Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Science Becoming a Religion
Telegraph ^ | June 10, 2007 | ReasonMcLucus

Posted on 06/10/2007 6:38:21 PM PDT by kathsua

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-286 next last
To: durasell

[If you apply the same criteria to faith as you do to science, then the faith dies. And that is not a good thing.]

I wasn’t suggesating that- but that science can strengthen faith by pointing out the biological facts that show design. Many people set out to disprove the existence of God through science but came away beliving in Him because they found enough fingerprints of God in science and found out evolution just has too many biological, mathematical problems to be viable.


151 posted on 06/14/2007 9:41:43 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: durasell

[One of the beauties of faith is that it asks to make the jump beyond logic.]

I don’t necessarily think that is the case- while the majority of folks, including myself, took that leap of faith, and had little knowledge of science at hte time, I think we needn’t suspend logic as their is enough evidences in science to highly suggest a Designer- so if the logic is available, then all of us who did take the leap of faith aren’t taking that leap with nothign to back up a reasonable leap of faith- even htough we may not be aware of the logic at the time.


152 posted on 06/14/2007 9:45:49 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

I wasn’t necessarily talking about ID when I mentioned the “jump beyond logic.” If anything, I was referencing the comfort that faith provides during adversity. For instance, parents who see their kid mowed down by a truck. The comfort faith provides allows them to “know” he’s in a better place rather than simply reduced to hamburger.

Those who call belief “myth” and “fairy tales” would rob people of that kind of comfort.


153 posted on 06/14/2007 9:55:06 AM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

The existance of God can’t be proven by science, hence, scientists cannot see his “fingerprints.” They can only see complexity that may be beyond their understand. It is not a fine distinction.

Note: Nowhere in the bible is the existance of God challenged or proven. His existance is assumed and only faith is tested.


154 posted on 06/14/2007 9:58:21 AM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: ahayes

[Is this like turtles all the way down? There’s a designer for the designer for the designer for the designer. . . If everything “designed” needs a designer, who designed God?]

Who designed the Eternal God? Think about it. God is eternal- that is what makes Him God. Suggesting that someone or something must have designed Him suggests that eternity is not a reality. It suggest there must have been a ‘starting point’, and a ‘starting point’ before that, and a starting point before that etc etc etc. See where that is going? There would need to be infinate ‘starting points’- in other words, an eternal existence in which the ‘starters’ began their/it’s ‘starting points’

[You know, those faolks that witnessed wolves taking to the sea,

This is not proposed by evolutionists.]

The sea mamals are said to come from land animals much like wolves.

[Again, not proposed by evolutionists. Evolution does not come about because of need.]

‘Environmental pressures’ don’t constitute ‘need’? One of the tenents of evolution is that natural selection ‘evolves’ creatures because environmental pressures cause a need. For isntance, hummingbirds with shorter beaks all of a sudden find that the shallow flowers they were feeding on have died off, but there are other deeper flowers, but only the longer beaked birds can feed- the shorter beaked birds get weeded out, while the longer beaked birds survive and pass along their long-beak genes- pretty soon only long beaked birds are present. Need shaped the bird.

We are told that lizards couldn’t compete with bigger lizards for ground food, and that the smaller lizards leapt into the air to catch flies, and over millions of years, a miraculous morphological change took place with many many mutations all working together to create wings- don’t you watch the National geographic channel? lol

I agree with you that this is not how sceicne states evolution is proposed to happens, however, the discovery channel, national geographic, and even some supposedly reputable scientific publications propose that this is how it happend. They even go to great lengths to show this by trotting out the Mexican flat lizards that all congregate at water falls and leap into the air to catch blackflies.

I agree with what you said- however, there is one major problem with what you/science says [It is the result of multiple small changes occurring by chance and being selected for because they are useful,] There is no proof that the many steps needed for systems were ‘useful’ as all the components of the systems gathered in the species awaiting final assembly, and so, each piece of the final complex systems would have been useless until fully assembled.

