurements seem to reveal the non-linear nature of time. While much more study is needed, this experimentation pushes ideas on time from philosophical musings to testable theories.

Religion is complicated and for some reason you cannot figure it out.

Your efforts to make us all embrace religion sure aren't complicated. They amount to 'Agree with me, or you're stupid. This stuff is so obvious I don't even need to make a rational argument to support it.'

You say religion is correct, with no support behing your statement. I merely gave you a response that hopefully illustrated how pointless such a statement is. Based on your last response, you didn't get it. You simply say that religion is too complicated for me to understand. How is it so complicated?

To me, religion seems really simple. You do what the authorities tell you to; ignore what they tell you to; and, in many cases, give them the money that they tell you to. You have the comfort of ignoring all philisophical quandries, as it all comes back to one unfalsifiable belief.

@Skeptic_Heretic:

Quote: The only thing that makes religion complicated is making sure it is "unchanging". This practice requires you to constantly make up new lies and falshoods to further the argument for unchanging dogma.

You could very simply, just change the dogma, but you refuse to. Therefore, religion is only complicated to those who have an unhealthy view of how it should be and what it states.

Comment: You have me confused with someone else. I never said everything in religious texts were correct. Many of my ideas do not agree with the written word for instance: I do not believe God has always existed and I have a different viewpoint of the Holy Ghost. That is part of the reason I said religion is complicated!

@DamienS:

Well, it is nice to see you have a sense of humor.

But again, there was no vacuum before the Big Bang. If you want more information, then you will have to wait or figure it out for yourself.

I never said everything in religious texts were correct.

What methodology do you use to determine what is 'correct' and what isn't?

Many of my ideas do not agree with the written word for instance: I do not believe God has always existed and I have a different viewpoint of the Holy Ghost.

Other than gut feel and cherry-picking, what has led you to these conclusions?

The bit about god not always existing is a new one as it means someone or something created him (or he evolved like the rest of us). Maybe you think god is some kind of advanced alien? Either way it's a flight of fancy without any evidentiary support.

@DamienS:

Well, it is nice to see you have a sense of humor.

But again, there was no vacuum before the Big Bang. If you want more information, then you will have to wait or figure it out for yourself.

Your reply wasn't unexpected.

@DamienS:

Quote: What methodology do you use to determine what is correct and what isn't?

Answer: I started from scratch ignoring all but basic atomic theory and got lucky. It even attracted a lot of attention, if you know what I mean.

Quote: The bit about god not always existing is a new one as it means someone or something created him (or he evolved like the rest of us). Maybe you think god is some kind of advanced alien? Either way it's a flight of fancy without any evidentiary support.

Answer: What I am talking about goes way beyond Charles Darwin's ideas. Plus, I forgot to mention that an atheist will never figure out the origin of the Big Bang and I mean never.

Quote: Your reply wasn't unexpected.

Answer: You are being used! Thank You.

I started from scratch ignoring all but basic atomic theory and got lucky.

How does that reply explain anything at all about your methodology?

It even attracted a lot of attention, if you know what I mean.

Nope, I don't, since you haven't explained anything yet.

What I am talking about goes way beyond Charles Darwin's ideas.

Again, you have nothing to say, except to name-drop.

Plus, I forgot to mention that an atheist will never figure out the origin of the Big Bang and I mean never.

That's probably true. A scientific thinker knows there are limitations to knowledge and the origin of the big bang might be one. Whereas a deluded theist will be satisfied in his certitude of the unknowable.

@DamienS:

Quote: That's probably true. A scientific thinker knows there are limitations to knowledge and the origin of the big bang might be one. Whereas a deluded theist will be satisfied in his certitude of the unknowable.

Answer: Wrong again jerk.

[2]The mating of near relatives without producing offspring. Why should this be wrong?

Last time I checked mating was still the leading cause of offspring.

Well, I didn't speak about producing offspring. Why do you?

Accidents do happen. That's why it's wrong.

Accidents don't happen when one or both are vasectomized/sterilized.
Accidents do happen in lots of non-mating situations. Some are called "collateral damages". But neither traffic nor warfare is called wrong or forbidden. So why should non-fertile incest be wrong?

Of course your argument could be one of homosexual incest where procreation can't happen.

Yes, this is one of the cases where I don't see any ethical obstacle. Do you?

I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't endorse that sort of behavior though.

Why should the Bible matter? Most people on this planet don't care for the Bible.
This is PhysOrg and not SundaySchool.

To me, religion seems really simple. You do what the authorities tell you to; ignore what they tell you to; and, in many cases, give them the money that they tell you to.

