Evidence for God from Science

Many Christians look at evolution from a neutral perspective and find the facts convincing; even pope john paul II was convinced of it.

No one is neutral.
You are making a fallacy. Popular opinion is NOT proof. I don't care if John Paul was convinced or not. Is that the new scientific standard? The PJP2 standard.

Jlay, evolution was not founded to discredit Christianity

That's your opinion. My opinion is that Darwinian evolution is laced with anti-theistic motive. Some blatant, and some I believe to be the result of spiritual blindness.

Darwin considered actually going to school to become a preist before his daughter died. His wife was always a devout christian, and he himself was a deist.

And Hitler was an alter boy? So what?

And you stated Australopithecus resembles a bonobo very closely, well homo habulus resembles us very closely, does that make us the same?

The same? I am a Caucasian. Am I the same as an Aboriginal? Yes and no. It all depends on what you are trying to deduce. Murray, this is simply a refusal on your part to deal with what I have brought to the table regarding Lucy. It is a diversionary tactic. I'd be more than happy to discuss Habulus in the context of Habulus. Not with a loaded question.

Many Christians look at evolution from a neutral perspective and find the facts convincing;

They find the INTERPRETATION of the facts convincing. Hitler had millions convinced that the Jewish race was a scourge that needed to be eradicated. Again, what is your point? Very few people if ever look at facts. The vast overwhelming majority of people look at opinion, and never handle examine or critique the facts in any form or fashion. That is a fact.

if I were to paste skulls following the evolution table next to each other you would most definitely see a small change every time (change over time).

The skull I posted was an aboriginal skull. Similar, but many differences to mine. Who is more evolved?
Let us take the billions of people on the earth today, and modern apes, and I can create my own line of change, all with modern contemporaries.
News flash. There are many variances within modern human skulls. Aboriginal, mongoloid, dwarfism, and other variances. It doesn't prove any are more or less evolved than the other.

Further, let's take that same concept and try it with a group of canine skulls. It doesn't work. You can have two modern breeds that can interbreed, yet have extreme variances in their skulls.

The intermediates between us and say homo eructus

This fails. Why? Because it begs the question. It first assumes as fact that Homo Erectus and modern man are related in a Darwinist sense, and it's just a matter of when we will find the links. It presumes what it seeks to prove. And not just related, but related in the sense that we know for certain that Erectus is a lower, primitive form. So, what testable, observable and repeatable evidence do you have that demonstrates this to be true?

I'll provide you a quote from a leading pro-evolution site.

It is widely accepted that population similar to Homo erectus was directly ancestral to the earliest members of living species Homo sapiens. The exact timing and mode of transformation are still controversial.

[/quote][/quote]
Not exactly settled I'd say.

But again, this is really not the issue. Anytime the blatant misleading tactics used in Lucy are brought up, I never hear any pro-evolutionist conceed, "Yes, it is deceptive." It is always, "Well what about homo such and such." Oddly no different than responses by atheists regarding objections to the Bible. "What about slavery in the Bible?" Explanation given. "What about God calling for genocide?" Explanation given. And on and on and on. Never, ever, not once a concession of deception. Deny, dismiss and divert.

So what were the rest of the homo genus? Mutated humans? Or were they each a seperate races that for some reason seemed to develop as the preceding one died out. If they all died out at one time the creation model would be much easier to believe, but they developed one after the other and sometimes co-living (but for short periods).

So did god keep killing one species off and then creating another one until he got to us? Because that's really the only way to make sense of the homo genus with the exception of evolution.

If they all died out at one time the creation model would be much easier to believe, but they developed one after the other and sometimes co-living (but for short periods).

Who observed this?
You assume that when someone attaches a new homo genus to a discovery that this becomes a fact. More in depth study will reveal that this is not as settled as you make it to be. Again it begs the question, and stands on the premise that Darwinism is correct, and that these humanoids are what Darwinist claim them to be.

Again, you refuse to deal with the issue of Lucy and make any concession.

Murray wrote:So what were the rest of the homo genus? Mutated humans? Or were they each a seperate races that for some reason seemed to develop as the preceding one died out. If they all died out at one time the creation model would be much easier to believe, but they developed one after the other and sometimes co-living (but for short periods).

So did god keep killing one species off and then creating another one until he got to us? Because that's really the only way to make sense of the homo genus with the exception of evolution.

