Evidence for God from Science

gone

Jbuza wrote:Bgood wrote
According to evolutionary theory, every form would be a transitional form because all forms are in a constant state of change.

No they're not. It is punctuated equilibrium. If it is constant the theory doesn't work.

How so? What is your idea of a transitional form an unstable intermediary? Every form is a potential transitional form between the preceeding form and any potential future forms.

Jbuza wrote: Bgood wrote
Care to link to actual evidence. At least an image, but location would be nice. Take note if a paleontologist found such findings he would immediately upon verification report it to the scientific community and the world at large, and become a very famous and rich individual. Nevermind revolutionize science.

First let me respond to, "if a paleontologist found such findings he would immediately upon verification report it." Uh. no he wouldn't he would date that formation to less than 3,000,000 years by nature of it having human fossils. Thus we have to rely on evidence from only already dated formations.
Antelope Springs tracks. In June 1968, *William J. Meister, Sr., an evolutionist, was searching for trilobite fossils in the mountains of Utah. Splitting a piece of rock in two, he found inside a human footprint stepping on trilobites. The human was wearing a sandal!
Thoroughly shaken, he took other men back who confirmed it and found still more, including some with sandals stepping on trilobites.
As a result, Meister became a Christian. The strata was primarily Cambrian, which is supposed to be the oldest on the planet.—pp. 32-33.

Can I see the fossils? Post an image please.

Jbuza wrote: [same account different source]

Its the same account still no actual evidence.

Jbuza wrote:The Arizona tracks.

I am not going to argue with you about this.

Jbuza wrote:Jbuza wrote
There are stories of coal miners finding artifacts as well. Dismiss and attack, but don't make claims about being science if you want to ignore the observations.

I will dismiss them because a story is not admisible in the context of science.

Jbuza wrote: Jbuza wrote
http://www.caves.org/pub/journal/PDF/V5 ... ubbard.pdf
You will notice this one is from an evolutionist viewpoint, and since the human bones are not were they are supposed to be this is a “burial cave”.
Bgood wrote
So you believe this is some sort of conspiracy?

No I don't. I was more pointing out that instead of evolution taking the observation and allowing it to disprove the hypothesis of evolution they explain it away. But the body of human presence in Cambrian formations cannot continue to be ignored.

You're equating one with the other? How am I supposed to reason with you? Take a good look at the burial cave. It's clearly a burial and there clearly is no evidence of any recent sedimentation.

Jbuza wrote: Bgood wrote
I said it was quite possible they could interbreed. There are numerous stories in my area of dogs interbreeding with coyotes in fact people call them “coy-dogs”. I know when my dog comes into heat I at times will hear coyotes coming around. My theory indicates that animals reproduce after their kind, that is that crows will mate and you will get more crows. As I understand it then species that cannot interbreed are separate kinds. Species that can interbreed may have diverged by genetic isolation and environmental influence but they can still interbreed.

But what happens when organisms change to the point they can no longer interbreed?
These salamandars appear on the way.
http://www.wildherps.com/species/E.eschscholtzii.html
These salamandars can interbreed so are considered subspecies. However two slamanders found in southern California do not look at all alike and rarely interbreed.

So a Zebra and Horse and Donkey are all the same animal?
Tigers and Lions are the same too?
What about fish thay all look about the same?

Jbuza wrote: Bgood wrote
What I find interesting is that the only one that you considered actual evidence was the one that fit your preconceived notion that evolution was true. In any event the significant body of evidence showing a human presence in the Cambrian formations addresses the matter.

The other articles only posted page numbers and references to other peoples work? Am I asking for too much when I ask for tangible evidence?

Jbuza wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4165973.stm
You will notice the cause of death was some kind of poisonous gas, because in spite of the fact that numerous cultures talk of a great flood we wouldn't want to lend any credibility to creation even if it is the most plausible explanation.

Another conspiracy? Obviously flooding was the most probable cause, because the evidence pointed to it, right?

Jbuza wrote:http://hope-of-israel.org/dinosaur.htm
The Puzzling Leakey Skull

This is just a statement! Where is the skull?

Jbuza wrote: Rediculous like a dog with smaller teeth or larger ears? Or perhaps an extra eyelid? Or more eyelashes, perhaps thicker eyelashes? Is this what you mean by rediculous?

No. What I mean by ridiculous is to think that if I could trace here genealogy into the past I would find at some point that she didn't come from a dog. During my time breeding dogs I have not found any pups that were not dogs, and I predict that I never will have any chickens or any other type of animal in the litter.

Evolution does not predict that your dog will have chickens nor any other animals. It will however predict the possibilities I posted above. Again misrepresentation by exageration.[/quote]

Jbuza wrote: I never said that my arguments invalidate evolution I said they are weaknesses in evolution. You have twice said this, and I again say “they are weaknesses”. Again I was pointing out weaknesses not making a logical argument. But go ahead and bring my logic into question if it will help you dismiss these weaknesses in evolution. Clearly than you don't feel the hoaxes are weaknesses even though they still appear between ape and man on those fancy “scientific” charts. OK. How does evidence that King David existed seen as a weakness of Christianity.

It's not, that is my point.

Jbuza wrote:I guess my supposition of your reason to believe evolution is true. You dismiss any weaknesses in evolution and anything that brings it into question is dismissed. Since you didn't believe the large body of evidence about human artifacts and bones in old formations including the Cambrian I will include more for you to dismiss, so that you can illustrate my point for me. I will try to not duplicate.
http://paranormal.about.com/library/wee ... 11402a.htm

This is a metal sphere in the cambrian, not human remains. This article also describes ancient heiroglyphics describing spaceships from another world.

Jbuza wrote:http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/skel ... eleton.htm

I'm sorry where is the evidence?

Jbuza wrote:http://www.bible.ca/tracks/malachite-man.htm

Ok Malachite man? I'm sorry but I am not here to convince you so this conversation ends here.

All I can say is that it is clear that you do not understand the theory of evolution. Which is fine, you are entitled to you own beliefs. It is unfortunate that science will not have the benefit of your valuable insight.

gone

Jbuza wrote:so than I guess it is safe to say that you feel that evolution asnwers all observations, and that the ones it doesn't are contrived. That evolution predicts everything we see in the world.

I will repond to acouple points later

How do you come to that conclusion! It is not safe to say.
Again you are projecting your own worldview onto me.

No I don't beleive evolution answers all observations.

But I do feel that you have insufficient knowledge of the subject to argue against it. Not only that I feel that you are willing to buy anything to support your own beleifs.

So it is with regret that I feel that an open conversation between us is unlikely.

Nothing can predict all we see in the world.
Evolution does have short commings and problems, unfortunately I don't beleive many of the "weaknesses" you brought to light were in fact weaknesses.

gone

gone

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:so than I guess it is safe to say that you feel that evolution asnwers all observations, and that the ones it doesn't are contrived. That evolution predicts everything we see in the world.

I will repond to acouple points later

How do you come to that conclusion! It is not safe to say.

I come to that conclusion because you dismissed almost every weakness I pointed out except problesm demonstrating speciation. Further I concluded this becasue you dismissed every reported observation that is contrary to evolution.

A claim cannot be used as evidence. Practically everything in those links are claims.Take a good look at your sources.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:But I do feel that you have insufficient knowledge of the subject to argue against it. Not only that I feel that you are willing to buy anything to support your own beleifs.

Why do you think that? Because of the things I said about my dog? No I am not willing to buy anything to support my own beleifs. Are you saying that early earth creationsits are dim witted and don't test things?

Take a look at these links.
This one claims that a stone includes "tiny hieroglyphics that tell the incredible story of spaceships from some distant world"
http://paranormal.about.com/library/wee ... 11402a.htm
In 1572 "A perfect six-inch nail was later presented to the Viceroy as a souvenir, who had it thoroughly examined, and verified it was found in rock dated to 75,000 to 100,000 years in age" Might I ask how they dated this material in 1572?
http://www.bibleufo.com/embed.htm
This is a forum quoting a book!
http://www.sciforums.com/archive/index.php/t-3378.html
Another reference to the same book!
http://www.calarts.edu/~shockley/castenedolo.html
Any idea whats in this book?

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:So it is with regret that I feel that an open conversation between us is unlikely.

Sorry you feel that way. If that is the case I think perhaps it is becasue of your dismissal of my arguments for weaknesses in evolution. I did not intend to close communication.

You're not arguing, your deluging me with links. Here's a novel concept make an argument. Base it on some evidence and we can have a real discussion. You don't just include a whole slew of links all repeating each other. I can probably produce more links than you, will that do anything other than overwhelm you?

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Evolution does have short commings and problems, unfortunately I don't beleive many of the "weaknesses" you brought to light were in fact weaknesses.

OK since clearly the things I pointed aren't weaknesses except demonstration of speciation, perhaps you could tell me waht they are.

There is no labratory or field observation of speciation which would fall under macro evolution.

Observations of speciation only include analysis of already existing ring species, or infered through genetic and other phylogenic methods.