The pars-pro-toto principle doesn't work here. When your subject is "religion" (which is a very general term) then you can't extrapolate your individual experience with creationists and members of other anti-intellectual sects prevailing in your vicinity upon the grand ensemble of terrestrian religions.
It's ahistorical, unmusical, and intellectually shoddy.

That is part of the reason I said religion is complicated!

No, that means only YOUR religion is complicated. The vast majority of us have no tie in, nor any inclination to believe what you do. You appear to take issue with this, too bad. We don't care what you think when it comes to your personal beliefs, hence why they are considered personal.

If you're here to proselytize in your chosen dogma, feel free, but recognize that you will encounter strong and intellectual resistance.

Enjoy your stay, try not to be ignorant.

Uh yeah, gotta take issue with the "religion is complicated" statement.

My religion is stupendously simple.

My spirituality is simple, it was dearly bought however. A price I'd gladly pay again.

Some people want to make religion "complicated", this is why I don't go to church, and why I generally detest ALL organized religion.

Christ's message is simple. Sad to see how some simple people want to make it complicated...

I do not care about strong resistance. I am a grown-up. Say what you want, but creation (religion) as Frajo likes it does involve science. Too bad you people are too blind or hateful to reconize the value in religion.

By the way, you folks should file a complaint with Physorg.com about their articles that include the word God. Just type-in the word god in the search table and see what you get. Maybe they will heed to your stupid request.

By the way, you folks should file a complaint with Physorg.com about their articles that include the word God. Just type-in the word god in the search table and see what you get.

I don't think it would do much good. Physorg knows all too well that religion is a polarizing topic, sure to bring out the cranks to stir the pot and therefore attract traffic to the site.

@frajo:

Quote: Why should the Bible matter? Most people on this planet don't care for the Bible.

Reply: There are about 2.1 billion Christians around the world. There would be more if it wasn't for the Muslim extremists. There are about 7 billion people worldwide. That adds up to about 1 in 3 people are Christians.

I do not care about strong resistance. I am a grown-up. Say what you want, but creation (religion) as Frajo likes it does involve science. Too bad you people are too blind or hateful to reconize the value in religion.

While the value of religion is debatable, it's a blatant lie to state that there is any science in Creationism. There are no legitimate scientific theories that rely upon divine or supernatural forces.

You say you're a grown-up, but you really like to resort to childish name-calling. But you're right: it would be stupid for us to request Physorg refrain from using god as an explanation in the articles it posts. The interjection of the g-word only occurs in the comments to the articles.

Oh, and 1 out of 3 is not a majority, by definition.

@Terrible Bohr:

Quote: There are no legitimate scientific theories that rely upon divine or supernatural forces.

Reply: Not any yet made public.

Quote: The interjection of the g-word only occurs in the comments to the articles.

Reply: Look at the Physorg.com article titled: Angry at God? If so, you're not alone, says psychologist.

Quote: Oh, and 1 out of 3 is not a majority, by definition.

Answer: Christianity is 33%, Islam is 21%, Nonreligious is 13%, Hinduism is 14% and so on. Christianity is the dominant religion or majority.

Quote: There are no legitimate scientific theories that rely upon divine or supernatural forces.

Reply: Not any yet made public.

I wonder why?

I think what matters most is the large number of early human fossils found in Africa's equatorial belt dated from aprox 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. Also, all of our nearest cousins were there at the same time or before. I'm sure the Israel fossil will only prove that man walked out across those african savanahs much sooner than we thought.

There are about 2.1 billion Christians around the world. There would be more if it wasn't for the Muslim extremists.

There would be less if it wasn't for the bloodthirsty "missionaries" on the heels of the (west- (they spread the word in Latin, you know, not in Greek)) roman empire who christianized first Europe and later the Americas.

creation (religion) as Frajo likes it does involve science

I don't understand that sentence. Could you repeat it in another language?
Btw, my favorite cosmology is the ekpyrosis. That's Greek (as kosmos is) and it is embedded in a cyclic cosmological model which means it is creation-free. No creation, no philosophical headache. :)

The interjection of the g-word only occurs in the comments to the articles.

Look at the Physorg.com article titled: Angry at God? If so, you're not alone, says psychologist.

Exactly. Psychology is the science of researching what happens in one's head.

Oh, and 1 out of 3 is not a majority, by definition.

Christianity is 33%, Islam is 21%, Nonreligious is 13%, Hinduism is 14% and so on. Christianity is the dominant religion or majority.

You should be in love with bacteria. They are the dominant life form or majority.

