Evidence for God from Science

touchingcloth wrote:To deny that evolution is a "fact" (beyond nit-picking the definition of the word) after seeing and understanding the weight of evidence is to dunk your head firmly in the sand.

And yet you still have no proof of it...

ageofknowledge wrote:Absolutely yes! Read the book.

Well I don't have a copy of it to hand, but I will look out for it at my local library at the weekend.
I'd love to hear of any that you know about though.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:To deny that evolution is a "fact" (beyond nit-picking the definition of the word) after seeing and understanding the weight of evidence is to dunk your head firmly in the sand.

And yet you still have no proof of it...

Bravo!
We have plenty of evidence, though. Do you understand the difference between proof and evidence, with particular respect to the fact that nothing can be proved outside of the formal sciences (i.e. maths, logic, etc.)?

limerick wrote:They didn't retract, and you are making a rather big thing out of something small. Tim White has never said it is our direct ancestor, all he siad was that it "is the closest we've ever come to that ancestor along our own line", you see he says "closest" not direct.

No... It's not ABC, Discovery, NG, Time or the media's fault. They were simply reporting what the scientists told them...

limerick wrote:The Neanderthal was also not on the chimpanzee side, but Homo Sapien and the neanderthal both have a common ancestor, really I fail to see your point here.

I fail to see what you are saying.. He said, "Ardi is on our side of the family tree, not the chimpanzee side.'' A "human" descendant.. Are you implying that Tim White was referencing the Neanderthal side? Well he could be one, that is a possibility..

limerick wrote:ABC and National Geograohic were a bit premature, not much need for a retraction, it's a storm in a teacup basically, as no scientist involved in this project is claiming that Ardi is a direct ancestor. As I explained earlier NG printed their story the day before the official release, and ABC is not a science institution.

Not true... Even Kent State University's C. Owen Lovejoy says Ardi shows OUR ancestors were more like us and less like chimps.

But again, I'm in agreement with the statement that Ardi is NOT our direct ancestor. According to your information scientists think it is only a "possibility". That means in is not factual, it is a belief, which get's back to Darwinian evolution as being a belief and not factual. Thank you for proving my point!!

touchingcloth wrote:Bravo!
We have plenty of evidence, though. Do you understand the difference between proof and evidence, with particular respect to the fact that nothing can be proved outside of the formal sciences (i.e. maths, logic, etc.)?

Again, we have been over this many times.. You have no evidence and you have no proof. If you do please show it...

Ardi is the latest flop and limerick is stating that no scientist involved in this project is claiming that Ardi is a direct ancestor of humans.

Sorry...

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:Bravo!
We have plenty of evidence, though. Do you understand the difference between proof and evidence, with particular respect to the fact that nothing can be proved outside of the formal sciences (i.e. maths, logic, etc.)?

Again, we have been over this many times.. You have no evidence and you have no proof. If you do please show it...

I've never claimed to have proof. The fact that evolutionary theory has produced theories ahead of time that have gone on to be validated is very strong evidence that the theory is doing something right - it is congruent with the observed facts to the extent of being able to predict unknown things.

Gman wrote: Ardi is the latest flop and limerick is stating that no scientist involved in this project is claiming that Ardi is a direct ancestor of humans.

Sorry...

No scientist would be reckless enough to suggest that a given set of remains of that age is a direct ancestor. A. ramidus could have been born of a parent that also gave birth to an animal that was a direct human ancestor. Without DNA evidence it's too tough to make a call as specific as that.
What is true, however, is that Ardi is of the right age and shares traits necessary to the kind of creature that had to have existed at some point between A. afarensis and the human-chimp most recent common ancestor. If Ardi was older than that common ancestor, or much more recent that A. afarensis then that would be hard to explain in evolutionary terms, but that is not the case.

ETA - I believe limerick's point about neaderthal is that Ardi, like neanderthals, is on out side of the branch where we ultimately diverged from chimps, although like neanderthals is not necessarily a direct ancestor to either the H. sapiens species as a whole or any individuals of our species.

touchingcloth wrote:I've never claimed to have proof. The fact that evolutionary theory has produced theories ahead of time that have gone on to be validated is very strong evidence that the theory is doing something right - it is congruent with the observed facts to the extent of being able to predict unknown things.

