Evidence for God from Science

gone

Jbuza wrote:IS there any? Numerous fossil hoaxes.

There have been numerous biblical hoaxes.
So your logic is some therefore all?
Does this make sense?
Some white people are racist so all white people are racist.
Some fossils are hoaxes so all fossils are hoaxes.
Some biblical findings are hoaxes so all biblical findings are false.

Jbuza wrote:Numerous human bones and artifacts as low as the cambrian.

Human bones and artifacts found in Cambrian formations? Care to share?

Jbuza wrote:No real cases of speciation.

So is it inconceivable that coyotes and wolves may have had a similar ancestor?
grey wolf
coyote skull

Jbuza wrote:No transistional forms.

Tell me looking at the skulls above what would a transitional form look like?

Jbuza wrote:A history of extinction rather than adaptation.

How come there are no elephant or hippo bones with the dinosaur bones? I suppose the elephants did not die until later?

Jbuza wrote:Nowhere in the world does the geological column actually occur.

Of course there will not be a complete geological column. One cannot expect sedimentation to occur constantly in one area for the entire geological history of the Earth.

However if fossil forms appear consistently in similarily aged rocks a geological column can be peiced together. Or do you have another explanation for this consistency?

Jbuza wrote:Evolution is mathmatically impossible.

Give me a real world example of how something can be shown to be mathmatically impossible without out knowing all the data.

Jbuza wrote:The evidence simply is not there; the only place evidnece exists is within the theory itself.

The idea that there is no evidence appears to be only an opinion given that as you state below reasonable people disagree.

Jbuza wrote: What's left? How can a thinking person proove to themselves that evolution is true? I assume that all evolutionists can't be stupid. So there must be a reason for your belief in it.

what have you found in your lives that make you believe evolution?

gone

Jbuza wrote:what have you found in your lives that make you believe evolution?

For me perhaps one of the most notable factors of the evolution-creationism debate is the integrity of practitioners on both sides.

Both creationism and evolution have a history of fraud, error, mistake and dishonesty. Such is human nature. However there is an important distinction: Every known problem in evolution has been exposed by evolutionists. Conversely, every known problem in creationism has been exposed by evolutionists.

The list of acknowledged problems and flawed arguments at answersingenesis were not identified and exposed by proponents of creationism, but by evolutionists and other scientists (be they atheist or theist). It seems creationists reluctantly concede problems only when they become overwhelmingly untenable due to external influences.

Meanwhile the problems of evolution (Piltdown Man, Lamarkism and so on) were identified by non-creationists, that is evolutionists and other scientists (be they atheist or theist). This is true of any branch of reputable science; it expunges its own problems.

Others factors suggesting evolution is science whereas creationism is not when it comes to the practice of each would be:
despite the denial of evidence most thinking creationists acknowledge 'microevolution' (which again is the experimental and theoretical work of evolutionists not creationists)
creationists would appear to have an inverse relationship to evidence and conclusion. For example, the numerous articles that appear in journals continually (e.g. a small sample here) are dismissed; meanwhile a single quote with no context from a scientist is taken as solid evidence of the field being in crisis (e.g. Click)
raging disputes exist in evolution as in any other reputable science (e.g. Gould vs. Dawkins). I can think of no equivalent dispute in creationism - even Islamic creation sites are similar to Christian ones.
All creationists are theists, suggesting deduction from ideaology. Evolutionists include theists and non-theists, suggesting it is induction from evidence not impinging on the metaphysical, as with all repuatble science.
Creationists believe 100% they are right. Many many evolutionsts acknowledge they could be wrong and are operating in what they think to be probably right: are we living in an illusion such as The Matrix? was the world started last tuesday and filled with humans with ready-made memories and an earth that looks more than a week old? is there a god who created all living things fully formed? Maybe, maybe and maybe - I really don't know. (If a creationist here would like to sincerely concede they could be utterly wrong I'd be delighted to hear it).

In sum, criticism and correction are intrinsic to evolution as with any reputable science: the process should be messy (ironically some creationists hold this against it - as though science should be monolithic and uniform). Criticism and correction are extrinsic to creationism, it changes and refines itself only under the pressure of opponents' critiques.

EDIT: Regarding "(e.g. a small sample here)" it seems the link did not acknowledge the search I'd done. You'll need to type "evolution" in and search "journal titles only".

gone

Jbuza wrote:It seems that you must then find evolutionists to be more credible. Is that because of evolutions NEW place in science?

Newness is not a factor, no. It is for the reasons outlined.

This is completely false Blob.

Also false.

Perhaps. But can you give me a clear example where a creationist has exposed a problem or difficulty in creationism? I can provide plenty for evolution.

What problems are you talking about?

Those abandoned creationist arguments in the answersingenesis link, and those examples of problems in evolution I provided in my post.

You presume here that creationists cannot be scientists.

No, I conclude creationism itself is not science from the lack of self-criticism in the history of creationism. However, creationists can be competent scientists.

It appears that you believe that everything good and productive comes from scientists, and it further appears that in order to be a scientist you feel they must be a non-creationist.

In the case of creationism-evolution the practices of each field suggests yes, good practice is the domain of scientists, mostly professional but a few amateur. However they can be theist or non-theist.