There are about 2.1 billion Christians around the world. There would be more if it wasn't for the Muslim extremists. There are about 7 billion people worldwide. That adds up to about 1 in 3 people are Christians.

50% of people are of below average intellect. Do we want to compose a venn diagram of these two statistics?

There are about 2.1 billion Christians around the world. There would be more if it wasn't for the Muslim extremists. There are about 7 billion people worldwide. That adds up to about 1 in 3 people are Christians.

50% of people are of below average intellect. Do we want to compose a venn diagram of these two statistics?

@heretic: Not to be mean, but, from a purely mathematical analysis, do you see the contradiction in your above statement? 50%? How is it that 50% of anything can be below an average when that average is obtained from the "50%" that are "below" it? Maybe I'm wrong. If so please correct me and please give me an example to illustrate to me how the math would work in the case of how "50%" of "ALL" people could, mathematically speaking, be "below" AVERAGE.

How is it that 50% of anything can be below an average when that average is obtained from the "50%" that are "below" it? Maybe I'm wrong. If so please correct me and please give me an example to illustrate to me how the math would work in the case of how "50%" of "ALL" people could, mathematically speaking, be "below" AVERAGE.

Do you really need help with this one?

Yes! First we need to know how you know that 50% of every person(babies included),which haven't all even been tested, can be below average.

Are you extrapolating right of into la-la land? How do you know the 50% figure is correct? Have you personally tested ever person on the planet? Or did some person tell you and you believed them? And that leads to: well how do they know? It is a tremendous claim that you have made, one that includes 7 billion people.
Given the arrogance, I shall assume that you count yourself in the above average group and me and any one that disagrees with your brazen claims is in the under average group. Correct?

Yes! First we need to know how you know that 50% of every person(babies included),which haven't all even been tested, can be below average.

Have you ever calculated an average? SH MIGHT be SLIGHTLY off. It could be 51 percent or 49 percent but with a bell curve 50 percent ARE below average and 50 percent are above average.

Not all human statistics follow a bell curve. Foot size in Europe has a camel back curve. Human intelligence has a long tail at the high end so it is VERY possible that MORE than 50 percent of the population has an IQ that is less than average. Whether they have taken an IQ test or not.

Ethelred

Given the arrogance, I shall assume that you count yourself in the above average group and me and any one that disagrees with your brazen claims is in the under average group. Correct?

Quite incorrect. I do however know how to perform averages. Unless there's a cabal of hyper intelligent or hypo-intelligent people out there the numbers are self explanitory. You're trying to suggest that no one can ever take an accurate measure of population demographics.

Do you realize how incorrect that is? Especially when someone is attempting to counterclaim the percentage of religious adherants within the world populace?

@ethelred

I wasn't asking outright if 50% is possible. I was trying to blatantly point out that nobody can obtain a 50% below average figure that covers every person if every person has not been part of the test. See what I mean. Now you may test 100,000 people across the globe at random but when all is said and done you can only honestly say that according to this test administered to these 100,000 people we have caculated from "the data obtained" from the 100,000 people that so and so percent of these particular 100,000 people are below the average of the total 100,000 people. My point is you can get a number from the testing of these 100,000 people; how many of them fall below the average for the whole 100,000. Ok? Now to take what you know about these 100,000 people and try to apply it to the billions of people that you did not test IS NOT SCIENCE. If you tested 100,000 then use it for them. We must not speak of untested people as if they had taken a test that they did not take.

I was trying to blatantly point out that nobody can obtain a 50% below average figure that covers every person if every person has not been part of the test

That version is also wrong. You don't to test EVERYBODY to a clear picture of intelligence.

See what I mean

I see what you don't understand.

100,000 people are below the average of the total 100,000 people.

No. You can say a LOT more than that. IF the people were chosen at random or there wasn't a systematic bias. IQ tests are given to ALL children in US public schools. Thats a pretty good test set.

On TOP of which is the DEFINITION of average. You clearly don't understand it. Tested or not 50 percent will be below average as long as you have a bell curve. And the tests that have been done show something close to a bell curve. Except for that long tail at the top end which means that is MORE than 50 percent are below average.

Ethelred

Tabula sounds like he's trying to start a Scientology type religion.

"I have all the answers, but I'm not giving them away for free".

Right.

How is it that 50% of anything can be below an average when that average is obtained from the "50%" that are "below" it?

Well, SH's statement

50% of people are of below average intellect

is an implicit definition of the term "average": The "average intellect" is to be understood as the number that separates the lower 50% from the higher 50%. Absolutely legit and free of the need to measure anything.