Science can make a weak, shaky case for perhaps some individual pieces of perhaps a few systems being useful, but my gosh, the rest takes an amount of faith to beleive because there simply is no physical proof that the many varied systems that are unique to certain species evolved. We can’t show through the fossil records that these systems slowly evolved. Even when there is some scant evidences that APPEAR to be evolving are present, it still takes a tremendous amount of faith to believe- as in the case of the supposed ear hearing system evolution- there are huge gaps and when the case is being made, there is much that is left out like the fact that more direct relatives showed not a progression of the evolution, but a regression- these facts are left out of hte equasion and not brought to our attention, because it isn’t conducive to the hypothesis


155 posted on 06/14/2007 10:11:02 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
So if the universe didn't have a starting point, you wouldn't need to have a God? The sea mamals are said to come from land animals much like wolves.

"Much like" =/= "exactly like" Phylogenies are important. Whales are descended from a genus called Pakicetus, which was an animal adapted to an aquatic existence (new research from Jan. 2007 shows they were not terrestrial as thought before) and descended from similar solely terrestrial animals.

‘Environmental pressures’ don’t constitute ‘need’? One of the tenents of evolution is that natural selection ‘evolves’ creatures because environmental pressures cause a need.

Natural selection provides a driving force for the propagation of beneficial mutations, but the hummingbird doesn't flit about and suddenly think, "Golly, these flowers are too deep, I'd better mutate so my kids don't starve." Mutation is wholly disconnected from need. If you're lucky, you get a mutation that matches your need, if you're not, you die.

There is no proof that the many steps needed for systems were ‘useful’ as all the components of the systems gathered in the species awaiting final assembly, and so, each piece of the final complex systems would have been useless until fully assembled.

We don't see this in the fossil record. What we do see is small changes leading to other small changes, with perfect functionality at each step, but an entirely different functionality later down the road. For instance, in early tetrapods a domino-effect cascade of changes was involved in the transition to land, in which one change had an effect that made a second change more easy. You can read a bit about this here.

156 posted on 06/14/2007 10:49:39 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
“It is the result of multiple small changes occurring by chance and being selected for because they are useful...”

You are describing microevolution pretty well. This is another canard constantly thrown out there by the darwinists, i.e. talk about provable microevolution evidence, and then make the jump to macroevolution with no evidence at all, except for the fact that a designer seems absurd to them.

157 posted on 06/14/2007 10:59:43 AM PDT by razzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: metmom; editor-surveyor

“Scripture states that God stretched out the heavens like a curtain.”

also ‘rolled up like a scroll’:

I looked when He broke the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon became like blood;
and the stars of the sky fell to the earth, as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great wind.
The sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

Rev 6:12-14

And all the host of heaven will wear away,
And the sky will be rolled up like a scroll;
All their hosts will also wither away
As a leaf withers from the vine,
Or as one withers from the fig tree.

Is 34:4

A good scientist will clearly state their assumptions.
There is an unstated assumption built into many ‘scientific’ articles that assumes that the speed of light (c = 299,792,458 m/s) was constant for last the x number of years....

There has been some intesting work on the subject of the varible speed of light theory over time the last few years.... first peer reviewed published by Setterfeild in 1987....

Setterfield and Norman SRI in July 1987
Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College London

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo%C3%A3o_Magueijo

Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge
Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis Dr. John Moffat of the University of Toronto

have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was much higher – as much as 10 to the 10th power faster in the past...

Variable speed of light theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

http://www.setterfield.org

The Variable Speed of Light theory is advocated by scientists with atheistic presuppositions of ultimate reality and scientists with theistic presuppostions.

also note: ‘the variable speed of light cosmology has been proposed independently by John Moffat and the two-man team of Andreas Albrecht and João Magueijo to explain the horizon problem of cosmology’

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092.html

if c changes over time, it also alters ‘red-shift’ calcuations regarding expansion/contraction of universe


158 posted on 06/14/2007 12:00:40 PM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: ahayes

[What we do see is small changes leading to other small changes, with perfect functionality at each step]

Mmm not really- what you see are, as in the case of hte supposed evolution of the ear bones, are examples of VERY distantly (supposedly) related species, and you see differences in their jaw bones- what hte record doesn’t show are these bones migrating and assembling in the ear canal, bit by bit until a fully formed ear hearing system is inplace- There are large gaps in the record showing these bones asssembling, and those gaps are ‘filled in’ by mere assumptions and hypothesis.