For the record I'd have no problem with a creationist being a scientist (I have a creationist friend who is a microbiologist) and I am sure there are many good ones. However, creationism as a discipline in itself I find to be non-scientific in practice for the reasons I outlined in my first post.

Microevolution is an observation, and it is not owned by evolutionists.

Then can you tell me which practictioners in the realm of creationism have contributed to the development of the theory of 'microevolution'?

Come now you must not be reading posts here.

Please link to a dispute amongst practictioners of creationism equivalent to Gould-Dawkins.

Sure I could be brainwashed, but I believe it.

You could be not brainwashed and still believe it. But I'll take your response as declining to acknowledge you could be utterly wrong. I suspect this is common amongst creationists and I hope you can understand how I might consider this a detriment to creationism.

I guess this goes to dispute in creationism, because the account in Genesis has remained unchanged. IT seems to me that you find evolutionists to be superior and what they say is to be trusted, and that you find creationists to be inferior and what they say is suspect. So would it be fair to say that your opinion of the messenger is more important than the message?

I do find evolution to have integrity that creationism lacks for reasons outlined in this post and the above. And if a messenger lacks integrity I question the validity of the message.

As I have acknowledged, this does not make evolution right and creationism wrong - but it is a major factor as to why I favour the former.

I appreciate your comments very much, and don't mean to be to critical, and I know I was critical of a couple things.

You've been civil yet direct and I appreciate that. Hope I you feel the same of me.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: So is it inconceivable that coyotes and wolves may have had a similar ancestor?
grey wolf
coyote skull

Jbuza wrote:No transistional forms.

Tell me looking at the skulls above what would a transitional form look like?

How about something like this ?

sandy_mcd wrote: How about something like this ?

Cats of course are in the same order as wolves Carnivora.
Cat Skull Lateral

Lynx and the common house cat's are thought to share a common ancestry. This conclusion is based on genetic and phylogenetic analysis.
Lynx lateral

Racoon's and Bear's are beleived to have diverged early. This conclusion is supported by genetic and phylogenetic analysis.

Wolves and bears are beleived to have branched off early on before they diverged. This hypothesis is suported by both genetic and phylogenetic analysis.
Grizzly frontal and lateral

Otter, Weasels and Wolves were thought to be more closely related.
Otter frontal and lateral

Wolf frontal and lateral


The family Pseudaelurus contains ancestors of the cats and sabre-toothed cats.
Metailurus is an early cat from the Miocene belonging to Pseudaelurus .


Amphicyon belongs to a group of animals beleived to be the predecessors of dogs and bears.
http://www.paleodirect.com/lm43-001.htm
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permane ... hicyon.php

Much of the radiation occured in the early Oligocene. The most convincing hypothesis is that during this period there was also a diversification of vegatation. Which wold lead to the diversification of the carnivores prey. Therefore any forms which gave rise to ancient racoon or weasel like forms and ancient felidae forms occured before this.

Miacids are thought to be the ancestors of both dogs and cats. The phylogeny is debated. They occur in the right time in the Eocene.
Here is Tapocyon a representive Miacid.


Viverravus from the early Eocene is an early carnivore.



Collection of genetic data lead to the following paper. Go to page 7 if you don't want to read the paper.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~johnf/pdf/Flynn_etal_2005.pdf

If you would like to examine the fossils on your own.
http://paleo.amnh.org/fossil/seek.html
In California
http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/ucmp/index.shtml
Or visit a local museum.

gone

Jbuza wrote:This such and such must have a common ancestor, or such and such is the common ancestor is not apparent from these bones

BGood wrote:This conclusion is based on genetic and phylogenetic analysis.
...
This conclusion is supported by genetic and phylogenetic analysis.
...
This hypothesis is suported by both genetic and phylogenetic analysis.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Cats of course are in the same order as wolves Carnivora.

Sorry, I just did a quick Google Image Search for "canine skull". The proposed transitional fossil (how to get from first skull to second) can be more clearly seen in this overhead schematic view of the three skulls:

<----- wolf

|
| transitional
v

------> coyote

OK, it wasn't very funny:-(

Jbuza wrote: What's left? How can a thinking person proove to themselves that evolution is true? I assume that all evolutionists can't be stupid. So there must be a reason for your belief in it.

what have you found in your lives that make you believe evolution?

How can a thinking person believe that the earth is only 6000+ years old? Even if you take life out of the equation, the earth itself says its much, much older... 4+ billion years... How are you going to explain that away?
Back to the original question, how can someone believe? Easy, because they are absolutely unwilling to believe the alternative. Years ago, I didn't want to believe that God existed, perhaps because I saw inconsistencies at the denomination I was raised in. Naturally I gravitated to evolution as the alternative. It wasn't until I realized that evolution had its own problems, (many that you have listed), that I knew it needed alot of help. Most glaring was 'not enough time' for it to have occurred by chance. This realization, combined with reading the book 'Flatland', brought me back to the Lord, I now knew we needed a creator, and I understood where he was... dimensions beyond our 3D space... Everything seems obvious now... (to me anyway)

Believe whatever convinces your mind of what your heart already knows…

gone

gone

gone