Evidence for God from Science

Gman wrote:

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..

Roger that.

Henry F. Schaefer III, Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry; director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia was one of the scientists who wrote the preface for 'More Than a Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_F._Schaefer,_III

The 6th most cited chemist from 1981 to 1997 in the world is one of the scientists that introduces this book.

Gman Said

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

I sincerely doubt the Scientists told them it was a direct ancestor.

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..

No, I was giving you an example which I think is obvious. Homo Sapien and neanderthal have/had a common ancestor, likewise it is possible that Ardi and another one of Homo Sapiens' ancestors (that would have existed at the same time as Ardi) had the same common ancestor. Another explanation is that Ardi is indeed our direct ancestor, but, we don't know, yet. Understand?

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

This was in reply to me saying that no one has said that Ardi IS our direct ancestor. We evolved from an ape like creature, both us and the chimp, we split one way, the chimp the other. Our ancestors in the split that we come from look more like us, the chimps ancestors in their split look more like them.

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!!

Your missing the point, whether it is or isn't our direct ancestor, Ardi still gives us an insight into what our ancestor looked like. If it is our direct ancestor, fine we know what we looked like millions of years ago. if it is not, both us and Ardi still shared a common ancestor, and it STILL gives us an insight into what we looked like. So no, it doesn't prove your point.

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. 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.

To be honest I'd prefer to start with some scholarly articles - theories and preidicitions are much better presented in this way than in books that are intended for a lay-audience. I'd expect you to have the same reaction if I tried telling you to start with a Steve Gould book or some such.

Gman wrote:

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."

The matching of chromosome 2 is so much more than a "banding pattern" though. It contains telomeres (the code at the end of chromosomes) in the centre, and it has 2 centromeres - 1 either side of the central telomeres.
I agree with you that this could indeed be explained by your common designer hypothesis. But what I'm talking about is prediction; could/did the designer hypothesis make such a specific prediction about a chromosome that very much appears to be fused, based on the different number of chromosome pairs between humans and other apes?

Gman wrote: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..

Again this goes back to prediction; could/did the bible or the designer model demand that apes of Ardi's level of bipedality ect. had to exist at the time when A. ramidus did?

Gman wrote: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."

Quite right Gman. There is no solid evidence for a common ancestor of humans and apes. Evidence = submission of data/observations; evidence does not = proof. Evidence can be good, bad, or downright bogus, but proof is something which is beyond the reach for those who preach Darwinian evolution. These fanatics, like dawkins, take Darwin's provisional theory and use it to prop up their faith - atheism. The trouble with this approach is that when you use a provisional theory- which is subject at all times to erosion by a single observation, as a springboard to a leap of absolute certainty in your worldview, then this world view, like the theory, literally hangs by a thread.

To verify Darwin's hypothesis requires knowledge and specific research of the past. You cannot reconstruct the past; you can try to, using evidence. but how safe is this? You cannot gain "direct acess" to the earth's past history. Evidence for evolution can be flimsy or it can be good, but it in no way can amount to proof. Anyone who states evolution as fact is being unscientific.

Dan

DannyM wrote:

Gman wrote: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."

Quite right Gman. There is no solid evidence for a common ancestor of humans and apes. Evidence = submission of data/observations; evidence does not = proof. Evidence can be good, bad, or downright bogus, but proof is something which is beyond the reach for those who preach Darwinian evolution. These fanatics, like dawkins, take Darwin's provisional theory and use it to prop up their faith - atheism. The trouble with this approach is that when you use a provisional theory- which is subject at all times to erosion by a single observation, as a springboard to a leap of absolute certainty in your worldview, then this world view, like the theory, literally hangs by a thread.

Proof is something beyond all of the natural sciences - namely biology, physics and chemistry. Proof is unique to the mathematician and the logician...I've tried to stress this point several times.

I'm curious, though; if people like Dawkins use evolution to prop up their lack of faith, then what of christian scientists in the field of evolution (people like Kenneth Miller), and what of the official stance of the Catholic church on evolution?

touchingcloth wrote:... and what of the official stance of the Catholic church on evolution?

There isn't one.

touchingcloth wrote:

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. 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.

To be honest I'd prefer to start with some scholarly articles - theories and preidicitions are much better presented in this way than in books that are intended for a lay-audience. I'd expect you to have the same reaction if I tried telling you to start with a Steve Gould book or some such.

I happily cross over and read Gould's books just as I read books from prominent scientists who dissent from Gould's conclusion. If you want to stumble around playing games have at it. I've pointed you in the right direction and given you an excellent opportunity to come up to speed quickly with a good introduction to a testable creation model that makes a host of specific predictions. You've decided to choose to ignore it. I can't really take you that seriously after seeing you choose a path of ignorance. I don't respect it at all. It's childish. Now I suppose you'll just post 1,000 posts in threads here stumbling your way through to an understanding that could have been accomplished with a single book.

-5 for a childish decision.

ageofknowledge wrote: I happily cross over and read Gould's books just as I read books from prominent scientists who dissent from Gould's conclusion. If you want to stumble around playing games have at it. I've pointed you in the right direction and given you an excellent opportunity to come up to speed quickly with a good introduction to a testable creation model that makes a host of specific predictions. You've decided to choose to ignore it. I can't really take you that seriously after seeing you choose a path of ignorance. I don't respect it at all. It's childish. Now I suppose you'll just post 1,000 posts in threads here stumbling your way through to an understanding that could have been accomplished with a single book.

-5 for a childish decision.

