Evidence for God from Science

While I find theistic evolution to make sense for the Universe and all life on Earth, since God had to put it there in the beginning and lay the "ground rules", I am unsure on how our current manifestation of human (H. sapiens) became the species "created in God's image". I don't know how complex our ancestral forms were as in the belief in "Gods" but they probably had some primitive form of religion (as in worshipping the things in nature they couldn't explain).

It is clear from the fossil evidence that there is a clear lineage from Australopithacus to Homo sapiens that outlines the evolution of humans. The problem comes with determining what "human" species is referred to in the Bible. Most people say our species is the only "special" one, but who's to say that H. habilis, H. erectus, or Neanderthals didn't have a belief in a God or gods.

The problem here is how far do want to invoke a God down the tree of life. Perhaps bacteria and fish also had a belief in a God as well? And perhaps they too are created in Gods image since God created evolution and evolution created all of life, the species (whatever those are) that chose to believe in God made God so.

I would find it very hard to say that humans evolved from earlier primitive bipedal hominids... The record is just too incomplete.

Was Neanderthal a monkey?

the most accurate date (see note below) for the origin of modern humans indicate that the last common ancestor to modern humans must have existed less than 50,000 years ago (16). Such a recent date left only one potential ancestor for modern humans, that is, Homo neandertalensis (Neanderthals), which lived between 400,000 and 28,000 years ago. Previous anatomical studies had cast doubt on the possibility of Neanderthals being the ancestors of modern humans (23-27). These studies showed differences in Neanderthal's brain case (23) and the presence of an internal nasal margin, a medial swelling of the lateral nasal wall, and a lack of an ossified roof over the lacrimal groove (24-25). None of these features are found in Homo Sapiens, and the last feature is not found in any other terrestrial mammal! A recent analysis of Neanderthal hands has revealed that modern humans and Neanderthals differed markedly in the kind of grip they could use (26). Neanderthals were limited to grips as one has when holding a stone or baseball. Such a grip would have been powerful (you wouldn't want to shake hands with a Neanderthal), but not very dexterous. The anatomy of the Neanderthal's hands would have prevented them from engaging in fine motor skills, such as carving and painting. Another study showed that Neandertals developed much more rapidly than modern humans (or even their own supposed ancestors) (27), further eroding their possible status as mankind's ancestors. In addition, Neanderthals had a huge nasal cavity coupled with a brain size larger than our own. However, with their carnivorous lifestyle, it seems likely that much of their brain might have been devoted to the sense of smell, being the "dog" among the hominids (28).

In brilliantly designed and executed independent studies, scientists have extracted mtDNA from four Neanderthal skeletons; two from Neander Valley in Germany, another from the northern Caucasus near the Black Sea, and the fourth in Vindija Cave, Croatia, and laid to rest any question of whether Neanderthals could have been our ancestors (29-32). The first study examined a 379 base pair Neanderthal mtDNA fragment and compared it with a mtDNA sequence of 986 nucleotide pairs from living humans of diverse ethnic backgrounds. The results (Table 1) showed an enormous 26 nucleotide base pair difference between the Neanderthal and Human mtDNA (a 6.5% difference) (29). In this region of the mtDNA, modern humans differ from one another in an average of eight base pairs, and those differences were completely independent of the 26 observed for the Neanderthal fossil. However, many of the sequence variations found in the Neanderthals were shared in the Chimpanzee. A 357 base pair sequence of mtDNA was examined from the second Neanderthal fossil and was found to vary from modern human sequences at 23 bases (6.4%), nineteen of which were identical to those of the first Neanderthal. The third Neanderthal differed from modern humans by 26 bases, 23 of which matched the first Neanderthal and 20 of which matched the second specimen. The fourth Neandertal differed from modern humans by 23 bases, 22 of which matched the first Neanderthal, 20 of which matched the second specimen and 23 of which matched the third specimen.

David Blacklock wrote:BTW, the way science works, nothing is set in stone. No matter how firmly set the theory, it is always subject to refinement, change, or complete overhaul - in the face of fresh conclusive evidence.