Ceterum censeo:
The IQ does not measure "intelligence" as this term is undefinable as it's a remnant of 19th century burgeois thinking. Of course, you could define: "Intelligence" is to be understood as the result of an IQ test. Unfortunately, there are a lot of different IQ tests and all of them are biased to favour the thinking of their inventors who are primarily influenced by Western culture.
Thus, the graphic on sabahan.com/2007/01/18/
worlds-average-iq-distribution-map (put it together into the address field) is not at all astonishing.

My point is you can not take an average from data you do not have to take an average from. That is my point.

I am not disputing wether or not 50% below average can be obtained. My arguement is that you cannot obtain ANY average from data that is not available.
In other words claiming 50% of people(read all people) are of below average intelligence can not be an accurate statement if you are trying to apply the figure to all people everywhere, because all people everywhere have certainly not taken whatever this test is that you still haven't given a name for. My point, as plainly as I can say it is: if 1 billion people took your test and it was found that 50% of them had below average intelligence. That's fine. Then we can say with confidence what we have learned about the 1 billion people who took the test. Please keep in mind though that it does not give you any data from the 6 billion people who didn't take the test.If you would like to learn about them then TEST THEM ALSO.

In other words claiming 50% of people(read all people) are of below average intelligence can not be an accurate statement if you are trying to apply the figure to all people everywhere, because all people everywhere have certainly not taken whatever this test is that you still haven't given a name for.

If I have a group of 100 numbers evenly distributed, 50% of them will be below the average. If I do this with the traits of people, the way the average, and the final result is no different. I do not need to test an entire demographic to make a general demographic statement. This is basic statistical understanding. The only way I'm incorrect is if there is a large enough tgroup of outliers to disrupt statistical averaging either to the high side or the low side in which case, over such a large potential selection, I may be off by 1 or maybe 2 percentage points as Ethelred said.

We're not going to play math masturbation to make you happy with my general statement.

If we were talking about chemical thermodynamics I would not have said anything. It's just that in my experiance with people, they seem way too subjective to just generalize about them. I wouln't argue about the growth rates of those flowstones in that cave in Israel as long as we knew the source of the flow. They mentioned layers of sediment in that cave in which teeth had been found deeper in some places and shallower in others. It makes sense to me that those layers of sediment in which the teeth were found in the cave had to have been deposited at some point and I know of no physical law that would stop these sediment layers from transporting the teeth into the cave from a nearby burial site. What is to stop a flashflood or even a couple flash floods from depositing those sediments and teeth into that cave in a few minutes. My point here is I would like the teeth to be dated by the teeth and not the puddle of sediment it may have been washed into. Can the teeth give us their age?

What the hell does that have to do with 50% of the population being of below average intelligence?

Sediment dating works because it isn't the only measure used. We correlate sediment chemistry with atmospheric chemistry and geologic mobility.

If you want the teeth to be dated by the teeth alone, you don't understand how dating works or why we consider it statistically significant.

What is to stop a flashflood or even a couple flash floods from depositing those sediments and teeth into that cave in a few minutes.

Nothing, but if that had happened we would not receive a date of 400 kya.

'If you want the teeth to be dated by the teeth alone, you don't understand how dating works '

@Heretic

from: science .mcmaster .ca
"Electron Spin Resonance Dating (ESR): Fossil teeth are a ubiquitous component of prehistoric sites, and as a consequence, ESR dating of tooth enamel is very widely applicable in archaeology and palaeoanthropology.

Since publication of the first papers on dating of sites in Israel (Schwarcz et al., 1988; Schwarcz et al., 1989) electron spin resonance (ESR) dating of tooth enamel has been recognized as a useful tool for chronometric dating in the time range beyond the 40 ka limit of radiocarbon and up to at least 2 Ma (Schwarcz et al. 1994)."

I think this might work alright!

I think what matters most is the large number of early human fossils found in Africa's equatorial belt dated from aprox 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. Also, all of our nearest cousins were there at the same time or before. I'm sure the Israel fossil will only prove that man walked out across those african savanahs much sooner than we thought.

This attitude puzzles me. All of our nearest cousins were in the Near East 400,000 years ago too. Heidelbergensis fossils have been found in Greece...

On Edit: Actually Heidelbergensis is more of a "father" than a cousin for that matter.

I think this might work alright!

And what is your second method to correlate the date found through enamel dating?

As I said, you don't understand dating if you think we run a single type of test and declare an answer. That would be "bad science".

I think this might work alright!

And what is your second method to correlate the date found through enamel dating?