In the case that is cited in the link you provide, a scant 3 fishes are examined and it’s concluded that there must have been an evolution going on there- but as I previously pointed out, these suppsoed scant 3 supposedly related species ignore the fact that more direct descendents show somethign entirely different in regards to any supposed evolution of feeding abilities. All this study shows is that there were 3 unique species and anythign further is simply assumptions that are riddled with huge gaps. We know that some species were capable of duel mechanisms for things like eating or breathing both out of water and in water, but al lthis proves is that they are uniquely created creatures. To take a species that is similiar to a dual breather, and point out that their breathing mechanism is similiar, but slightly different is nothign but a hypothesis without any real concrete supporting evidences- it’s like comparing two unique fruits, like an apple and a pinapple, pointing out that they both have stems, and suggesting that the one evolved from the other- you can bring in any number of other unique species that have different stems, and attempt to suggest it shows a ‘clear evolutionary progression’ but it all boils down to an opinion on the matter and not truly an objective science- it’s a subjective science that ignores the major differences that seperate the fruits from the ones being compared to. Another point to be made is that the subjects being compared are seperated by supposedly millions of years, and we’re given just a few scant ‘evidences’ of supposed progression of systems such as hearing? As mentioned, this totally ignores the thousands of steps in between the two species that showed somethign entirely different- I’ll continue with hte hearing issue because it illustrates this nicely- there were many direct descendents that showed the jaw bones moving in the opposite direction when compared side by side- not toward hte ear, but toweard the front of the animal- away from the ear- But again- what is being done here is VERY similiar to setting a 5 million year old apple next to a 1 million year old pineapple- pointing out the stems, showing that one is different fro mthe other- claiming the two are directly related, and suggesting that it shows a clear evolution.

In the case of the supposed ear evolution (which we’re told by scientists is ‘clearly documented and extensively catelogued and strongly agreed upon)- they take a 1 million year old (not sure hte real age- but just using the 1 million as an example) hippo sized animal’s jaw, setting it next to a 5 million year old rat sized animal’s jaw (You wouldn’t know this looking at the drawings that supposedly show this ‘clear progression because the two drawings were EQUAL in size) and stating that the movement of hte bones in the jaw show a ‘clear evolutionary progression’. We also aren’t informed that the Cynodont- one of the key players in the ‘evolution of hte ear’ chart, doesn’t even have a distant relative, and isn’t related to the rat sized animal on display.

To look at that chart of the supposed evolution of hte ear hearing, it looks impressive, and looks plausible- that is, until you start to dig deeper and realize that the gaps are so huge you could drive an army of feathered Brontosauraus’, side by side, miles and miles long, through it

[Natural selection provides a driving force for the propagation of beneficial mutations, but the hummingbird doesn’t flit about and suddenly think, “Golly, these flowers are too deep, I’d better mutate so my kids don’t starve.”]

I never suggested that is how it happened- I DID however point out that national geogrphic, the discovery channel and some supposedly reputable science magazines maKe those insinuations and people gobble it up as though it were the gospel truth.


159 posted on 06/14/2007 12:10:59 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

We’ve gone over this before, I presented evidence from several hundreds of animals throughout cynodont evolution and you said there were thousands that they threw out, without providing any evidence that this was the case. It looks like you’ve simply made up your mind not to pay attention to any evidence on this subject.


160 posted on 06/14/2007 12:21:44 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: razzle

If I add up 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1. . . can I not eventually reach 1 million?

Creationists simply put up an artificial barrier to evolutionary change—”This far and no further!” The position of this barrier is arbitrary and varies according to what creationist you’re talking to and how squeamish they are.


161 posted on 06/14/2007 12:23:51 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: kathsua
“Science does seem to be overrated at times.”

Science can’t be overrated, but “scientists” certainly can be. I remember, early on in the current global warming debate, that the left published a list of 2,000 “scientists” that agreed with Algore. What they didn’t tell us about that list was that it contained just a handful of climatologists but a huge number of “social scientists” who were little more than left-wing whores.

