Evidence for God from Science

Wall-dog wrote:Barbarian,

That picture isn't exactly hi-res, but even in it you can see the color variations in the skull. That's not from age. That's from plaster. The actual bone from both could have just as easily been put together to create a modern skull. But the naturalists who assembled the fragments into skulls knew what the skulls should have looked like according to evolutionary theory so when they assembled the skulls they made them look the way they thought they should have looked. It's like assembling a jigsaw puzzle when you only have a some of the pieces - if you are missing enough you can give the puzzle any shape you want. Look at all the gray around the cheekbones and in the upper jaw on the cromagnon skull. Look at the large gray areas used to extend the skull backward an inch or so. Not a single tooth in the upper jaw is even in bone. There is NO WAY anyone can say that's what that skull really looks like. The neandrathal skull looks far more intact. Of course, it also looks much more modern, except where you have a lighter coloration around the eyes. That must be plaster...

Really they use lots of different things to hold bone fragments together and to 'fill in the gaps.' It is hard to say how much is real just from a picture.

Keep in mind too that there are many variations between different modern skulls. Taking two very different skulls and putting them side by side doesn't really show how much they differ from modern skulls. It only shows how much they differ from each other. My skull likely looks very different from yours, yet nobody would say that one of us evolved from the other.

The only intact bone on the most complete cromagnon skull in existence is the jawbone. Amazingly, that's also the only part of the skull that is identical to our own. I wonder had they never found an intact jaw bone if cromagnon man would have had a different jaw than we do?

In fairness they don't have enough fragments from any human skull that old to prove that they should look like us either, but the burden of proof should be on those who say they found a skull that is shaped differently. Really, the most scientific way to look at those skulls would be to look at the fragments laid out on a table. But that wouldn't be impressive.

Cro-Magnon man is the more modern skull.
Re-examine the picture.

Neanderthal is on the left.
Is it your assertion that Paleontologists are all in on some sort of conspiracy?

Perhaps you would like to examinte the fossils yourself?

the features between yours and my skull are not as drastic as these fossils.
homo erectus

BGood,

As a matter of fact, I would like an opportunity to look at them myself. I grew up in an athiest household where Darwin wasn't theory. Darwin was fact. Other than a few religious nuts EVERYONE knew that with the exception of a single pre-human species we had the entire chain in place. Then I found out that all the skulls I'd been in awe of over the years were fabricated from bone fragments and that the most complete of the 'non-modern' skulls something like 40% complete. I'm not going to give a long bibliography for that though. Half of this board have read Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith, which has a LONG list of references for that very same fact. I will state it again though. Every single bone and/or bone fragment from every single example of human or pre-human species fits perfectly into a modern human skeleton. What a shock it was to find that out. I had the same reaction you had. At first I couldn't believe that 'they made it all up.'

Then I dug deeper and I began to understand that 'they' didn't really think they made it up either. The palentologists who put those skulls together were doing their best to reproduce the skulls as close as they could to what they thought the skulls really would have looked like. They didn't all get together in smoky rooms behind glasses of bourbon and dream-up a way to fool the masses. They really believed that the skulls should look the way they produced them. And why? Because they all had read and in many cases written the books that told them what they were looking for. We aren't talking about a bunch of guys finding human remains and saying "Holy Smokes! These look very different than a modern man!" It was much more like "Hey - how old are these? Based on the age, where does it fit into the evolutionary chain of events and what might it have looked like? Hey - look at that. When we fill in the blanks for all the missing pieces it even fits that form! Cool!" They didn't notice that the bone fragments also fit modern man not because they were trying to do 'bad science' but because they had already accepted evolution as fact, evolution said that the bones and bone fragments were far too old to look like modern remains, and it never occured to them to try to fit them into the form of a modern skeleton or a modern skull.

You are absolutely correct that those skulls don't look like a modern skull (well, the cromagnon one does - thank you for correcting me by the way). I'm not saying that the skulls in those pictures look modern the way they are depicted. What I am saying is that, if you take all the actual bone out of those skulls, you can rearrange them, filling in the missing parts differently than the original palentologists did, and they will fit just as well into the form of a modern skull as they fit into the forms you see in those pictures.

That is a well documented fact. Evolutionists obviously don't advertise it, but they don't discount it either. The best they can do is minimize it. "Oh," they may say, "well, we have enough different skulls that we can take parts from different skulls and determine what the whole looks like by looking at different parts from different examples." Well, yeah. I guess that sounds good. Except that I can use the same process with boxes of tinker-toys.

Evolutionists start with the theory of evolution and try to fit the fossil record around it. They don't do that because they are bad people out to fool everyone. They really believe in evolution and they really believe they are promoting science. Remember that the first rule of naturalism is that all things must be explainable by natural causes. They are in a corner. They have to stick with evolution because it's all they've got.

Their argument against intelligent design is circular. It goes like this: "Evolution is fact because it is the only theory for the origin of species that is explainable by natural causes. Intelligent design isn't evolution, therefore Intelligent design can't be correct." Once again though the devil is in the details. You'll never hear a real scientist say that Intelligent Design didn't happen. That's not a position they can support. Rather, they say that because Intelligent Design doesn't fit the naturalist model it isn't 'real science.'

If it might be accurate, why isn't it 'real science?' I'll tell you why. Because it doesn't fit with their pre-conceived notion of 'truth.' Most scientists are ardent naturalists. They start, not with proven fact (as per the scientific method) but rather with a theory. Then they fit what they can into the theory and throw everything else out.

Science gets into ruts like that periodically. It wasn't just the Catholic church that said the Earth was flat. Contemporary science said it too. Those few who had the courage to challange contemporary science looked at fact and fact alone and allowed it to carry them toward truth - even if that truth threw a monkey-wrench in conventional wisdom. And what were they told? That the concept of a round Earth didn't fit conventional wisdom and thus wasn't 'real science.'

Just for the sake of argumentation, let's say that a fair amount of scientific evidence DID point toward the existence of God. Think of the irony.

Wall-dog wrote:Then I dug deeper and I began to understand that 'they' didn't really think they made it up either. The palentologists who put those skulls together were doing their best to reproduce the skulls as close as they could to what they thought the skulls really would have looked like. They didn't all get together in smoky rooms behind glasses of bourbon and dream-up a way to fool the masses. ... Evolutionists start with the theory of evolution and try to fit the fossil record around it. They don't do that because they are bad people out to fool everyone. They really believe in evolution and they really believe they are promoting science. ... They start, not with proven fact (as per the scientific method) but rather with a theory. Then they fit what they can into the theory and throw everything else out.

This is an idea common to this group, that scientists are not evil, just misguided. But the common beliefs a few hundred years ago were Creationism and a young earth. So if all scientists are just following the delusions they have been indoctrinated in, then how did the ideas of an old earth and evolution ever get established ? And if every scientist just forces the facts into a preconceived story, then how does anyone ever get a Nobel prize (or other award) for coming up with something new ?

Sandy,

The thing about the flat Earth people who propelled creationism for hundreds of years is that they were the mainstream scientists of their day. Their problem was that they allowed religion and Catholic interpretation to function as preconceived notions of 'truth' even though those notions had not been proven. They were scientists who, in their quest for what they believed to be true, tried to paint the evidence into their preconceptions rather than following the evidence wherever it led.

Modern scientists are largely doing the same thing. They start with a theory that discounts the possibility of God and force-fit the evidence into that preconception. As ironic as it sounds, by discounting a legitimate possibility (God) without any scientific basis for discounting it (other than that they have re-defined what 'science' is such that God is outside their definition) many modern scientists are guilty of the same arguments their flat-Earth predecessors were guilty of.

I'm not saying we should teach Intelligent Design in school. I'm just saying we should let the fossil record speak for itself. The fossil record doesn't support evolution any more than a ship gradually sailing over the horizon fit a flat Earth in the Middle Ages. But if you throw-out evolution what do you replace it with? THAT is the quandry facing naturalism. Evolution is already dead. The real problem is that they have no alternate theory.

Every single bone and/or bone fragment from every single example of human or pre-human species fits perfectly into a modern human skeleton.

Take a look...


They don't look interchangable, do they?

Most evolution in hominids, BTW, was in the skull. I can't tell you a single feature by which H. sapiens differs from H. erectus below the neck.
But there's a lot of difference in the skull.

The Barbarian wrote:

Every single bone and/or bone fragment from every single example of human or pre-human species fits perfectly into a modern human skeleton.

Take a look...


They don't look interchangable, do they?

Most evolution in hominids, BTW, was in the skull. I can't tell you a single feature by which H. sapiens differs from H. erectus below the neck.
But there's a lot of difference in the skull.

The ones on the left look more apelike than human to me. Who you kidding?

Barbarian,

The darker material isn't even bone. That was added to show what the skull 'might have looked like.' Take away all of the darker material and what do you have left? All of a sudden it doesn't look so impressive.

I'm glad you guys keep posting these pictures of fabricated skulls. It really helps to illustrate my point. In most of those pictures you can see just how much of the skull is fabricated.

Wall-dog wrote:Barbarian,

The darker material isn't even bone. That was added to show what the skull 'might have looked like.' Take away all of the darker material and what do you have left? All of a sudden it doesn't look so impressive.

I'm glad you guys keep posting these pictures of fabricated skulls. It really helps to illustrate my point. In most of those pictures you can see just how much of the skull is fabricated.

This kind of commentary is just humorous. The people, (scientists), who recreate the skulls from fragments, have seen hundreds of skulls like these, this isn't their first attempt.

Add to this the fact that the overall skull likeness of all creatures in the primate family have certain very distinct features, the recreation is not all that difficult. The lobes, plates, arches, ridges, crests, and fissures all carry observed specifications throughout the order. Forensics is not a "new" science, it is one with depth and a background.

We aren't talking about refashioning organs, tissues, musculature, nervous systems here, it is structural. Being structural, there are reasonable and observable similiarities within an order that can be built upon.

As far as the purported "ape-like" appearance, that is bunk. Looking at the dentices, it is obvious that it is higher primate, not lower, by the simple fact of the absence of protruding canines. Not a debatable point as species of the sub-order Haplorhini, have canines with speciality of size divided by gender.

Wall-dog wrote:BGood,
Every single bone and/or bone fragment from every single example of human or pre-human species fits perfectly into a modern human skeleton.

I would suggest you head to a major university and examine the fragments yourslf, you'll find that this is not the case. Perhaps do a little research on human anatomy first so that you are better prepared.
If you live on the west coast try the University of California Berkley. On the east coast The Smithsonian in Washington D.C. or the University of Pennsylvania. McClung exhibit at the University of Tennessee has a few casts as well.

Wall-dog wrote:Because they all had read and in many cases written the books that told them what they were looking for. We aren't talking about a bunch of guys finding human remains and saying "Holy Smokes! These look very different than a modern man!" It was much more like "Hey - how old are these? Based on the age, where does it fit into the evolutionary chain of events and what might it have looked like?

Papers are peer reviewed, any sort of obvious error in this regard would end someone's carreer. The first findings were also done absent of any text book's. The leakey's had to prove that what they had was genuine. How could a fossil go through all that scrutiny and still pass?

Wall-dog wrote:Hey - look at that. When we fill in the blanks for all the missing pieces it even fits that form! Cool!" They didn't notice that the bone fragments also fit modern man not because they were trying to do 'bad science' but because they had already accepted evolution as fact, evolution said that the bones and bone fragments were far too old to look like modern remains, and it never occured to them to try to fit them into the form of a modern skeleton or a modern skull.

Again they do not fit the form of modern man. When doing such analysis you need to be intimate with the ridges and other anatomical features of a human being to know that a maxilla is unlike anything modern.
Also skulls are not always incomplete.
Minimal reconstruction proconsul.

Don't get me wrong here, the human lineage is very incomplete, however there are fragments and bits and peices which tell us that evolution did occur, just not enough to know how, and when lineages split.

Wall-dog wrote:You are absolutely correct that those skulls don't look like a modern skull (well, the cromagnon one does - thank you for correcting me by the way). I'm not saying that the skulls in those pictures look modern the way they are depicted. What I am saying is that, if you take all the actual bone out of those skulls, you can rearrange them, filling in the missing parts differently than the original palentologists did, and they will fit just as well into the form of a modern skull as they fit into the forms you see in those pictures.

Again this is not correct, I do not know where you got this information. If you could share I would greatly appreciate it. Take the following mandible to an OR physician, and they will tell you that its some form of deformity.

Mastriani wrote:..
As far as the purported "ape-like" appearance, that is bunk. Looking at the dentices, it is obvious that it is higher primate, not lower, by the simple fact of the absence of protruding canines. Not a debatable point as species of the sub-order Haplorhini, have canines with speciality of size divided by gender.

Ha, by ape like, I wasn't being technical, I could have said chimp like, or monkey like-in other words, they really don't look human to me, small brain cage and all.
"the suborder Haplorhini (

monkeys, chimps, gorillas

, and Homo sapiens). "
http://www.wildmadagascar.org/wildlife/lemurs.html

The 'higher order' business, really is simple belief based, evolution assuming grouping of things.
I actually believe in adaptation, or evolution in the ancient world, but the changes that were needed started with God's created creatures! The bit about trying to do an end run around creation, and credit some magically appearing first lifeform is very false, and absolutely unsupportable!!!!!!!
(And, yes, in that spiritual and physical past, hyper evolution was the name of the game)

dad wrote:And, yes, in that spiritual and physical past, hyper evolution was the name of the game

Simply your belief, not fact...

But my question is, what do mean when you repeatedly state "the spiritual and physical past" and the present is only "physical". What does that even mean...is it simply another way of saying "miracles happened then but they don't happen now"? Does it mean the laws of physics didn't apply then but they do now? I really don't get it and you've used that explanation many times, so please explain what you mean. It this just a personal belief, or is there any evidence supporting this contention?

thereal wrote:"And, yes, in that spiritual and physical past, hyper evolution was the name of the game"

Simply your belief, not fact...

No more or less fact than the past, and old ages you claim and believe. We know there was adaption ('evolution') all that remains is when, and how long did it take. If the past was different, we could not apply the present rates to it, as old agers do. And thats all they do, no evidence exists except their take on the evidence that has another take than theirs.

But my question is, what do mean when you repeatedly state "the spiritual and physical past" and the present is only "physical". What does that even mean...is it simply another way of saying "miracles happened then but they don't happen now"?

No, miracles happen now, as the spirits can come this way, a bit like a two way mirror for them, where we have only the one side view. In the future, we see God lives in the place most call 'heaven' -New Jerusalem, which will land on earth. We also live there, and angesls, etc. There are mansions, gold, gems, rivers, trees, rtc, so it is both spiritual, as well as physical combined.
In the past also we see how God used to walk in the garden, and talk to us routinely. We see, even after the fall, He made coats dor Adam and Eve, and gave them to them! We see later, that sons of god married regular women. We see a different world, where all kinds of things were very different. So different, I contend, that it must have been merged at the time as well, physical and spiritual. A seperation happened, and we were left in a physical only universe for the time being. All assumptions of the past today assume it was as it now is then, and all old age assumptions are firmly and solely based on this premise!!! Yet, no proof exists it was that way at all, on the contrary, the documentary record of the bible clearly indicates it was very different.
Our physical only universe will pass away, we are also told, and the new ones be revealed, with both properties, physical, and spiritual. In other words the original complete creation was both, we now are seperated temporarily, but will again be merged one day. I even have the timetables worked out from what I can deduce from the bible. Here they are.

The seperation happened about a century after the flood, in the days of Peleg. (explaining how the flood was real, because it need not conform to PO physics) (Also explaining a water layer above the earth, and how the water could have been removed from the planet after the flood, etc etc etc.) We are now in a physical only universe, which will pass away about a thousand years after the return of Christ, and the eternal new merged heavens revealed at that time.

Does it mean the laws of physics didn't apply then but they do now? I really don't get it and you've used that explanation many times, so please explain what you mean. It this just a personal belief, or is there any evidence supporting this contention?[/quote]

So the split happened after the flood and not after Adam and Eve left the garden???

I do want to see some of the recovered skulls myself, but when I read in Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith that every single piece of human fossil remain ever found fits modern man he had a very extensive bibliography supporting his statement. I wish I still had that book because now I want to post some of his sources. He wasn't getting his information from religious groups. He was getting it from legitimate palentologists. When I read the statement in his book I frankly thought he made it up, but I thought, you know - Strobel's statement (he makes it more than once - he actually made kind of a big deal about it) is a pretty big deal if it is true. So I started to look-up some of his sources. And guess what? He was right! There are lots of skulls from pre-species of mankind, but not a single one of them is a complete skull. There are complete bones for other parts of the body, but none of the ones that are different from modern man. And more than that, every single complete bone and every single bone fragment FITS MODERN MAN! It floors me how people are blowing that statement off. Sure - you can show another picture of another skull with bone fragments that fit modern man. What is the point? Sure - you can take one skull and based on that shape another skull correctly, but when every single human skull ever found has nothing but pieces that fit modern skulls, what pray tell are they using as a base of reference in their forensic science recreations?

I'll tell you what they are using. They are using other skulls that also contained nothing pointing to any form other than the form of a current skull.

It STILL floors me.

Somebody please refute the statement that every bone fragment ever found fits a modern skull. I mean, if you have never found a single bone fragment that doesn't fit a modern skull, then you also haven't found a base of fragments from different skulls that collectively form a different shape. Rather you have found a base of fragments from different skulls that collectively form our CURRENT shape.

Nobody refutes that every bone fragment from every skull ever found fits modern man. I don't get it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the ramification of that.

And what's with the ad-hominum arguments? Let's say I'm a third-grader who can barely spell his own name. If my statements are accurate and my logic is sound, who cares? Telling me to get an education doesn't refute my argument. Besides which, nobody here has asked about my background so nobody knows whether or not I have an education. I could have seven or eight doctorates in fields like evolutionary science and palentology. I'll tell you that in reality my education is somewhere between those two extremes. I'm not someone with seven doctorates, but I'm also not a third grader. But my education level isn't relevant so it probably shouldn't be a part of this debate.

Someone has Lee Strobel's book. Could someone post some references for me? The fact that EVERY SINGLE BONE FRAGMENT ever found from pre-species of mankind FITS MODERN MAN is surprisingly well documented.

Ha, by ape like, I wasn't being technical, I could have said chimp like, or monkey like-in other words, they really don't look human to me, small brain cage and all.

And yet, the postcranial skeleton of these hominines is very much like a human's.