DB

Then they probably shouldn't teach darwinian evolution as a fact....

All the skeletons that have been found are still those of apes and monkeys. And as such many of these species that have been found have gone extinct.

Do the research… NOT ONE of these skeletons remotely indicates a humanoid. They have all been found to be fakes or altered in some way by fraudulent scientists.

Walking upright is not an indication of evolution from monkey to human since many monkeys today walk upright.

Another thing, the growth of human population indicates that we have only been around for roughly 6,000 years. Do the research for yourself.

Looks are deceiving, just because a skull is "slightly" shaped different or shows big brows or wide nose bone does not in any way suggest that it was a monkey since we have people alive today that show these same features like the Australian Aboriginal people.

Which, did you know at one time because of Darwin's theory people were killed just to be dissected because people actually though they were cavemen.

Oh and another thing, cavemen were mentioned in the Bible when the Tower of Babel was destroyed... they were living in caves and mountains. Additionally, Job in the Bible also makes mention of cavemen.

I dont believe it, that DNA reading is fishyswa! Not enough overal data. Like I said earlier the australian aboriginal look like many of the pictures they dipict of cavemen. However today we know they are just the same as the rest of us. Even the homeless man who lives in a cardboard box under the bridge by my house looks like a dipiction of a caveman.

Did you also know that real giants lived on the earth (like Goliath). Their bones measure anywhere from 9-10 feet long. These are thought by some to be aliens (or ananuki). Some suggest that they were Antediluvian Hybrids... Though the Bible tells us that they were the offspring of fallen angels.

anita wrote:Boy some of you can be treacherous in this forum.

anita wrote:I firmly stick by what I said. All the skeletons that have been found that suggest a transitional stage between ape and man have been altered in some way. Even Lucys pelvis was found to be sawed/filed to fit together to look somewhat human.

anita wrote:Scientists cannot really be relied upon to 'tell the truth - the whole truth and nothing but… if you know what I mean.

Specific Scientific Rebuttals to Young-Earth "Scientific Proofs"
All of the "scientific" evidence for a young earth suffer from one of the following flaws:

Faulty assumptions

Use of faulty data

Avoidance of data that refutes the position

I will be adding more rebuttals as I respond to specific questions. Here is the current list:

Is the Speed of Light Decreasing? - An analysis of the theoretical and observational flaws in the hypothesis that the speed of light was much faster in the past. Actual data and graphs from Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.
Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field Proves the Earth is Young
Polonium Halos in Primordial Rock Prove the Earth is Young
Not Enough Dust on the Earth or Moon Prove the Earth is Young
The Rings Around Saturn Must be Young
The Slowing of the Earth's Rotation Rate Means the Earth Must be Young
The Human Population is Increasing Too Rapidly
Dinosaur Soft Tissue Found in T. rex Bones - Is it really "fresh" tissue?
Is There Really Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth? by Matthew S. Tiscareno - Includes a long list of claims
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology by Dr. Edward L. Wright (offsite)
A Visit To Mt. St. Helens rebuttal to the idea that Mt. Saint Helens provides evidence for young earth "geology" by John N. Clayton (offsite)

anita wrote: It is like that experiment (the Miller experiment) where by using special equipment they managed to get a few amino acids to link up in the laboratory, then the media shouts to all of us "Scientists have created LIFE in a test tube!"
This was not at all true! What Miller got was a mixture of both left and right amino acids, but in order to create life it has to be all "left" amino acids.

anita wrote: What Miller got was actually death not life of any sort.

anita wrote: DNA is a funny thing and as we all learned during the OJ Simpson trial that it gave DNA a whole new twist of contaminants. That's all I can say really!

anita wrote:It doesn't have to walk around upright ALL THE TIME. Since certain species of monkeys (like chimps) and their skeletons reveal a pelvis similar to be able to walk upright (bipedalism) periodically. Such as the Proboscis monkey and the planetdan.