As in the days of Noah.....

[tommyjones]

So, certainly you can point to the source of the fossils, and demonstratably refute what she reported, right?

Recent Developments in Paleoanthropology

well here is a list of fossils and their meanings.

demonstrably shows that scientist disagree with her assertions

 

[This_person]

If you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old based on your Bible, while rejecting the bibles of previous religions, any "Research" that you are working on is going to be tainted by that mentality.

*Scientests (real ones) on the other hand, who also may be tainted, are at least predisposed to the concept of not having Predetermination (like say believing the earth is only 6,000 years old) and are interested in research without influence.

(*Remember we are talking about the Concept of Scientests versus Theists who set out with an already determined outcome.)

And this is the concept that trips you up consistantly. While some REPORTER may post an article stating "Yada Yada has been found" Scientests on the other hand theorize that "Ardipithicus ramidus" could be a transitional species.

So, what I read you as saying is that there are no proven transitional species for humans, just theories that they may be out there. And, thus, no proof of anything. Is that right?

They may uses evidence to back up that theory (seems to be a missing concept on the other side) but its still a theory. Until they gather enough evidence to support otherwise they posit it as a theory.

And, lacking evidence, it should not be believed (based upon your previous statement).

The interesting tidbits of "Fact" (you made a ) that baydoll posted were not based on a Scientific or Logical basis. They start out with the predisposition that God's system didnt need evolution, and that the Earth is 6,000 years old. With those two concepts you eliminate any need for research since your outcome is already determined.

All she said was where the bones came from, and whether the types of fossils were deemed ape or human. How is that not not based ona scientific or logical basis?

 

[This_person]

Using that criteria, Abiogensis and Human Evolution, are totally fine to be taught in a SCIENCE class as a SCIENTIFIC theory. I do believe that is how they are taught. First the SCIENCE class discuss what a theory (as a concept) is, then go onto what the SCIENTIFIC theory regarding Evolution (in general) is. They then go onto teach what the Facts and supporting evidence in regards to that theory.

Well, there are hundreds of theories, why pick this one to teach as opposed to any other? It has absolutely no more to back it up than any other - and (based upon your words) should therefore not be believed.

You know it's not taught as theory, but as fact. You have said yourself that it's a fact, just waiting for proof!

Whether or not they are to be believed? That is a personal decision. I will say it makes more sense to believe in a theory where there is an active search for facts and supporting evidence, than a concept of a Make Believe entity that by definition doesnt need fact or evidence.

True, by definition, if it were evidenced, it would no longer be a faith. However,

An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up.

therefore, not believing evolution - from sponge to human, not from 5'7" human to 5'9" human - would be the most logical, scientific position to take, right?

 

[This_person]

And using that criteria, would you agree that any discussion that inserts a "Prove God did/didnt (insert something here)" is inherently (sp?) flawed?

I would agree that "Prove God didn't do ________" is flawed, or "Prove God doesn't exist" is flawed, as it cannot logically be done.

However, the likelihood of proving God's existance is exactly equal to the likelihood of proving human evolution, or proving abiogenesis as a source of life on Earth, so I would hold the "Prove God exists" or "prove evolution from abiogenesis to modern human" is equally flawed due to no possible test, repeatable and peer reviewable, being able to be performed.

Okay, that's not true. If God Himself came down and proved it, it could happen. However, abiogenesis can't be proven, and neither can evolution from sponge to human. So, it's more likely God will come down, but we can't devise the test, only He can, so it's highly, highly, highly unlikely.

 

[This_person]

I understand your problem with looking in the mirror, since you have them big blinders on. Your entire argument is God did it, and for you thats the end. Using that concept you ignore all contrary evidence.

Careful there, Pot!

No we just expect, as a normal course of a discussion, for your to present facts to support your argument. Using the Bible to prove the Bible isnt valid.

But, her arguments regarding Tommy's posting wasn't the Bible. It was research into the basis for Tommy's assertion of the evolution of man. It used the scientific data's flaws to dispute itself. That's a pretty big difference than what you're claiming here, don't you think?