Murray, Here's a page from More Than A Theory, by Hugh Ross. He answers the question, "Why did God create hominids?"
It's his opinion. Take it or leave it.
http://books.google.com/books?id=UJRbBc ... &q&f=false

^ thanks rick , I'll read those in a bit


And @jlay, what concession do I need to make about lucy? that she is similar to a monkey? yea sure, she looks like an advanced monkey, is that a concession?

rick, I do not feel satified at all after reading that......

I'm actually confused after it....... please give me your summary of what you got out of it because I got very little from it.

Murray, I would like you or any other evolutionist to concede that, regarding Lucy, evidence was manipulated and egregious liberties taken by evolutionary science to paint a picture for Darwinian evolution. And, I think that is putting it mildly. Lucy is continually portrayed as a hominid. (A primate of a family (Hominidae) that includes humans and their fossil ancestors.)

Also, Lucy is not a monkey, but an ape. BTW, what do mean by advanced? Compared to......?

Once we've settled that matter, I think we can better examine what else lies out there. But, I will tell you, I've done some reading and I've found a lot of heated disagreement just among evolutionists regarding Erectus.

FWIW, I also find Ross' explanation lacking. For one, he falls into the trap of accepting Hominids as portrayed in Darwinian evolution without any quip. Under this, Lucy, is considered a hominid, which is defined as a family of which humans are the only extant species. There are many others, which I think appear as clearly ape. Yet many, such as Ross just seem to have conceded this as a truth, despite the problems that are evident. In doing such, he is trying to explain something that I do not think merits such an explanation. I think he should stick to astrophysics

Murray wrote:rick, I do not feel satified at all after reading that......

I'm actually confused after it....... please give me your summary of what you got out of it because I got very little from it.

I think Ross was trying to say that God created progressively more advanced hominids each time he created them, so that other animals would adapt to the better hunting skills of each new hominid. Basically, God knew beforehand, the evil that humans were capable of. If God didn't allow animals to adapt to the intelligence of each new hominid, the animals may be extinct when man got through with them. Just look at the effects man has had on the extinction of animals, by what Ross posted.

FWIW, I also find Ross' explanation lacking. For one, he falls into the trap of accepting Hominids as portrayed in Darwinian evolution without any quip.

I'm not sure if I agree with that. However, if Ross does accept Hominids as portrayed in Darwinian evolution, it's because Ross and Darwinian evolution both agree on their interpretation of that evidence. Ross certainly doesn't agree with something because Darwinian evolution says it's true. Take The Big Bang, for example. Ross believes in the Big Bang. Evolutionists are starting to see that the Big Bang is logical. Both camps agree on the interpretation of evidence. Evolutionists certainly don't agree with the Big Bang, because Ross agrees with it.

Under this, Lucy, is considered a hominid, which is defined as a family of which humans are the only extant species. There are many others, which I think appear as clearly ape. Yet many, such as Ross just seem to have conceded this as a truth, despite the problems that are evident.

jlay, I'm not familiar with where Ross has said this. Could you please reference where he says this, so I can respond?

I think he should stick to astrophysics

Ross has experts at Reasons.org, who know more about this then he does. Don't you think Ross would use all resources he could, before he writes a book?

Ross has experts at Reasons.org, who know more about this then he does. Don't you think Ross would use all resources he could, before he writes a book?

I would hope. But after reading the explanation I highly doubt he did in this circumstance.

jlay, I'm not familiar with where Ross has said this. Could you please reference where he says this, so I can respond?

Rick, there is nothing in what you quoted from me that I quoted Ross, or accused him of saying something. I said, (Based on his explanation of Hominids) that many seem to have conceded this as a truth. I would assume his experts understand the basic definition of hominid, and that Lucy is classified as such. So I can only conclude Ross has condeded Lucy among others as not an extinct ape, but a hominid.

jlay wrote:

Ross has experts at Reasons.org, who know more about this then he does. Don't you think Ross would use all resources he could, before he writes a book?

I would hope. But after reading the explanation I highly doubt he did in this circumstance.

jlay, I'm not familiar with where Ross has said this. Could you please reference where he says this, so I can respond?