162 posted on 06/14/2007 12:30:02 PM PDT by vetsvette (Bring Him Back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomProtector
The Variable Speed of Light theory is advocated by scientists with atheistic presuppositions of ultimate reality and scientists with theistic presuppostions.

Scientists who are looking at the possibility of a change in the speed of light are considering a transient change at the very beginning of the universe.

Setterfield is supposing a tremendous change over the past 6000 years.

Scientists who are looking at the possibility of a change in the speed of light have outlined several impossibilities that can result from theories like this and have not yet made a model that avoids these problems. Setterfield never bothered to check.

All evidence shows that the speed of light has been the same for billions of years. A young earth is right out.

163 posted on 06/14/2007 12:35:07 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: kathsua
In 1896, physicists believed that atoms were the smallest particles of matter.

Actually most physicists at this time didn't believe in particles of matter. The atomic theory wouldn't gain wide acceptance for at least another decade.

The author could use a fact-checker.

164 posted on 06/14/2007 12:38:57 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ahayes

I must have missed the ‘several hundred’ evidences you presented.

No evidence? There weren’t many animals in the millions of years gaps? As well, there are no relatives of the Cynodont prior, yet the chart certainly makes it appear that there is.

[It looks like you’ve simply made up your mind not to pay attention to any evidence on this subject.]

Oh I’m paying attention, and I’m finding the gaps and assumptions are much more relevent than evo scientists admit to.


165 posted on 06/14/2007 12:46:57 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: ahayes

[The position of this barrier is arbitrary and varies according to what creationist you’re talking to and how squeamish they are.]

Nope- the barrier has nothign to do with creationists- the barrier is a biological one

[If I add up 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1. . . can I not eventually reach 1 million?]

The problem is that you only have very sketchy 1+1+1+1+1 until you run into the biological impossibility of macroevolution- Science has yet to provide anythign other than microevolutionary examples- Macro remains an unproven or undemonstrated hypothesis -


166 posted on 06/14/2007 12:50:24 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
I told you about a paper that studied more than 300 cynodonts and demonstrated a clear evolutionary trend in the proportion of the dentary to other jaw bones. You said that the author had left out thousands of cynodonts that showed this thread did not exist, although you didn't have a shred of evidence to prove this.

The fossil record is not complete, and we find new fossils all the time (like this humongous bird-like dinosaur. When we find a close evolutionary ancestor of the first cynodont, will you retract your objections? I think not, because your objections are based upon faith and not upon the evidence.

167 posted on 06/14/2007 1:00:00 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: ahayes

Thread = trend. . .


168 posted on 06/14/2007 1:00:19 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
the barrier is a biological one

There is no evidence of this. It's based upon biblical presuppositions.

Macro remains an unproven or undemonstrated hypothesis -

I wonder how you expect us to demonstrate this in the lab when the change you'd like takes much longer than many human lifespans.

169 posted on 06/14/2007 1:01:39 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: kathsua
Science can only deal effectively with the present.

Pure nonsense. Hasn't this guy ever heard of forensic science? How about archeology?

170 posted on 06/14/2007 2:41:40 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
Just show us one transitional fossil (that was not glued together like so many of your hoaxes, e.g. archeoraptor). Darwin himself - the great and mighty one - predicted there would be thousands.
171 posted on 06/14/2007 2:47:59 PM PDT by razzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: razzle
Only one? Archaeopteryx.
172 posted on 06/14/2007 3:12:22 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: razzle
One transitional coming up.



Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

173 posted on 06/14/2007 4:11:12 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
“Only one? Archaeopteryx”

A bird fossil no biggie. I wish I had time to look at more of the phony stuff coyoteman is pushing but I have more important things to do right now. Coyote knows there is a factory in China that makes all these so called transitional fossils because the darwin religion pays huge bucks for them.

174 posted on 06/14/2007 4:35:44 PM PDT by razzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
“Hasn’t this guy ever heard of forensic science? How about archeology?”

They are still guesses when science examines the past. And since all darwinists are already sold on their theory, and know all the answers ahead of time, I don’t trust any of them.

175 posted on 06/14/2007 4:41:44 PM PDT by razzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: razzle
They are still guesses when science examines the past.