Your articles do not allow the Scientific Method, because they do not allow the possiblity that they could be wrong. Science on the other hand, by its nature, allows this.

Which is what she did - demonstrate that they may be wrong with the science, thus refuting Tommy's implied conclusion.

I agree using the Bible to prove the Bible doesn't work, just like using flawed science to come to a valid scientific conclusion doesn't work. I really believe that's her point.

 

[This_person]

Oh i know, especially since they do not understand one is a Science concept and the other is a Theist concept.

Well, let's see about that....

The concept of a the Scientific Method is

1. Ask a Question
2. Do Background Research
3. Construct a Hypothesis
4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6. Communicate Your Results

Abiogenesis fails the scientific method you describe on #4, #5, and #6. Human evolution from a sponge fails on #3-6. Using the same criteria required of Intelligent Design, Abiogenesis and Human Evolution (pre-hominoid) fails. This is my argument all along, and you've yet to refute it.

For some reason they do not think a Science class should be teaching Science. They do not understand that it is perfectly valid for Science to teach this concept, since it is a Concept developed by the subject being taught.

And, how is that different for ID? We ask the question, develop a hypothesis, research the source of the hypothesis, and develop concepts and ideas from that hypothesis and research, stagnated by an inability to actually test. It honestly sounds exactly the same to me.

The other response will be why not teach Intelligent Design/Creationism, which would be a valid discussion in a Theological Class. Teaching it in a Science class would be like a Buddhist Class teaching Christianity (wonder if they grasp that concept).

The Reason Science is taught in schools, besides the obvious, is that it is not based on any Religious concepts. It doesnt lend credence to any religion over the others. A theology class could exist to cover Creationism, but to be valid should teach ALL creationist events and not just the ones that they themselves agree with. Since they (typically) wont allow that they are the ones denying the Theological class.

ID is not based upon any particular religion either. The one and only difference is whether stuff just happened inexplicably in a manner we can't comprehend, or whether it happened by cause of an intelligence with purpose - that we can't comprehend. It doesn't seek to justify the purpose, the Creator, or any particular religion's concepts.

 

[This_person]

Because its the one based on Logic and Reason.

No, conjecture. That's different

Not all of evolution is understood.

Or proven. Or provable.

Only to someone of faith (remember the absence of Logic Fact and Evidence). This is the concept you do not grasp, since the antithesis of a "Creator" is Randomness.

I don't have a problem grasping the concept at all. I have a problem seeing evidence where there is none. That a fossil exists is evidence of nothing other than a fossil exists. Similarities in fossils does not prove a chain of ancestry - that's conjecture, with a predisposition that the fossil tends to fit.

The theory that we started from Algae (Gajillion years ago) and evolved into what we are today, is personaly easier to swallow than Poof Mankind is here.

Easier to swallow does not make it true, any more than my (and trillions of other people) finding order in the universe and expecting a causation of the order easier to swallow. PROOF is there for neither.

But then that isnt what you've alleged either, you've agreed that we've evolved, you yourself admitted that "Adam" could have been a Lucy type hominid. You agree that there has been Evolution.

I agree it's a possibility. I also agree it's a possibility that we evolved from sponges and algae. I see no more proof of that than God breathed life into the clay and made mankind. Absolutely none. And, I see no possible way to test either. Therefore, I see no reason to believe abiogenesis or evolution from sponges more than Genesis.

However, other things in my life give ME (not for anyone else, just me) reason to believe in a diety. For me, this tips the scales to Genesis.

Where you seem to have problems is with the idea of where the original foundation come from. You'd rather a modified Poof concept with either many attempts at "Adam" or a Neanderthal type of "Adam" that evolved. If your willing to accept we evolved from a "Lucy" is it really that hard of a concept to take that devolution farther down the chain?

Yes.

I look first at the likelihood of even a single cell of life - the odds are astonomically (no pun intended) against it. So, the best we can presume is a single cell. That single cell had to have just the right conditions to stay alive, and split. Now, from these two cells, which still had to have just the right conditions, we have to have all of ocean, amphibious, land animals, plants, insects, etc., etc. form. And, have mass extinctions, and repopulate (some, exactly as they were when they were close to extinction).

Life forming in the first place loses the credibility test, and the shere volume of what has sprung up from that life is even less likely.

Given what we know of the universe and it's origins, and how that fits into the story of Creation - not to mention the fossils we have found (and HAVEN'T found), the idea that an intelligence beyond my comprehension placed life on Earth, and it evolved from the state He put it here to it's current state is far more likely.

Oil isn't from dead dinasours. We know this, and yet the common concept is that it is. I can't look into a petri dish and see my ancestors. I know this, but I clearly can't convince you of this.

 

[baydoll]

I understand your problem with looking in the mirror, since you have them big blinders on. Your entire argument is God did it, and for you thats the end. Using that concept you ignore all contrary evidence.

Actually I look at ALL the evidence, contrary or otherwise. Do you?

Your entire argument is God did it, and for you thats the end. Using that concept you ignore all contrary evidence

Your entire argument revolves around that this all came from nothing and for YOU that's the end. Since you won't even acknowledge any of what I post because they are contrary to your beliefs, I would say them big blinders fit you pretty good. At least I look at both sides and draw my own conclusions.


And just why is it that our conclusions (those who believe in an Intelligent Design-God) immediately are thought to be biased but your conclusions are automatically considered objective? You have a worldview just like we (Intelligent Designer people) do. As clearly seen by yours and Tommy's posts, your views are not neutral in the least and actually requires more faith than us Intelligent Design folks.

 

[Xaquin44]

'If she only had a brain'

 

[baydoll]

Because the ENTIRE premise of your "conclusion" is that an Unknowing, Unprovable, Untestable, and Not agreed upon (since there are MANY religions other than your own) Entity created it all.

So where did we come from then?

The alternative "conclusion" is actively researching how we came about

Oh? Like this?

From An Unknown Chemical in the unknown primordial past through...

Unknown Processes that no longer exist produced..

Unknown life forms that are not to be found anywhere but could, through...

Unknown Reproduction Methods, spawn new life in an....

Unknown Oceanic Soup Complex at an....

Uknown Time and Place.

yeah, real scientific you all are.

 

[baydoll]

No we just expect, as a normal course of a discussion, for your to present facts to support your argument. Using the Bible to prove the Bible isnt valid.

Oh? Point out all those times I presented the Bible to support my arguments, thanks.

 

[baydoll]

Never said i didnt read them. Unfortunately for you, in the guise of a discussion, the premise of the articles as a Scientific refutal are themselves false.

So point all those errors out. Let's see which ones are not scientific.

The concept of a the Scientific Method is
Ask a Question - Theists already have the answer
Do Background Research - Theist use the Bible to prove itself
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion - Theists fail steps 3, 4 & 5, because As a method you have to accept that your research will not support your Hypothesis. Theists reject the concept that God may not exist, as such any evidence to the contrary is also rejected.
Communicate Your Results
Your articles do not allow the Scientific Method, because they do not allow the possiblity that they could be wrong. Science on the other hand, by its nature, allows this

So would your beliefs pass the same criteria?

 

[baydoll]

The theory that we started from Algae (Gajillion years ago) and evolved into what we are today, is personaly easier to swallow than Poof Mankind is here.

So where DID the first life come from?

 

[Toxick]

So tell us where did we come from then?



Oh? Like this?:

An Unknown Chemical in the unknown primordial past through...

Unknown Processes that no longer exist produced..

Unknown life forms that are not to be found anywhere but could, through...

Unknown Reproduction Methods, spawn new life in an....

Unknown Oceanic Soup Complex at an....

Uknown Time and Place.

yeah, real scientific you all are.

Look, I'm all about faith. I've argued high and low around here in favor of Christianity, and I've put myself up for ridicule supporting it (right, NS?), and I consider myself a decent Christian - although I do have my faults.


