Christians Believing Badly

[pancreasman]

Nope, I honestly thought that Tassman was that silly.

tsk, tsk.

[JonathanL]

Nope, I honestly thought that Tassman was that silly.

Considering his history here on TWeb I'm not surprised.

[Adrift]

Considering his history here on TWeb I'm not surprised.

Considering his history in this very thread I don't think its surprising.

[Tassman]

Nope, I honestly thought that Tassman was that silly.

I suppose it helps your Paleoanthropologically unsustainable belief that a Divine enspiriting of a specific couple occurred at some unspecified stage since the evolution of anatomically modern humans c. 200,000 years ago, to write off any objections to it as “silly” - given that you don't have any substantive evidence to support this viewpoint. Or, if it comes to that, ANY scenario which involves God transforming Homo sapiens into spirit-filled creatures.

[jordanriver]

I suppose it helps your Paleoanthropologically unsustainable belief that a Divine enspiriting of a specific couple occurred at some unspecified stage since the evolution of anatomically modern humans c. 200,000 years ago, to write off any objections to it as “silly” - given that you don't have any substantive evidence to support this viewpoint. Or, if it comes to that, ANY scenario which involves God transforming Homo sapiens into spirit-filled creatures.

You didn't understand word "provenance" from picture of page I posted.
Sometimes fossils move to wrong deposit where they did not belong. The Richard Lewin / Robert Foley book I cited noted that Omo fossils age disputed because of uncertainty over provenance.
The layers are called "tuffs" which is volcanic ash compressed to like cement. But new tuffs are formed, very often thick, spilling over and 'churning' through older deposits, so sometimes contaminating layer with "basement" rock

[whag]

Nope, I honestly thought that Tassman was that silly.

You honestly hoped.

[Adrift]

You honestly hoped.

I don't know what that means. I honestly hoped that Tassman was being silly?

[shunyadragon]

You didn't understand word "provenance" from picture of page I posted.
Sometimes fossils move to wrong deposit where they did not belong. The Richard Lewin / Robert Foley book I cited noted that Omo fossils age disputed because of uncertainty over provenance.
The layers are called "tuffs" which is volcanic ash compressed to like cement. But new tuffs are formed, very often thick, spilling over and 'churning' through older deposits, so sometimes contaminating layer with "basement" rock

You have described a hypothetical situation that is unlikely unless there was evidence that this actually occured.

[whag]

I don't know what that means. I honestly hoped that Tassman was being silly

Yes, instead of using thought to figure out he wasn't labeling me a Plantinga creationist, you wanted to think he's dizzy.

[Adrift]

Yes, instead of using thought to figure out he wasn't labeling me a Plantinga creationist, you wanted to think he's dizzy.

Pretty much affirming what I said in post #111. I guess you would call these little fantasies "inference" though.

[jordanriver]

You have described a hypothetical situation that is unlikely unless there was evidence that this actually occured.

it is not hypothetical.
For example it has already occurred, when Richard Leakey and Kay Behrensmeyer collected 2 samples of volcanic tuff from the Koobi Fora area to confirm 2.4 mya dates , to geochronologist Jack Miller and Frank Fitch, and instead got 221 mya dates. It was from "basement" rock
source Bones of Contention, (pages 191-192), Roger Lewin (the paleoanthropologist who wrote 3 books with Richard Leakey, not Max Lubenow's book)

and the source for noting the provenance dispute with the omo fossils is from page 375 of Principles of Human Evolution by Roger Lewin with Richard A. Foley source

provenance: (paleontology) "In paleontology it is recognised that fossils can also move from their primary context and are sometimes found, apparently in-situ, in deposits to which they do not belong, moved by, for example, the erosion of nearby but different outcrops. Most museums make strenuous efforts to record how the works in their collections were acquired and these records are often of use in helping to establish provenance."
wiki source

[whag]

Pretty much affirming what I said in post #111. I guess you would call these little fantasies "inference" though.

Seeing that one moment's thought would've shown you Tass wasn't confused about me being a Plantinga creationist, no.

[Tassman]

You didn't understand word "provenance" from picture of page I posted.
Sometimes fossils move to wrong deposit where they did not belong. The Richard Lewin / Robert Foley book I cited noted that Omo fossils age disputed because of uncertainty over provenance.
The layers are called "tuffs" which is volcanic ash compressed to like cement. But new tuffs are formed, very often thick, spilling over and 'churning' through older deposits, so sometimes contaminating layer with "basement" rock

Yes I understood the word "provenance" but there is considerably more than just the Omo fossils supporting the ancient lineage of anatomically modern man. Cherry-picking one or two items that superficially seem to discredit 'evolution' is the disreputable technique employed by the frauds at Discovery Institute or AiG.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree

“From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. With the rapid pace of new discoveries every year, this impressive sample means that even though some early human species are only represented by one or a few fossils, others are represented by thousands of fossils”.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

Fossils and DNA confirm humans are one of more than 200 species belonging to the order of Primates. Within that larger group, humans are nested within the great ape family. Although we did not evolve from any of the apes living today, we share characteristics with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans (the great apes), as well as other apes. We most likely evolved from Homo heidelbergensis, the common ancestor we share with Neanderthals, who are our closest extinct relatives.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/...s/homo-sapiens

[Tassman]

Seeing that one moment's thought would've shown you Tass wasn't confused about me being a Plantinga creationist, no.

Of course it would. I think Adrift’s devoting of two whole pages to this misunderstanding plus his attempts to set you and me against each other is a diversion from the embarrassing facts regarding Adam and Eve which were previously under discussion.

He acknowledges that the 6,000 year ago scenario in the Garden of Eden is utterly unsustainable according Paleoanthropologists. The evidence is overwhelming.

But he’s then faced with the theological issue, which is crucial to the whole Christian message. Namely, that when Adam sinned he sinned for all humanity. And it was this act of disobedience which set up the need for a saviour in the form of the “last Adam”, i.e. Jesus. Hence, the Adam and Eve story and the Fall goes to the heart of Christianity.

Certain theologians (some presented by Adrift), attempt to harmonise the Genesis narrative with modern science and argue that one needn't assume Adam and Eve to be the first humanoids ever, but simply the first humans imbued with God's spirit. However, the question remains when during the c. 200,000 year history of Homo sapiens did this occur. There’s no evidence that it ever did. And, more to the point, when did the catastrophic act of disobedience occur? OR does one assume that the whole of humankind has always been innately sinful from the very first moment Homo sapiens descended from the common ancestor? But, if this is the case, when did the Divine enspiriting occur?

[jordanriver]

Yes I understood the word "provenance" but there is considerably more than just the Omo fossils supporting the ancient lineage of anatomically modern man. Cherry-picking one or two items that superficially seem to discredit 'evolution' is the disreputable technique employed by the frauds at Discovery Institute or AiG.

cherry-picking??

Tassman, YOU are the one who cited the omo fossils in POST 202

so I addressed that