Rick, there is nothing in what you quoted from me that I quoted Ross, or accused him of saying something. I said, (Based on his explanation of Hominids) that many seem to have conceded this as a truth. I would assume his experts understand the basic definition of hominid, and that Lucy is classified as such. So I can only conclude Ross has condeded Lucy among others as not an extinct ape, but a hominid.

jlay, from what I understand about Ross' view on hominids, is that hominids, including Lucy, aren't from the same family that modern man belongs to. This is a subject that I have a lot of questions about. In my mind, I have too many questions to feel comfortable with any explanation of where hominids and modern man fit. That's why when I posted Ross' article, I said it's Ross' opinion, take it or leave it. I can't honestly say I agree with what Ross says there. It's a subject that I try not to focus on too much, because it can be frustrating to me. I just haven't heard any explanations I'm comfortable with. I've searched, questioned, and searched some more. I just can't get a grip on this subject. It goes all the way back to if there were people on the earth when God created Adam and Eve.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jlay wrote:Byb, the arguments of why evolution seems contrary to Christian Theism are pretty well established. It hasn't been my M.O. to drag into those type of debates.

No debate intended J, I'm familiar with some of the arguments put forth but wasn't aware they were well established so anything you can point me to would be greatly appreciated. For example, how would non-TE theists answer the fused chromosome argument (referenced in the youtube link)? I've really never seen a satisfactory answer to that. And again, not to debate but in an effort to gain a little more insight on the subject.

I'm also interested in hearing an explanation for that. But it would have to be in layman's terms. That stuff can be difficult to understand.

I was really interested in finding a creationist response to the chromosome 2 fusion and why it may not be indicative of common ancestry so I went digging. Most of the responses didn't make any sense to me until I found this. Bottom line is having the same number of chromosomes as chimps in and of itself is not an indication of common ancestry (could be an indication of common design) so why would a fused chromosome indicate common ancestry? A fused chromosome can very well be an event that occurred to a distinct line of species and not the other who simply happen to have had the same number of chromosomes to begin with.

Byblos posted:

I was really interested in finding a creationist response to the chromosome 2 fusion and why it may not be indicative of common ancestry so I went digging. Most of the responses didn't make any sense to me until I found this. Bottom line is having the same number of chromosomes as chimps in and of itself is not an indication of common ancestry (could be an indication of common design) so why would a fused chromosome indicate common ancestry? A fused chromosome can very well be an event that occurred to a distinct line of species and not the other who simply happen to have had the same number of chromosomes to begin with.

Byblos, that link is the same that jlay posted in his post at the top of page 6 in this thread.
I was in the middle of posting a reply to this link, when my iPod lost everything. I just wanted to tell jlay, and now you too, that It is a great link, for someone like me who needs to hear it in simple terms. It makes a lot of logical sense.

So, thanks jlay, and Byblos.

RickD wrote:Byblos posted:

I was really interested in finding a creationist response to the chromosome 2 fusion and why it may not be indicative of common ancestry so I went digging. Most of the responses didn't make any sense to me until I found this. Bottom line is having the same number of chromosomes as chimps in and of itself is not an indication of common ancestry (could be an indication of common design) so why would a fused chromosome indicate common ancestry? A fused chromosome can very well be an event that occurred to a distinct line of species and not the other who simply happen to have had the same number of chromosomes to begin with.

Byblos, that link is the same that jlay posted in his post at the top of page 6 in this thread.
I was in the middle of posting a reply to this link, when my iPod lost everything. I just wanted to tell jlay, and now you too, that It is a great link, for someone like me who needs to hear it in simple terms. It makes a lot of logical sense.

So, thanks jlay, and Byblos.

Only goes to show you we need to read others' posts with a little more attention to detail .

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:Byblos posted:

I was really interested in finding a creationist response to the chromosome 2 fusion and why it may not be indicative of common ancestry so I went digging. Most of the responses didn't make any sense to me until I found this. Bottom line is having the same number of chromosomes as chimps in and of itself is not an indication of common ancestry (could be an indication of common design) so why would a fused chromosome indicate common ancestry? A fused chromosome can very well be an event that occurred to a distinct line of species and not the other who simply happen to have had the same number of chromosomes to begin with.

Byblos, that link is the same that jlay posted in his post at the top of page 6 in this thread.
I was in the middle of posting a reply to this link, when my iPod lost everything. I just wanted to tell jlay, and now you too, that It is a great link, for someone like me who needs to hear it in simple terms. It makes a lot of logical sense.

So, thanks jlay, and Byblos.

Only goes to show you we need to read others' posts with a little more attention to detail .

What do you mean "we"? You're on your own on this one.