As I said, you don't understand dating if you think we run a single type of test and declare an answer. That would be "bad science".

FTA:"Our cave was used for a period of about 250,000 years -- from about 400,000 years ago to about 200,000 years ago," he told AFP.

"The teeth are scattered through the layers of the cave, some in the deeper part, that is to say from 400,000 years and through all kinds of other layers that can be up to 200,000 years. The oldest are 400,000 years old", he added."

I know I'm missing something here SH, what is it?

I know I'm missing something here SH, what is it?

Nothing that I can see. They're not discussing dating methods within that snippet. This is the relevant piece at the end of the article:

Gopher said the first teeth were discovered in 2006 but he and his team waited until they had several samples, then conducted years of testing, using a variety of dating methods, before publishing their findings.

@heretic it appears ESR dating of tooth enamel can be combined with a process of dating known as U-series dating which measuring the uptake of U appearently in the tooth enamel over time.

www-(replace w's>.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/staff-directory/palaeontology/stringer/assets/skhul-pdf. pd f (

@heretic it appears ESR dating of tooth enamel can be combined with a process of dating known as U-series dating which measuring the uptake of U appearently in the tooth enamel over time.

-pdf . pd fwww-(replace w's>.nhm .ac. uk/research-curation / staff-directory/ palaeontology/
stringer/ assets/skhul (

4 ways to conduct research:
(1) Remain Agnostic and interpret the scientific facts
(2) Remain Theistic and interpret the scientific facts
(3) Remain Atheistic and interpret the scientific facts
(4) Let scientific facts alone guide you to become Agnostic or Theistic or Atheistic

4 ways to conduct research:
(1) Remain Agnostic and interpret the scientific facts
(2) Remain Theistic and interpret the scientific facts
(3) Remain Atheistic and interpret the scientific facts
(4) Let scientific facts alone guide you to become Agnostic or Theistic or Atheistic

One of the most intelligent posts I've read in a while.

1/3

4 ways to conduct research:

OK I will go with this.

(1) Remain Agnostic and interpret the scientific facts

Same as 4. There is no difference between one and four.

2) Remain Theistic and interpret the scientific facts

Difficult to do for Fundamentalist as they would have to give up being Fundamentalists in most fields. They could be chemists for instance but nothing that dealt with the Earth being old. Other theists don't have the age of the Earth problem. However they can still have problems with filtering everything through religious thinking.

I know of one case in India, don't know if the person was thinking AS a religious person or not. There is a city with these odd artifacts in the houses. Haven't been seen anywhere else even now. In archeology if something doesn't make sense in in another way there is a tendency to assume it's religious in nature. They decided the artifacts were family alters.

More

2/3

Well TOILETTES ARE still often referred to as the porcelain throne. Which is what that turned out to be. No one had EVER seen indoor plumbing before that far back or even close to it. Religious thinking is endemic in archeology even if everyone involved was non-religious.

(3) Remain Atheistic and interpret the scientific facts

Difficult to see any thing different there between one and four. The reason being is that no one has any physical evidence for a god yet. Despite that some people claim to have been Atheists and changed their minds over something they discovered. Usually they don't convince any other Atheists and certainly no Agnostics. Usually the cause is something that appears fine tuned and they simply can't see how it could happen without a god. Narrow minded people with no imagination as I have never seen anything I can't see way to occur without a god.

More

That kind of result seems to be from thinking about thing backasswards. LIFE is tuned to match the Universe not the other way around. This is inherent in the way the process of evolution works.

(4) Let scientific facts alone guide you to become Agnostic or Theistic or Atheistic

Which leads to doing the rest of a person's work in the other three modes, only I don't see it as three, Four and One are indistinguishable. Two CAN produce bad science as Dr. Behe does constantly and three USUALLY produces results that are indistinguishable from one and four. Usually.

There are 2 reasons I have not responded your last set of questions. The main is that Skeptic Heretic covered it. The other is because I wanted do other things. One of which was to read more about the Shostak Hypothesis which looks more interesting this time around. Mostly I have been playing on other threads.

There ARE other discussions going on. You could click on a name and see where else we rant.

Ethelred

some people claim to have been Atheists and changed their minds over something they discovered. Usually they don't convince any other Atheists and certainly no Agnostics. Usually the cause is something that appears fine tuned and they simply can't see how it could happen without a god. Narrow minded people with no imagination as I have never seen anything I can't see way to occur without a god.

