Evidence for God from Science

erawdrah said:

Fossils don't prove evolution. You can't prove that any fossil had any children that lived. All a fossil proves is that something died.

In thousands of years time, if the body of a woman from this generation is exhumed, and she gave birth to 4 children in our time, it could easily be said when she is exhumed that no one can prove she had children. Logic dictates that the majority of literally millions of fossils in museums all over the world did contribute to reproduction.

As for the video, I'm sorry but any video I watch that contains Dr. Dino immediately recieves the exit button treatment.

limerick wrote:erawdrah said:

Fossils don't prove evolution. You can't prove that any fossil had any children that lived. All a fossil proves is that something died.

In thousands of years time, if the body of a woman from this generation is exhumed, and she gave birth to 4 children in our time, it could easily be said when she is exhumed that no one can prove she had children. Logic dictates that the majority of literally millions of fossils in museums all over the world did contribute to reproduction.

The key point though is that fossils are never used to "prove" evolution on the basis that they as an individual are the great great great great grandparent of some living individual - they help verify predictions and show that there are transitions between various species/orders of animals. For example Ardi may never have bore any offspring, and no one is suggesting that she did, but she (and her species) show that there once lived a creature who (as one example) had a pelvis somewhere between A. afarensis' bipedal one, and the arboreal pelvis of something like a chimpanzee.
I would also suggest that if erawdrah is talking about "proof" in any scientific discipline, then they have fundamentally misunderstood what science is.

limerick wrote:erawdrah said:

Fossils don't prove evolution. You can't prove that any fossil had any children that lived. All a fossil proves is that something died.

In thousands of years time, if the body of a woman from this generation is exhumed, and she gave birth to 4 children in our time, it could easily be said when she is exhumed that no one can prove she had children. Logic dictates that the majority of literally millions of fossils in museums all over the world did contribute to reproduction.

As for the video, I'm sorry but any video I watch that contains Dr. Dino immediately recieves the exit button treatment.

Yeah, Kent Hovind does a great disservice to Christian apologetics...I'm no fan of his

Well he's doing a long stretch in a federal prison right now. I wonder if he'll just hop back on stage when he gets out and pick up as if nothing happened. Probably.

limerick wrote:erawdrah said:

Fossils don't prove evolution. You can't prove that any fossil had any children that lived. All a fossil proves is that something died.

In thousands of years time, if the body of a woman from this generation is exhumed, and she gave birth to 4 children in our time, it could easily be said when she is exhumed that no one can prove she had children. Logic dictates that the majority of literally millions of fossils in museums all over the world did contribute to reproduction.

As for the video, I'm sorry but any video I watch that contains Dr. Dino immediately recieves the exit button treatment.

When it comes to fossils, you cannot prove scientifically that any fossil is a transition from one specie to another. You cannot prove that this fossil gave birth to another fossil. You can't even prove that any specific fossil reproduced at all. All science has is the middle and the end, they are even missing 1 billion years of evolution. They have even lost 1 billion years of strata. Link. And just because one creature looks like another doesn't mean they are related. Link. A potato and a rock look a like so do they have a common ancestor? I guess if you believe life originated in a primordial soup, then they do have a common ancestor.

Kent Hovind has done more for Jesus then most of us on this forum. What he did was wrong, but who of us can cast the first stone? I know I can't! We are to love one another including our enemies. Where is the love in the Church? Why bash someone who was witnessing for God?

erawdrah wrote:

limerick wrote:erawdrah said:

Fossils don't prove evolution. You can't prove that any fossil had any children that lived. All a fossil proves is that something died.

In thousands of years time, if the body of a woman from this generation is exhumed, and she gave birth to 4 children in our time, it could easily be said when she is exhumed that no one can prove she had children. Logic dictates that the majority of literally millions of fossils in museums all over the world did contribute to reproduction.

As for the video, I'm sorry but any video I watch that contains Dr. Dino immediately recieves the exit button treatment.

When it comes to fossils, you cannot prove scientifically that any fossil is a transition from one specie to another. You cannot prove that this fossil gave birth to another fossil. You can't even prove that any specific fossil reproduced at all. All science has is the middle and the end, they are even missing 1 billion years of evolution. They have even lost 1 billion years of strata. Link. And just because one creature looks like another doesn't mean they are related. Link. A potato and a rock look a like so do they have a common ancestor? I guess if you believe life originated in a primordial soup, then they do have a common ancestor.

Kent Hovind has done more for Jesus then most of us on this forum. What he did was wrong, but who of us can cast the first stone? I know I can't! We are to love one another including our enemies. Where is the love in the Church? Why bash someone who was witnessing for God?

Apologies erawdrah let me rephrase what I originally said:

Any video or any SUPPORTER of Dr. Dino immediately recieves the exit button treatment.

erawdrah wrote: When it comes to fossils, you cannot prove scientifically that any fossil is a transition from one specie to another. You cannot prove that this fossil gave birth to another fossil. You can't even prove that any specific fossil reproduced at all.

Again, no one is claiming that fossil A is creature B's ancestor. Generally it isn't even claimed that fossil species B is a transition from species A to species C.
What actually happens is that there's a hypothesis that, for example, tetrapods are the descendants of fish based on certain similarties between the 2 groups. A claim like that demands that there were creatures transitional between the 2 forms. So science predicts the type of creatures that should have existed in the past, along with certain bodily features they would almost certainly need to have in order to make a living as a "transitional" creature. Science can also make a pretty good estimate as to the timeframe that such creatures should have existed. When someone then goes and digs in ground known to be of the correct age, and finds a creature that very closely matches a proposed transition, then that's very good evidence that your original hypothesis (tetrapods descended from fish) is worthy of further investigation. Not proof, evidence.

erawdrah wrote:And just because one creature looks like another doesn't mean they are related. Link. A potato and a rock look a like so do they have a common ancestor? I guess if you believe life originated in a primordial soup, then they do have a common ancestor.

A potato and a rock are only similar at an extraordinarily superficial level. Show me a rock made of carbohydrates with a known mechanism for heredity and we'll talk.

That link you provided wasn't of 2 unrelated species; it was of 2 species of worm that are very closely related but are genetically different enough to merit being classed as separate species. This does highlight very nicely how the word "species" in biology is as tricky to pin down and arbitrary as the word "planet" in astronomy. Fortunately nature doesn't care too much for semantics.

You could do with reading some proper research on evolutionary theory so you could start making some proper arguments, instead of these ludicrous strawmen based on a few hours of Kent Hovind video tapes.

erawdrah wrote:Kent Hovind has done more for Jesus then most of us on this forum. What he did was wrong, but who of us can cast the first stone? I know I can't! We are to love one another including our enemies. Where is the love in the Church? Why bash someone who was witnessing for God?

I wonder about that. Did you see CAT's posts (she was banned, btw)? Is this the fruit of Hovind and others? The disrespect just oozes out - not Christ-like behavior for followers of Christ (towards other followers, especially), if you ask me. But to me it is not surprising, since I have heard these guys talk like this themselves.

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing" (1 Cor 13:2).

erawdrah wrote:A potato and a rock look a like so do they have a common ancestor? I guess if you believe life originated in a primordial soup, then they do have a common ancestor.

True.

erawdrah wrote:Kent Hovind has done more for Jesus then most of us on this forum. What he did was wrong, but who of us can cast the first stone? I know I can't! We are to love one another including our enemies. Where is the love in the Church? Why bash someone who was witnessing for God?

Kent did a good deal of Christian bashing himself calling most every Christian that didn't agree with his view of young earth creationism a heretic if they shared it publicly in a forum he was present in.

Kent was a quack to begin with and a criminal in the end. He needs some major mental work done. His "degrees" were from paper mills his attempted dissertaion he shared publicly was a joke showing he lacked knowledge of basic science. I hope he retires his felon self to a farm in the backwoods of Arkansas and leaves the discussion to those that deserve the spotlight.

But few of these guys ever really repent. So he'll be right back at it once he's released from prison looking for the money and an adrenalin high.

ageofknowledge wrote:

erawdrah wrote:Kent Hovind has done more for Jesus then most of us on this forum. What he did was wrong, but who of us can cast the first stone? I know I can't! We are to love one another including our enemies. Where is the love in the Church? Why bash someone who was witnessing for God?

Kent did a good deal of Christian bashing himself calling most every Christian that didn't agree with his view of young earth creationism a heretic if they shared it publicly in a forum he was present in.

Kent was a quack to begin with and a criminal in the end. He needs some major mental work done. His "degrees" were from paper mills his attempted dissertaion he shared publicly was a joke showing he lacked knowledge of basic science. I hope he retires his felon self to a farm in the backwoods of Arkansas and leaves the discussion to those that deserve the spotlight.

But few of these guys ever really repent. So he'll be right back at it once he's released from prison looking for the money and an adrenalin high.

I think Kent was genuinely only trying to do what he thought was best, though. However misguided and scientifically illiterate he was, I don't think he was in it for the money in the way that some high-profile evangelists clearly have been; he was clearly tireless and devoted and from a couple of radio shows I've heard with him it sounds like he was wary of paying taxes due to his religious beliefs (i.e. he didn't want to be accountable to the state).

For some benign reason I am only after spotting this post now, so here is my belated reply.

Gman Said:

So ABC is retracting their statement too? Where and when are they claiming that? Also you are wrong about Tim White. Look at the sentence above, he said that it was our ancestor as it relates to Lucy.

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.

Also Tim White told a news conference in Washington sponsored by the journal Science, "Ardi is on our side of the family tree, not the chimpanzee side.''

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.

But that's ok, if you want to say that they retracted their statements, I fully agree that they should.. Thanks.

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.

The mainstream media has only one position on Darwinian evolution: it is a fact as sure as the earth revolves around the sun. As a rule (with few exceptions), no other view, dissenting scholars, opinions, models, proofs, discussion or debate is permitted on their airwaves if it runs contrary to promoting Darwinian evolution. They project their biased position with the authority of a scientific institution rather than remain neutral and allow all sides to present their views. And I believe that is exactly as you think it should be.

But that's not independent journalism. That's propaganda.

ageofknowledge wrote:The mainstream media has only one position on Darwinian evolution: it is a fact as sure as the earth revolves around the sun. As a rule (with few exceptions), no other view, dissenting scholars, opinions, models, proofs, discussion or debate is permitted on their airwaves if it runs contrary to promoting Darwinian evolution. They project their biased position with the authority of a scientific institution rather than remain neutral and allow all sides to present their views. And I believe that is exactly as you think it should be.

But that's not independent journalism. That's propaganda.

Out of interest, would you like the same standard to apply with respect to the theory of HIV causing AIDS, or the theory that our spherical earth orbits our sun? That is, pull out people to represent the "other sides" of these positions? Imagine how obtuse and longwinded any journalistic piece would become if they included a nod to every nut who had a view on a given subject, regardless of the consensus of the scientific community. If the media were reporting on, say, the mechanism driving evolution then it would be pertinent to include representation of the (admittedly small, but legitimate) group of scientists who question that natural selection is the major driver.

I'd question your assertion that the media silences all dissent of the theory with an iron fist; at least where I live evolution is an issue that doesn't receive much coverage at all (along with the rest of science, sadly).

No, but what unfortunately what happens is that in the "retelling" in the mainstream media, the research is diluted and people come away with overblown conclusions or oversimplified concepts.

Look at this thread...so much that the mainstream media reported has had to be clarified.

So if you also throw in a bias towards a philosophy with the data, you can see that the major news reports tend towards a support of a worldview, not just reporting the facts.

zoegirl wrote:No, but what unfortunately what happens is that in the "retelling" in the mainstream media, the research is diluted and people come away with overblown conclusions or oversimplified concepts.

Look at this thread...so much that the mainstream media reported has had to be clarified.

So if you also throw in a bias towards a philosophy with the data, you can see that the major news reports tend towards a support of a worldview, not just reporting the facts.

You are right Zoe, there was a degree of sensationalism, as Gman pointed out, it is disappointing that NG jumped the gun a bit with their headline the day before the official report, but that should not take away from the findings of Ardi.