Right. So the cops were only guessing when they determined that OJ murdered his ex-wife.

176 posted on 06/14/2007 4:42:50 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: razzle
I wish I had time to look at more of the phony stuff coyoteman is pushing but I have more important things to do right now. Coyote knows there is a factory in China that makes all these so called transitional fossils because the darwin religion pays huge bucks for them.

Sorry that happens not to be the case. You seem to have lost your grip on reality.

But here are more of those "phony stuffs" for your viewing pleasure:

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)


177 posted on 06/14/2007 4:43:52 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
In fact, I am an archaeologist. And I guarantee you that we can indeed observe the past.

No, you cannot. You can observe the relics and artifacts left from the past and make deductions and guesses.

178 posted on 06/14/2007 4:57:52 PM PDT by LexBaird (PR releases are the Chinese dog food of political square meals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird; kathsua; razzle
In fact, I am an archaeologist. And I guarantee you that we can indeed observe the past.

No, you cannot. You can observe the relics and artifacts left from the past and make deductions and guesses.

Why don't you discuss that with kathsua and razzle and a few of the others and get back to me in a month or two. (Yawn...)

179 posted on 06/14/2007 5:08:54 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Is that supposed to be a refutation? I don’t know either one and it wasn’t either of them who made the claim. Perhaps you’d care to demonstrate how you “observe the past”?


180 posted on 06/14/2007 5:19:52 PM PDT by LexBaird (PR releases are the Chinese dog food of political square meals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Do you know that carbon dating has to be done dozens of times usually before the “right” answer is found. Regarding OJ, yes it is a guess that OJ killed his ex-wife. There is no scientific way of proving he did it. Science is only provable in the present, not the past.
181 posted on 06/14/2007 6:10:44 PM PDT by razzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: razzle
Do you know that carbon dating has to be done dozens of times usually before the “right” answer is found.

Please cite your source for this nonsense. (I have had nearly 600 radiocarbon dates done, and interpreted the results of thousands more, so make it good.)

182 posted on 06/14/2007 6:33:42 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: ahayes; Coyoteman

[There is no evidence of this. It’s based upon biblical presuppositions.]

I’m sorry, but it’s based on scientific facts aNd on evidences of the fossil records that show fully completed species that have reamined the same all the way from the Cambrian explosion to now

[I wonder how you expect us to demonstrate this in the lab when the change you’d like takes much longer than many human lifespans.]

Again, I’m sorry, but lab experiments on fruit flies replicated millions of years through intense radiation and gene manipulation.

[You said that the author had left out thousands of cynodonts that showed this thread did not exist, although you didn’t have a shred of evidence to prove this.]

No that’s not correct- I didn’t say the authors left out thousands of Cynodonts- I brought up the fact that species were left out and only a coupel of examples are given for the supposed evolution of the ear hearing- again we’ll go back to the apple/pinapple example to illustrate that there are many many other species in the millions of years that simply aren’t taken into account-

[When we find a close evolutionary ancestor of the first cynodont, will you retract your objections?]

Again- it would be irresponsible to retract the statement that only a couple of examples are given between dissimiliar species- comparisons are made, and assumptions are utilized to fill in the huge gaps- these gaps are not small and not insignificant.

Pakicetus was reported to be the species that was aquatic based on a fragment of the the jaw and fragment of the skull, and was dropped into the ‘ear hearing evolution’ charts to show the supposed evolving ear hearing. What the writer didn’t tell you was that this creature was later discovered to be fully terrestrial with feet for running- not swimming. “A prominent whale expert, Thewissen, and colleagues unearthed some more bones of Pakicetus, and published their work in the journal Nature.2 The commentary on this paper in the same issue3 says, ‘All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.” http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0926ep2.asp

Coyote: Ah- ?Tukana boy, whos skull was within the range of fully human species. Tools foudn in same layers? Egads, whoda thunk humans used tools? Oh and molecular biology disproves the chimp to man hypothesis. While the skulls you showcase repeatedly are indeed interesting glimpses into the past, they show nothign more than fully human or fully ape species, and even those in field can’t agree on which ones should be classified as human or ape- yet folks continue to trot out hte wall posters as though the questions have been resolved and everyone agrees.