That's too coarse. Narrow minded is not equivalent to lack of education.
Maybe we should read Dostoyevsky once more. Personally I know uneducated people (analphabetics - girls who had, unlike her brothers, to work on the fields instead of going to school because their parents were too poor to make ends meet otherwise) who are, due to their environment, believers AND at the same time extremely social, understanding, and friendly to anybody who respects their fate no matter whether he's a believer or not.

Narrow minded is not equivalent to lack of education.

Of course not. I am talking about SCIENTISTS. Actual educated people. Just not a well rounded education I guess. Perhaps they just hated the Anthropic Principle so much that they would rather get religion then accept the idea that we wouldn't be here if the we and the Universe weren't somewhat in tune.

You can see it time and again, even from Agnostic or Atheist physicists. They want there to be ONE Universe and ONE set of laws which were the only ones possible. It isn't going to happen. All right that last is an opinion but I think it's well founded.

Maybe we should read Dostoyevsky once more.

Once more would be the first. I just can't bring myself to read Russian novels. No problem with long novels. Just Russian angst. I like fantasy and science fiction. The occasional mystery and historical fiction.

Ethelred

@heretic it appears ESR dating of tooth enamel can be combined with a process of dating known as U-series dating which measuring the uptake of U appearently in the tooth enamel over time.

www-(replace w's>.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/staff-directory/palaeontology/stringer/assets/skhul-pdf. pd f (

Not considered reliable. Why are you trying to argue whether the teeth are dated by posting methods of tooth dating? The teeth have been dated, using multiple methods, you are denying the age of the teeth.

The work was already done, deal with the results. 400kya for the oldest specimens.

@heretic

My curiosity is not satisfied by the level of information given in the article.

If I were on that team that is claiming something which upsets the apple cart I would make a big deal and go into great detail about how my discovery was dated.

Since funding is such a big issue for so many fields of research the conflict of interest really makes me question who I can trust espeacially if claims are not thoroughly detailed and clear.

Anyway I hope you are having a good morning.

Another thing that bothers me with the "Out of Africa" theory in light of this discovery is that not only is there no longer any good reason to believe that the first modern humans evolved in Africa anymore, but also that human civilization began in the Near East as well.

It's not proof like the teeth are, once humans were on the planet they could have developed civilization wherever they had spread to. However, it would make more sense that it might happen where they'd been the longest IMVHO...

My curiosity is not satisfied by the level of information given in the article.

Then look up the research and read that.

If I were on that team that is claiming something which upsets the apple cart I would make a big deal and go into great detail about how my discovery was dated.

Except the journalist who wrote the article above is not the researcher.

Since funding is such a big issue for so many fields of research the conflict of interest really makes me question who I can trust espeacially if claims are not thoroughly detailed and clear.

Oh great, an anti-scientist. If you think there's some large conspiracy going on, start following the articles to their originating source. If you still don't understand the research, or the relevence of the research, or you want to question the researcher, do so. Most researchers will talk to anyone who emails them on the topic, because as you said, they "would make a big deal and go into great detail".

No problem with long novels. Just Russian angst. I like fantasy and science fiction. The occasional mystery and historical fiction.

Try reading some Gogol. He has much the same psychological insight as Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, but with absurdist humor.

He has much the same psychological insight as Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Gogol

Uhh no.

What do you think I meant by Russian angst? I am NOT looking for psychological insight, especially from someone that drinks booze he can't taste.

Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka - oooh I can't wait to read that. How about corn in Nebraska?

His more mature writing satirised the corrupt bureaucracy of the Russian Empire, leading to his exile.

Yes Yes yes I have got to read about that. But only if Rasputin is the protagonist.

I know, I could a get a root canal. Nearly fell asleep the one time I had one.

Maybe I will reread Anathem. Or the entire Boroque Cycle. Or finally read the Flashman books I own but have not read. There is one book by Dr. Penrose that intrigues me almost as much as it makes my brain hurt.

Dawkin's book on religion is NOT on my list.

Ethelred

@Ethelred
Options (1) and (4) are not the same. For in (4), there is a willingness to change one's position in front of compelling evidences which he may come across. Options (1) is unwilling to consider such changes. He says, he cannot know this at any time.

What do you think I meant by Russian angst? I am NOT looking for psychological insight, especially from someone that drinks booze he can't taste.

It was just a suggestion, and I don't strongly care what you read. However, having an understanding of human character doesn't mean the author is bound to write his characters bemoaning their fate.

Options (1) and (4) are not the same

They are. There is no difference except the label. An Agnostic goes on the evidence and reason only. That is why we are Agnostics.

(4), there is a willingness to change one's position in front of compelling evidences which he may come across.

You have just described an Agnostic. There is no compelling evidence for a god. There is no evidence that at least some kind of god doesn't exist. It is only some specific gods that can be ruled out by evidence. The Jehovah of Genesis is one of those that the evidence shows non-existent.

Options (1) is unwilling to consider such changes. He says, he cannot know this at any time.

Wrong. That is SOME Atheists not Agnositics.

There IS, not there can not be, no evidence for a god but there is no way to prove that ALL gods are non-existent.

Many people that call themselves Atheists also agree with the above statement.

Ethelred

However, having an understanding of human character doesn't mean the author is bound to write his characters bemoaning their fate.

Are you trying to mess with a good rant? How dare you.

I WILL RANT ABOUT RUSSIAN AUTHORS IF I WANT TO.

In which case it is best to remain ignorant of Russian authors. Please do not interfere with my closed mind on this subject.

On another, less strident, note, I hear Jane Austen is good.

I am not going to read her either.

It is a matter of time, there is simply more than I can read even if I speed read and I don't like doing that.

Ethelred

Agnostic- A person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)

But in front of compelling evidences he may come across in life, he can either choose to remain the same or to change his mind to become an Atheist or a Theist. Therefore, the difference between option (1) and (4). Can't you accept that Ethelred?

Agnostic- A person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)

That is not the definition of an Agnostic.

Nor is it me or pretty much any Agnostic.

Thomas Henry Huxley defined the term:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

THAT is the definition. Huxley coined the word himself.

But in front of compelling evidences he may come across in life, he can either choose to remain the same or to change his mind to become an Atheist or a Theist.

There is that total shortage of compelling evidence to deal with.

Therefore, the difference between option (1) and (4). Can't you accept that Ethelred?

No. You have the wrong definition of Agnostic.

Ethelred

@Ethelred:
My definition is taken from a dictionary. I stick to that, and I think majority who uses the word may be unaware of your definition.

My definition is taken from a dictionary.

Which dictionary blew it?

I stick to that, and I think majority who uses the word may be unaware of your definition.

It isn't mine. It is HUXLEY's and he invented the word. If someone has it different than his then they have it WRONG. I bet I can find a dictionary, maybe even the same one you used, that agrees with Huxley. Written before checking.

Merriam-Webster
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Note the PROBABLY and NOT COMMITTED, still not the Definitive definition which is inherently that of Huxley but close enough. Far closer than the one you used.

You can misuse any bad definition you want but US Agnostics are going to point out that it doesn't fit any Agnostic that I know.

Ethelred

@Ethelred:
Good reasoning. There is a way to ascertain something to be right and something else to be wrong. Isn't it?

My definition is taken from a dictionary.

Which dictionary blew it?

I stick to that, and I think majority who uses the word may be unaware of your definition.

It isn't mine. It is HUXLEY's and he invented the word. If someone has it different than his then they have it WRONG. I bet I can find a dictionary, maybe even the same one you used, that agrees with Huxley.

Completely correct. The Greek wikipedia entry on [agnostokismos] (agnosticism) tells that Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term in 1869. For those who don't want to rely on wikipedia: The Babiniotis (the Greek analog of the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary) denotes in its entry [agnostokismos] the year 1888 as date of origin.

There is a way to ascertain something to be right and something else to be wrong.

Sometimes; not always. Look for Kurt Goedel's incompleteness theorems.

There is a way to ascertain something to be right and something else to be wrong. Isn't it?

Sometimes. Some of the time probabilities are all there is, sometimes it really is a matter of opinion. Definitions drift with time. I once heard that NICE used to mean foolish for the vikings. And in that context it probably was true.

To pick a dangerously controversial example.

Are Conservatives always wrong? No, they may even be right more often than Liberals IF they are Conservatives in the original sense rather than people that want to back to a possibly mythical past. The reason being is that doing things the same way as before is more likely to be right than changing to new UNTRIED ways, key word is untried. But because new conditions often make old ways obsolete Liberals are often right even when the old way worked pretty well in the past.

More

We live in fast changing times. People are going to screw up. Staying the same will be screwing up in many instances. No one will know the right answers. Even afterwards in many cases.

So in an attempt to be on topic.

Assuming that Modern Men came from Africa may still be right even with this new evidence. Not because we should not take the evidence into account but because those people may not have had many or even any descendants. Humans took a heavy hit after that time, around 70,000 years ago, and we don't know where the humans that survived the hit lived. There is some recent evidence of survivors in India as there are stone tools above and below the ash layer from the Toba Super Eruption. The tools are supposed to be of the same type.