However, I'm also all about science. I am, in fact, considered a "scientist" (although, it's computer science, rather than physics, biology or the old-school sciences).

Science is all about empericism. That's all it is. Observance and recording of facts to obtain knowledge. It is cold. It's calculating. It is - by definition - brutally honest and does not allow room for error.

And by its very nature, it admits its own shortcomings.

That science admits when there are holes or unknowns or variables does not negate or invalidate the known facts which do exist. It simply means that as of the current moment, some piece of information is not known.

Personally, I think there is more than enough scientific evidence to support evolution. There are plenty of skeletons which "link" species from apes to humans (all of which are easily googled), and this evidence supports evolution. Now, have archeologists unearthed the skeletons of every single generation recording every single mutation or change for every family tree going all the way back to the first mitochondrion? No. But to say the entire "theory of evolution" is a house of cards because we lack this information, while ignoring the preponderance of supporting evidence is ludicrous.

Now, if you simply want to say, "The devil put the fossils there" then, by all means, do so, but Science, the scientific method, and scientific evidence ALL points to one conclusion, and one conclusion only.

That's what science is.




There is, however, no scientific evidence which leads to the conclusion that God shaped this flying mudball with His bare hands and then sprinkled animals, plants and people on it, over the course of seven days and nights.

And therefore this should not be taught in a Science Class, because it's not Science, until such time as we find God's palm-print under the ice of Antarctica.

Which would, of course, reinforce the Creationists point of view on a scientific level.

 

[Xaquin44]

Look, I'm all about faith. I've argued high and low around here in favor of Christianity, and I've put myself up for ridicule supporting it (right, NS?), and I consider myself a decent Christian - although I do have my faults.


However, I'm also all about science. I am, in fact, considered a "scientist" (although, it's computer science, rather than physics, biology or the old-school sciences).

Science is all about empericism. That's all it is. Observance and recording of facts to obtain knowledge. It is cold. It's calculating. It is - by definition - brutally honest and does not allow room for error.

And by its very nature, it admits its own shortcomings.

That science admits when there are holes or unknowns or variables does not negate or invalidate the known facts which do exist. It simply means that as of the current moment, some piece of information is not known.

Personally, I think there is more than enough scientific evidence to support evolution. There are plenty of skeletons which "link" species from apes to humans (all of which are easily googled), and this evidence supports evolution. Now, have archeologists unearthed the skeletons of every single generation recording every single mutation or change for every family tree going all the way back to the first mitochondrion? No. But to say the entire "theory of evolution" is a house of cards because we lack this information, while ignoring the preponderance of supporting evidence is ludicrous.

Now, if you simply want to say, "The devil put the fossils there" then, by all means, do so, but Science, the scientific method, and scientific evidence ALL points to one conclusion, and one conclusion only.

That's what science is.




There is, however, no scientific evidence which leads to the conclusion that God shaped this flying mudball with His bare hands and then sprinkled animals, plants and people on it, over the course of seven days and nights.

And therefore this should not be taught in a Science Class, because it's not Science, until such time as we find God's palm-print under the ice of Antarctica.

Which would, of course, reinforce the Creationists point of view on a scientific level.

great post =)

unfortunatly, we're arguing with people who refuse to see what science is.

 

[Toxick]

Your ridiculously intolerant

I am not, and I'm offended that you would suggest that I am.



















I get jokes.

 

[This_person]

Personally, I think there is more than enough scientific evidence to support evolution.

And, personally, I don't have a problem with that

There are plenty of skeletons which "link" species from apes to humans (all of which are easily googled), and this evidence supports evolution.

No, the "evidence" lends credence to the theory, it is not in and of itself evidence of evolution. The pieces fit the facts, but they are not in any way conclusive (unless you consider the answer before the proof). That they 're even linked is arguable, though it is the common belief.

Now, have archeologists unearthed the skeletons of every single generation recording every single mutation or change for every family tree going all the way back to the first mitochondrion? No. But to say the entire "theory of evolution" is a house of cards because we lack this information, while ignoring the preponderance of supporting evidence is ludicrous.

I don't believe it is just a house of cards, personally. However, there's yet to be a test which can show that a sponge can offspring-through-mutation to a bird and plant. For evolution to work, such a test should be fairly simple to devise - take a bunch of water and rock and wait. We have an example on Mars of just such an experiment occuring, with no resulting life. We could take our best guess and recreate pre-historic factors in a large lab, and wait. Take a guess why we haven't done this......

Nothing shows a link from algae to animal. Does that mean it's not true? No, not at all. But, it means that it's no more proven that God.

 

[Toxick]

No, the "evidence" lends credence to the theory, it is not in and of itself evidence of evolution.

Paraphrasing Gil Grissom: Evidence is simply evidence. It is what it is. Nothing more and nothing less.

And I think there is enough evidence to show us that evolution happened (and by extension, is happening), and that to say it's not a sound scientific axiom is just plain wrong.

Now, I (and any scientist who respects Science itself) will admit that there is a chance that someday, someone might uncover a piece of evidence that totally blows the entire theory of evolution out of the water, and in 1000 years, we'll look back at the "loony theory of evolution" and be amused, much the same way that today we look back at the naivete of people who thought earth was the center of the universe, and is flat to boot.

However, the likelihood of such a find is very small, and since it has not been found yet, it cannot be integrated into what we call Science.

The pieces fit the facts, but they are not in any way conclusive (unless you consider the answer before the proof). That they 're even linked is arguable, though it is the common belief.

I don't think the concept of evolution was pulled from anyone's ass, and scientists all decided to manipulate the facts to fit the conclusion. It came from observation and discovery and research. I believe that the only way you can say it is not conclusive is if you're demanding a record or fossil of every generation detailing the minute changes of each all the way back to the cradle of life.

That ain't going to happen thanks to the cyclic nature of the earth, plate tectonics, erosion and other natural happenstance that destroy such evidence, such as the fact that animals eat other animals.

On a larger scale, we can work backwards with what we do have... and we have enough evidence to get from Z to Y to X to W, and we have the brains capable of arriving at the conclusion that the same thing happened for D, C, B & A as well.

Of course evidence fades the farther you reach back into the mists of time. So, OK, we don't have the fossilized evidence which links sponges to lemurs. But with the preponderance of evidence that does exist between wolves and dogs, and apes and humans, and mammoths and elephants and birds and dinosaurs, it's absurd to think that such links do not occur farther back in the timeline.


I've never worked with numbers higher than 10e+65.... but I'd be willing to bet my life that the numbers up there work exactly like they do between 0 and 100. I'll accept this, even though I don't have actual hands-on evidence to prove it.

I don't believe it is just a house of cards, personally. However, there's yet to be a test which can show that a sponge can offspring-through-mutation to a bird and plant. For evolution to work, such a test should be fairly simple to devise - take a bunch of water and rock and wait.

Wait, what? 150 millionish years?

Tell you what, you find a lab and perform that expirement. Let me know how it turns out.


The only evidence we have is historical in nature - ironically enough, much like the evidence which led me to God.

You work with what you have.

Nothing shows a link from algae to animal. Does that mean it's not true? No, not at all. But, it means that it's no more proven that God.

Well, since I've proven God (at least to myself - and I have no desire to argue about it today), I believe you're correct.

But I know what you mean...

Since the links from algae to animal were probably all eaten or destroyed in the neighborhood of hundreds of millions of years ago, there will never be such evidence. However with the evidence that exists of links between more modern animals, it's pretty hard for me to believe that there are no links between the ancient critters as well.

Much like it's hard for me to believe that astronomical numbers behave differently than mundane numbers.

 

[godsbutterfly]

hmmm that does sound kind of cool.

when was that movie made?

Check your P.M. I sent you some info.!

 

[Xaquin44]

Check your P.M. I sent you some info.!

hmmmm I didn't get it =(

I deleted all my old messages .... maybe it was full

sorry