“Therefore, the most accurate date (see note below) for the origin of modern humans indicate that the last common ancestor to modern humans must have existed less than 50,000 years ago (16). Such a recent date left only one potential ancestor for modern humans, that is, Homo neandertalensis (Neanderthals), which lived between 400,000 and 28,000 years ago. Previous anatomical studies had cast doubt on the possibility of Neanderthals being the ancestors of modern humans (23-27). These studies showed differences in Neanderthal’s brain case (23) and the presence of an internal nasal margin, a medial swelling of the lateral nasal wall, and a lack of an ossified roof over the lacrimal groove (24-25). None of these features are found in Homo Sapiens, and the last feature is not found in any other terrestrial mammal! A recent analysis of Neanderthal hands has revealed that modern humans and Neanderthals differed markedly in the kind of grip they could use” http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html

Seems there’s all kinds of serious problems as pointed out in detail by the link provided that are simply glossed over when trying to claim man came from apes


183 posted on 06/14/2007 7:50:48 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
"I’m sorry, but it’s based on scientific facts aNd on evidences of the fossil records that show fully completed species that have reamined the same all the way from the Cambrian explosion to now"

Such as?

What is the time limit for evolution? Is there a specific rate of change organisms have to hold to? Is there a maximum species life span where the species has to either become extinct or speciate? Where can I find the literature that describes these limits?

"Again, I’m sorry, but lab experiments on fruit flies replicated millions of years through intense radiation and gene manipulation."

Where did the scientists working on fruit flies say it was equivalent to millions of years? In which publication did those same scientists specify which time period a specific mutation corresponded to? Where is it mentioned that the experiments were an attempt to produce speciation? From what you imply, they must have tried an accumulation of mutations in order to ratchet more than one feature in a specific direction. Where is the documentation for this?

Now the big question - what changes in the morphology of a fruit fly are necessary for that fruit fly to become something other than a fruit fly?

184 posted on 06/14/2007 8:21:30 PM PDT by b_sharp (The last door on your right. Jiggle the handle. If they scream ignore it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

[What is the time limit for evolution? Is there a specific rate of change organisms have to hold to? Is there a maximum species life span where the species has to either become extinct or speciate? Where can I find the literature that describes these limits?]

Any scientific textbook that discusses the factual (and not the hypothesised yet unproven) capabilities of genes- time plays no part in moecular biological fact

[Where did the scientists working on fruit flies say it was equivalent to millions of years? In which publication did those same scientists specify which time period a specific mutation corresponded to? Where is it mentioned that the experiments were an attempt to produce speciation? From what you imply, they must have tried an accumulation of mutations in order to ratchet more than one feature in a specific direction. Where is the documentation for this?]

Where? Online or library- help yourself- “Tried an accumulation of mutations? No- they let the process take it’s ‘natural’ course. The result? Freakish fruitflies- no fruit bats!

[Now the big question - what changes in the morphology of a fruit fly are necessary for that fruit fly to become something other than a fruit fly?]

Genetic sequences. The mutated fruitflies retained their unique fruitfly genetic information- the sequence reamined intact and was limitted to fruitfly only caps- centuries of selective breeding have proven that species specific information can’t be altered enough to move a species outside it’s own KIND. No amtter how hard we’ve tried- it is simply biologically impossible to do so. Time doesn’t solve the biolgical problem- the evidnece doesn’t show creation of new organs or systems not unique to a species. We’ve been over and over the species specific limitations many times here with many links given- There simp-ly are no evidneces that support the idea that species gain NEW information not unique to the species and not spcific to the species. Each species has limits as to how altered their information can become, and we Dhese limits in nature and the record


185 posted on 06/14/2007 8:44:28 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: ahayes

“Science magazine in 2001 says: “The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today”.30 The same article notes that for such complex and distinct living groups to be explained according to the theory of evolution, very rich fossil beds showing a gradual developmental process should have been found, but this has not yet proved possible:”

“Richard Monastersky, a science journalist at Science News, one of the popular publications of evolutionist literature, states the following about the “Cambrian Explosion”, which is a deathtrap for evolutionary theory:

A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth’s Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth’s first complex creatures. ...the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian ...and they were as distinct from each other as they are today.”