My point was that popular science books are often a horrible way of getting a proper understanding of a theory - there's too much filler vs succint scholarly papers.
I'm not refusing to read Ross' book but I won't have a chance, due to work, to get into a book shop or library until Saturday. I am still open to seeing any sources that are available immediately though (i.e. licenced for access somewhere on the web).

You could go here, and other pages at that site: http://www.reasons.org/rtbs-creation-model/tcm-big-bang

cslewislover wrote:You could go here, and other pages at that site: http://www.reasons.org/rtbs-creation-model/tcm-big-bang

Thanks CS - good link.

limerick wrote:No, I was giving you an example which I think is obvious. Homo Sapien and neanderthal have/had a common ancestor,

There is no proof of that assertion...

limerick wrote:likewise it is possible that Ardi and another one of Homo Sapiens' ancestors (that would have existed at the same time as Ardi) had the same common ancestor. Another explanation is that Ardi is indeed our direct ancestor, but, we don't know, yet. Understand?

Possible? Yes I understand that what we have here is a philosophy... Thanks for the confirmation again..

limerick wrote:This was in reply to me saying that no one has said that Ardi IS our direct ancestor. We evolved from an ape like creature, both us and the chimp, we split one way, the chimp the other. Our ancestors in the split that we come from look more like us, the chimps ancestors in their split look more like them.

Again, you have no evidence of the claim.. And no one has said that Ardi IS our direct ancestor. So you have nothing but a belief..

limerick wrote:Your missing the point, whether it is or isn't our direct ancestor, Ardi still gives us an insight into what our ancestor looked like. If it is our direct ancestor, fine we know what we looked like millions of years ago. if it is not, both us and Ardi still shared a common ancestor, and it STILL gives us an insight into what we looked like. So no, it doesn't prove your point.

Insight?? I thought you said you had factual evidence for Darwinian evolution? I have insight too... But again, this is not science. This is pure speculation... A belief system.

Just a quick question here.. Not to harm.. Is this the first time you have debated the evolutionary theory?

touchingcloth wrote:The matching of chromosome 2 is so much more than a "banding pattern" though. It contains telomeres (the code at the end of chromosomes) in the centre, and it has 2 centromeres - 1 either side of the central telomeres.

And the telomeres in humans are unique. In comparison to primates, humans have much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.

touchingcloth wrote:I agree with you that this could indeed be explained by your common designer hypothesis. But what I'm talking about is prediction; could/did the designer hypothesis make such a specific prediction about a chromosome that very much appears to be fused, based on the different number of chromosome pairs between humans and other apes?

Very much appears to be fused? But not entirely as we have seen... Again, you have to fill in the blanks.

As for other predictions, the creation model can make predictions too.. Please see predictions of the Christian ID model compared to naturalism.

touchingcloth wrote:Again this goes back to prediction; could/did the bible or the designer model demand that apes of Ardi's level of bipedality ect. had to exist at the time when A. ramidus did?

I don't see the prediction here... No one even knows what A. ramidus is. It's a bunch of crushed bones glued together that could have been anything.. Entire sections missing? Find a complete skeleton and then you might get someone's attention. For now, it's pure speculation...

Sorry...

Gman wrote:

limerick wrote:No, I was giving you an example which I think is obvious. Homo Sapien and neanderthal have/had a common ancestor,

There is no proof of that assertion...

You are coming from a creationist viewpoint, thus, you will never have enough evidence, however this for me is solid evidence, you might disagree though.

Fossil From Last Common Ancestor Of Neanderthals And Humans Found In Europe, 1.2 Million Years Old

limerick wrote:likewise it is possible that Ardi and another one of Homo Sapiens' ancestors (that would have existed at the same time as Ardi) had the same common ancestor. Another explanation is that Ardi is indeed our direct ancestor, but, we don't know, yet. Understand?

Possible? Yes I understand that what we have here is a philosophy... Thanks for the confirmation again..

You are taking me out of context, by highlighting the word possible, it is one of two options, one is correct, which one? scientists are working on it. So no, you have confirmed nothing.

limerick wrote:This was in reply to me saying that no one has said that Ardi IS our direct ancestor. We evolved from an ape like creature, both us and the chimp, we split one way, the chimp the other. Our ancestors in the split that we come from look more like us, the chimps ancestors in their split look more like them.

Again, you have no evidence of the claim.. And no one has said that Ardi IS our direct ancestor. So you have nothing but a belief..

I believe that, that was the whole point of my argument, in that no one has said that Ardi is a direct common ancestor, and I have a belief in the fact of evolution.

limerick wrote:Your missing the point, whether it is or isn't our direct ancestor, Ardi still gives us an insight into what our ancestor looked like. If it is our direct ancestor, fine we know what we looked like millions of years ago. if it is not, both us and Ardi still shared a common ancestor, and it STILL gives us an insight into what we looked like. So no, it doesn't prove your point.
Insight?? I thought you said you had factual evidence for Darwinian evolution? I have insight too... But again, this is not science. This is pure speculation... A belief system.

Try looking at millions of fossils from museums all over the world, and there you will see your evidence. A belief system as far as I'm concerned is when someone cannot explain something, they put it down to supernatural influence

Just a quick question here.. Not to harm.. Is this the first time you have debated the evolutionary theory?

Quick answer no, but yes for online...no harm done...

POST-EDIT: 20:21pm GMT Apologies for the quote structure, don't know how it happened

--I think I fixed it, csll--

touchingcloth wrote:

cslewislover wrote:You could go here, and other pages at that site: http://www.reasons.org/rtbs-creation-model/tcm-big-bang

Thanks CS - good link.

I gave a couple of links as welll