Again... What strong evidence?? Where is it ?? I'll take anything...

touchingcloth wrote:No scientist would be reckless enough to suggest that a given set of remains of that age is a direct ancestor. A. ramidus could have been born of a parent that also gave birth to an animal that was a direct human ancestor. Without DNA evidence it's too tough to make a call as specific as that.

Good... That means they have no evidence.. The media is wrong, the assertion is false.... Thank you.

touchingcloth wrote:What is true, however, is that Ardi is of the right age and shares traits necessary to the kind of creature that had to have existed at some point between A. afarensis and the human-chimp most recent common ancestor. If Ardi was older than that common ancestor, or much more recent that A. afarensis then that would be hard to explain in evolutionary terms, but that is not the case.

Now we are talking philosophy.. Well sure, it is a "possibly"... It "might" have happened.. It "could" be our ancestor, but nothing is concrete here as you have clearly stated. We have to use our imaginations, which get's back to faith... You have to take it on faith..

Thanks for proving my point once again...

touchingcloth wrote:

ageofknowledge wrote:Absolutely yes! Read the book.

Well I don't have a copy of it to hand, but I will look out for it at my local library at the weekend.
I'd love to hear of any that you know about though.

It's new so probably won't be in your local library. You'll need to order it. It's worth it. You'll have a much better understanding of why this trend away from pure Darwinian theory in scientific circles, even at the very top, has been gaining significant growth among scientists as of late.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:I've never claimed to have proof. The fact that evolutionary theory has produced theories ahead of time that have gone on to be validated is very strong evidence that the theory is doing something right - it is congruent with the observed facts to the extent of being able to predict unknown things.

Again... What strong evidence?? Where is it ?? I'll take anything...

For one example take what happened when the genomes of humans and the other living apes had been carefully examined; it was found humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than the apes. In evolutionary terms that demanded that either the other apes had all separately gained an extra chromosome pair, or humans would have a chromosome that was formed out of 2 ape chromosomes. A pretty darn specific prediction, I'm sure you'll agree - and lo and behold it turned out to be correct.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:What is true, however, is that Ardi is of the right age and shares traits necessary to the kind of creature that had to have existed at some point between A. afarensis and the human-chimp most recent common ancestor. If Ardi was older than that common ancestor, or much more recent that A. afarensis then that would be hard to explain in evolutionary terms, but that is not the case.

Now we are talking philosophy.. Well sure, it is a "possibly"... It "might" have happened.. It "could" have happened, but nothing is concrete here as you have clearly stated. We have to use our imaginations, which get's back to faith... You have to take it on faith..

Thanks for proving my point once again...

Ardi definitely did happen. If you want to make an assertion that there is a human, living or dead, that can trace it's ancestry to Ardi directly then yes, on the weight of the current evidence that would take faith. That is not my assertion though.
The timeframe of and characteristics of A. ramidus make sense in terms of (or rather don't contradict) the theory of evolution in general, and the supposed lineage between A. afarensis and earlier human ancestors in particular. Could other theories be proposed that are congruent with what we know so far about Ardi? Without question. Are there any theories that could have predicted the characteristics of a creature of Ardi's age as well as the theory of evolution? Well, none that I know of.

ageofknowledge wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:

ageofknowledge wrote:Absolutely yes! Read the book.

Well I don't have a copy of it to hand, but I will look out for it at my local library at the weekend.
I'd love to hear of any that you know about though.

It's new so probably won't be in your local library. You'll need to order it. It's worth it. You'll have a much better understanding of why this trend away from pure Darwinian theory in scientific circles, even at the very top, has been gaining significant growth among scientists as of late.

Cool, any examples of predictions made by creationist theory that you can quickly cite so I can go and do some research in the time being?

What do you mean when you say "pure" Darwinian theory? Who are the scientists that are moving away, and what are they tending to move towards (if anything)?

Here's one part of the site that addresses some predictive elements of intelligent design...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... emv8qbhR2r

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... I8CUU9d1i5

We find that the ape's 9th and 14th chromosome pairs, if joined together and reversed like a palindrome, look just like the human 12th chromosome. But Darwin says that genetic mutations are random, with detrimental ones dying off and beneficial mutations being passed along. In Darwin's theory, this random mutation that causes 2 chromosome pairs to join together and reverse themselves, would have to occur twice, identically and simultaneously, in a single male, and a single female offspring, that are available to each other, in order to form a breeding pair. If the mutation only occurred once, that organism would be unable to breed. The mutation could only be reproduced if it happens twice in order for the new chromosome to be reproduced. Darwin's theory is slow and gradual change over time. Chromosomes prove that the change has to happen in one instance of reproduction. This directly contradicts Darwin. All life has the same 4 molecules arrainged in certain particular orders, just like a base 4 number system. And evolutionists wonder why an increasing number of scientists look at it and call it genetic software programming.

As this poster at Discovery Science pointed out, "The only inescapable conclusion that Darwin could ever possibly lead us to, is the absolute fact, that for almost every separate species on Earth, there had to be an original, beginning, pair of breeders (excluding species that are capable of asexual reproduction). The idea that the diversity of life on Earth all came about through the guidance of random chance is too far fetched to believe."

touchingcloth wrote:For one example take what happened when the genomes of humans and the other living apes had been carefully examined; it was found humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than the apes. In evolutionary terms that demanded that either the other apes had all separately gained an extra chromosome pair, or humans would have a chromosome that was formed out of 2 ape chromosomes. A pretty darn specific prediction, I'm sure you'll agree - and lo and behold it turned out to be correct.

Not exactly... There are some similarities which also could be explained by a common designer, but there are also differences...

"Humans have two fewer (one pair) chromosomes compared to chimpanzees . However, human chromosome 2 seems to be a combination of two smaller chromosomes found in apes. Most of the human and chimpanzee chromosomes have similar banding patterns, indicating similar overall structure. However, chromosomes 4 and 17 exhibit different banding patterns in humans and also among different species of apes."

Source.. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... lHAlEJxEP2

touchingcloth wrote:Ardi definitely did happen.

Obviously.. The question is does it relate to humans.. Scientists don't really know as you have clearly stated.

touchingcloth wrote:If you want to make an assertion that there is a human, living or dead, that can trace it's ancestry to Ardi directly then yes, on the weight of the current evidence that would take faith. That is not my assertion though.
The timeframe of and characteristics of A. ramidus make sense in terms of (or rather don't contradict) the theory of evolution in general, and the supposed lineage between A. afarensis and earlier human ancestors in particular. Could other theories be proposed that are congruent with what we know so far about Ardi? Without question. Are there any theories that could have predicted the characteristics of a creature of Ardi's age as well as the theory of evolution? Well, none that I know of.

Again, no one is denying that there were pre-historic animals before humans. Even the Bible states that in the timeframe... The question is did these pre-historic animals evolve into humans. That is where you have to take it on faith..

Sorry...

touchingcloth wrote:

ageofknowledge wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:

ageofknowledge wrote:Absolutely yes! Read the book.

Well I don't have a copy of it to hand, but I will look out for it at my local library at the weekend.
I'd love to hear of any that you know about though.

It's new so probably won't be in your local library. You'll need to order it. It's worth it. You'll have a much better understanding of why this trend away from pure Darwinian theory in scientific circles, even at the very top, has been gaining significant growth among scientists as of late.

Cool, any examples of predictions made by creationist theory that you can quickly cite so I can go and do some research in the time being?

What do you mean when you say "pure" Darwinian theory? Who are the scientists that are moving away, and what are they tending to move towards (if anything)?

I mean speciation (e.g. the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise). red and green algae into dinosaurs... whales into humans... etc...

Scientists across scientific disciplines are criticizing evolutionary theory as never before. The more prominent among them are publishing books and journal articles. I've already given you a very good resource to begin with. Why don't you just go buy it tomorrow. It will immediately capture your attention and when you're through with it you'll understand our position much much better we'll all have much to discuss. Then I'll feed you some more prominent scholarly journal articles and we can move the discussion along. But you have no foundation to begin with. I'm trying to give you one. But you have to do your part.

ageofknowledge wrote: Scientists across scientific disciplines are criticizing evolutionary theory as never before. The more prominent among them are publishing books and journal articles. I've already given you a very good resource to begin with. Why don't you just go buy it tomorrow.

Age, since I'm a Ross fan I just put an order in myself... Thanks for the insight..