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter5.php

Lots of info on this site- take your time- go through it slowly.


186 posted on 06/14/2007 8:53:09 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

post 117: Gosh, lots of incomplete skulls there- Now heres a site that tells you what that site you copied from WON’T tell those who won’t bother to look into the facts further- most of those skulls are fully ape and highly contested throughout hte evolutionary camp. Following is a site that discusses the work by evolutionsits that refutes most of those skulls as being any kind of ‘intermediaries’

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter10.php


187 posted on 06/14/2007 9:00:47 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Here- buy the book-
http://creationwiki.org/The_Mythology_of_Modern_Dating_Methods

[]Please cite your source for this nonsense. (I have had nearly 600 radiocarbon dates done, and interpreted the results of thousands more, so make it good.)[]

the number one reason why dates are often ‘consistent’ is that the ones that show inconsistencies are not accepted and are explained away as the samples having been ‘contaminated by leeching’ and are thusly not accepted- The reason why most published dates are ‘consistent’ is because they fit a priori beleif. I’ts noteworthy to note how convenient it is to explain somethign away by claiming leeching/contamination happened when the dates don’t fit.

The book goes on to describe the illusion played on the public by convenient methods used by archeologists and paleantologists and how the data is manipulated. Of course- I’m sure we’ll see ad homminem attacks against Woodmorappe in an attempt to hush up what he says.

http://creationwiki.org/The_Mythology_of_Modern_Dating_Methods


188 posted on 06/14/2007 9:23:07 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Please cite your source for this nonsense. (I have had nearly 600 radiocarbon dates done, and interpreted the results of thousands more, so make it good.)

the number one reason why dates are often ‘consistent’ is that the ones that show inconsistencies are not accepted and are explained away as the samples having been ‘contaminated by leeching’ and are thusly not accepted- The reason why most published dates are ‘consistent’ is because they fit a priori beleif. I’ts noteworthy to note how convenient it is to explain somethign away by claiming leeching/contamination happened when the dates don’t fit.

The book goes on to describe the illusion played on the public by convenient methods used by archeologists and paleantologists and how the data is manipulated. Of course- I’m sure we’ll see ad homminem attacks against Woodmorappe in an attempt to hush up what he says.

http://creationwiki.org/The_Mythology_of_Modern_Dating_Methods

Sorry, that happens not to be the case.

You keep spouting this creationist nonsense about radiocarbon dating and how those evil archaeologists manipulate the data.

Son, I am one of those "evil archaeologists," and I do a lot of radiocarbon dating; I have been studying the subject pretty carefully for over 35 years. Neither you nor any of those silly creationist websites you keep citing have any idea of what I or my colleagues do -- you make that clear with every ridiculous comment you make and every link you post on the subject. You simply don't have a clue, yet you insist on braying loudly your ignorance for all to see.

If you were a scientist and made comments as poorly reasoned as you do here, you could look forward to an immediate retirement.


For the lurkers who might be interested in more information on radiocarbon dating, here are some good links:

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Tree Ring and C14 Dating

Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.


189 posted on 06/14/2007 9:42:03 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

What is the point of challenging someone’s belief system? Science will progress regardless of what people believe.


190 posted on 06/14/2007 9:45:50 PM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: durasell
What is the point of challenging someone’s belief system? Science will progress regardless of what people believe.

True, but I am not challenging anyone's belief system.

I am pointing out deliberate distortions and outright lies in matters of science.

I do not tell anyone that their belief in one, three, or multiple gods is correct or incorrect (science has no data on that). Rather when somebody posts falsehoods about matters of science with which I am familiar (such as radiocarbon dating and archaeology), I challenge those falsehoods.

191 posted on 06/14/2007 9:51:19 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Science in conflict with religious beliefs? Quick, call 60 Minutes!

But consider this first:

A) The bible isn’t peer-reviewed.

B) It’s pretty obvious that America won’t be leading in science in the 21st century.

C) Many, many people cannot personally reconcile science and belief. They never have and they never will.