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

At least some Human parasites also show a similar bottleneck thus lending credence to the idea that humans may indeed have been wacked pretty badly around that time.

Ethelred

@Ethelred:
Are you sure of what you wrote above?

Are you sure of what you wrote above?

Depends on what parts you are asking about.

In general.

NO.

Especially the stuff on Toba. It sorta fits the evidence. I did not come up with it. Sorta because genetic clocks are inherently 'sorta'. Human tool kits were pretty limited then and that could be a reason for humans not doing so well. The first signs of true creativity came shortly thereafter. Survival may have depended on new ways of doing things. Thus making creativity a more important trait.

Definitions drift with time. Yes. Absolutely. English suborns words all the time.

That we live in fast changing times. Yes. VERY fast.

The Conservative vs. Liberal stuff. Pretty much think I have it fairly right. The balance is where it gets tricky. Some people have no clue that the other side sometimes has a point. Been a lot of that lately.

Ethelred

@Ethelred:
Can you please write on my previous set of questions. Only in a fundamental way. I would like to hear you very much on it. Thanks for answering all the above.

Are you trying to mess with a good rant? How dare you.

I WILL RANT ABOUT RUSSIAN AUTHORS IF I WANT TO.

I enjoy an occasional rant myself. No further interference on my part.

One question a day. Maybe.

(3) What about von Neumann machine? What is its research status now?

I had to look that one up as it was hazy. My first thought was Von Neumann architecture. I think you mean this:

Von Neumann universal constructor, an abstract device capable of constructing all constructible artifacts of an environment. The notion of same, as described by John Von Neumann via his kinematic (robotic) and tessellation (cellular automata) models.

At the moment someone could put together a set of basic robots that build more similar robots from a set a pre-made parts. Might be some the factory robots are made by robots already. The robots must be programmed by men and the parts will have human handling as well. Entire large factories are needed to make the integrated circuits that control the robots.

More

You might be looking for something with a bit more of a basic start. Machines building machines with no human input after the start. I think that would require a fairly strong Artificial Intelligence. To adapt to new conditions it might even need to be self-conscious. Nanotech assemblers might be needed to avoid a need for the large factories.

The recent developments in artificial proteins and some modular chemistry may eventually lead to molecular machines that are no longer dependent on natural organic chemistry. Despite the problems with Drexler's ideas of self reproducing nano machines there really is nothing stopping us from making things like them, though they may have to be two to say eight times the size, linear, that Drexler originally envisioned.

The claim by some chemists that this cannot happen is pure nonsense. WE are based on molecular machines. Generally larger than the Drexler assemblers natural machines are limited to what can evolve.

More

Evolution must work with what is already there. We can create new starting points to get around the 'you can't there from here' problem. Richard Dawkin's book Climbing Mount Improbable covers that can't there problem pretty well though it is strictly organic and Nanotech would not be limited to organic principles.

Von Neumann machines are still largely at the conceptual stage needing a lot of new developments. Some of which we might want to put under tight control or even ban. Self replicating nano machines really aren't a good idea. Nano-factories that cannot reproduce themselves without the co-operation of other nano-factories and control units could take some of the danger out of nano-tech. That is assuming that I am more right than Bush's pet Chemist is. And life shows that he is full of it.

Ethelred

@Ethelred:
I meant, Self-replicating machine- an artificial construct that is theoretically capable of autonomously manufacturing a copy of itself using raw materials taken from its environment. Like a watch that begets watches.

Seems, no much progress toward it's physical realization.

...
How are they getting these figures for the age of the teeth? Carbon dating (of charcoal in cave) is not accurate for anything that old (400,000 yrs) is it? Aren't they assuming that the 400,000 years worth of dripstones formed AFTER the teeth were deposited in the cave, or, were the teeth found inbeded in the dripstones? In other words how do they know that the teeth are as old or older than the dripstones?

They initially used Uranium-Thorium dating for the layers. Several other kinds of dating were also done and compared. The teeth were embedded in the layers over a period of around 200,000 or so years, with the lowest layer dating to 400,000 years. There were also a lot of animal teeth in the mix.

In any case, if the data holds true this may pose a challenge to the "Out of Africa" scenario. Many scientists are going to have a difficult time letting go of that theory. :)

Forgot to add that two other methods of dating used in this cave, and, if I recall correctly, also on the teeth, were thermoluminescence (TL) and electron spin resonance (ESR) in addition to Uranium/Thorium dating. All of these combined seem to confirm the 400,000 year dating of at least some of these teeth as well as various dates in between for others of the teeth excavated.