192 posted on 06/14/2007 9:57:51 PM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

“Priests (preachers, rabbis, etc) just provide answers.”

Just because they provide an answer does not mean it is correct. I am sure Jim Jones had all the answers for his sheeps questions right up until the moment they lined up and drank the kool-aid.


193 posted on 06/14/2007 10:00:48 PM PDT by Bogtrotter52 (Reading DU daily so you won't hafta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

[I am pointing out deliberate distortions and outright lies in matters of science.]

Lool- yup you sure are- just like when you said a ‘creationist website made the claims about radiocarbon dating’ I guess you musta missed the point that it was woodmorappe and NOT that website- but alas- I guess you insist on braying loudly your ignorance for all to see.


194 posted on 06/14/2007 10:28:11 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

[Rather when somebody posts falsehoods about matters of science with which I am familiar (such as radiocarbon dating and archaeology), I challenge those falsehoods.]

No you don’t- you misatribute what someone who has studied the matter has to say about it to a site that simply points to what the geologist Woodmorappe had to say on the matter- refute what he has to say. Butr again, I’m sure you’ll simply engage in ad hominem attacks against him per usual instead of tackling what he has to say on the subject.


195 posted on 06/14/2007 10:33:44 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Rather when somebody posts falsehoods about matters of science with which I am familiar (such as radiocarbon dating and archaeology), I challenge those falsehoods.

No you don’t- you misatribute what someone who has studied the matter has to say about it to a site that simply points to what the geologist Woodmorappe had to say on the matter- refute what he has to say. Butr again, I’m sure you’ll simply engage in ad hominem attacks against him per usual instead of tackling what he has to say on the subject.

The link you posted contains little other than an ad trying to sell me a book. There is nothing there for an "ad hominem attack."

And I "misatribute what someone who has studied the matter has to say about it?" The links you cite all together amount to a few hours of "study" by their respective authors -- all with the intent of finding a few scientific sounding terms which will serve to fool those who don't know any better.

Son, I know better. The tripe on those links doesn't fool me; it just makes me shake my head in disgust at how gullible their intended audience really is.

I am sorry to have to tell you this, but I must include you in that audience. You clearly know little of science, but are willing to take the word of any creationist website, no matter how ridiculous their arguments are shown to be, because you want to believe them.

That may be fine in creationist circles, but it is not science and I think you know it.

(Are you ever going to support some of the silly comments you have made about radiocarbon dating? Or have you given up?)

196 posted on 06/14/2007 10:44:25 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

[Son, I am one of those “evil archaeologists,” and I do a lot of radiocarbon dating;]

Pappa, So is Woodmorappe, and I’m willing to bet He’s studied the radiometric dating game much more extensively than you which is why you’ll need to divert attention from his facts by engaging in ad hominem attacks, and by pettily insulting me- your very own Son, as though that will somehow make all the ugly little secrets about dating problems go poof in the night. It’s a well known fact that archeologists and paleantologists practice baby sacrifices and conjure up evil spirits before they fix the dates given by the preferred methods of their choices., and If you were a scientist and made comments as poorly reasoned as you do here, you could look forward to a long and lucrative career in the fields of science because quite frankly, you’d be in good company.


197 posted on 06/14/2007 10:44:45 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth’s Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth’s first complex creatures. ...the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian ...and they were as distinct from each other as they are today.”

"I don't give damn what your trilobite buddies do, We are not going to go swimming!"

198 posted on 06/14/2007 10:47:50 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

"Bummer dude!"

199 posted on 06/14/2007 10:50:30 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Son, I am one of those “evil archaeologists,” and I do a lot of radiocarbon dating;

Pappa, So is Woodmorappe, and I’m willing to bet He’s studied the radiometric dating game much more extensively than you...

Woodmorappe is the pseudonym for a high school science teacher. I am willing to bet he has never done a radiocarbon date in his life. I have read a lot of his writings, and I doubt he has studied radiocarbon dating to any great extent either. He is a creationist; he doesn't need scientific facts because the fervor of his religious belief is enough for his intended audience.

But if you think he's so hot, call him up bring him to FR, and we can have a debate on these very threads.

200 posted on 06/14/2007 10:52:13 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-286 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson