Newly discovered fossil could prove a problem for creationists

Washington Post ^ | November 5, 2014 | Rachel Feltman

[Lexinom]

If nothing else, the notion that everything came from nothing without a prime mover is patently absurd.

Coelacanth is a "kind", and I doubt the fossils of yesteryear are substantially different from those of living coelacanths today.

I don't have time to track down the full forward for "The Genesis Flood" for you - have other responsibilities, but it's there.

GToE will be shown for the lie that it is in due time, and there's no rational basis for it to be the "default" position other than the old argumentum ad populum. I never was very popular in school, and am quite content to hold unpopular views as long as they jive with facts and common sense.

Exhausted...

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

If nothing else, the notion that everything came from nothing without a prime mover is patently absurd.

Well, that's an assertion, of no more real value than if I replied, "No it's not." (Is this the argument clinic?) But more to the point, the existence of a prime mover would hardly negate the theory of evolution. Lots of people, including many in this forum, regard evolution as a wondrous tool wielded by the Creator.

Coelacanth is a "kind", and I doubt the fossils of yesteryear are substantially different from those of living coelacanths today.

Now you're using a term that has no scientific definition, and can therefore be defined and redefined as you need to depending on what you're discussing. But again, that's beside the point. The fact that some examples of the "kind" are still around doesn't mean other examples didn't die out 66 million years ago. Or do you think that the existence of cows means that aurochs are not extinct?

I will look for a copy of The Genesis Flood.

GToE will be shown for the lie that it is in due time, and there's no rational basis for it to be the "default" position other than the old argumentum ad populum.

Well, that and all that evidence stuff...

[Lexinom]

Evolution is not the only game in town. I cannot stress enough, though, that these debates cannot be won simply through a presentation of facts and evidence because God’s enemies so desperately need something, anything, no matter how improbable to provide rational underpinning, to dissuade them from the dreadful truth they know viscerally.

Given the weak state of the church, it should hardly come as a shock that some professing Christians would seek the bulwark of man’s approval. Though man rail, mock, and scoff, God’s word stands silently. Argumentum ad populum.

Evidence is therefore interpreted within the confines of the endgame rather than leading thereto. Evidence to the contrary (Noah’s Ark, living pterosaurs) is and will continue to be ignored as an inconvenient truth to the faux reality used to justify abortions, sodomy, and over 100 million murders of those deemed evolutionarily unfit.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

these debates cannot be won simply through a presentation of facts and evidence

I don't know how to participate in a scientific debate that can't be won through a presentation of facts and evidence. It's good to know that there's no point in presenting you with facts that you think somehow support God's enemies.

Evidence to the contrary (Noah’s Ark, living pterosaurs) is and will continue to be ignored

We just got finished discussing the coelacanth, whose find as a "living fossil" got tons of publicity. Do you really think anyone would ignore evidence of living pterosaurs? Quite the contrary.

[DoughtyOne]

No, neither side can win this debate.

Faith is a vital component of both belief systems. You and I admit this, but they cannot. Evolution is an interesting study. It is not the compelling “truth” that it’s proponents claim it to be.

So you and I wind up being able to be truthful to ourselves, and they wind up not being able to be truthful with themselves. It’s kind of sad really, but hey, this is how they choose to live.

The religion of science prevents them from admitting anything other than the compelling truth of their belief system, which truly doesn’t exist.

One religious belief system can be taught in our schools. Another cannot be.

At the end of the days, that’s reality. IMO

[Lexinom]

Yes I do. I am certain of it. It doesnt support The Theory...

If man is not an ape, man is accountable. That, to the core thought drivers, is completely unnacceptable.

That is why all evidence is twisted to support The Theory.

[BroJoeK]

DoughtyOne: "The sad part is, you can't grasp that I did tell the truth about evolution and science."

Sorry, but you haven't yet told a truth about science.
Instead, you only distort & mock what you clearly don't understand.

DoughtyOne: "I needn't address every aspect of science or evolution to prove I understand it, but look at you here.
It's as if you're care calling me a blasphemer."

"Blasphemer" is your word, often used in religious contexts, never appropriate in science.
So you can't "blaspheme" science, but you certainly can and do distort & mock.

DoughtyOne: "I merely reject the part about evolution being the origin of the human species."

You not only reject, you distort and mock the science which includes evolution.

DoughtyOne: "What if I understand exactly what your pushing, and reject it forthright."

But you obviously don't understand.
Despite my repeated explanations of basic matters, you've shown no reading comprehension, or serious understanding of what evolution is all about.
Your only consistent responses have been distortions and mockery.

DoughtyOne referring to government schools' science classes: "Evolution is taught in all of them."

Evolution is taught in science classes.
Religion is taught in religion classes, and in every place of worship.
So what, exactly is your problem with that?

DoughtyOne: "No it is not scientific to explain that man is the product of eveolution, when you can't prove it.
You're not even close to doing so. THEORY!"

And here, yet again, you put on display for all the world to see: your total incomprehension and utter ignorance of what science actually is, how it works and what it can do.
And I have explained all this already, but will do so again, so please pay attention:

First of all, our word "science" in the western tradition is short for our Founding Fathers' term "natural-science", meaning the study of nature, but from a very limited-restricted point of view: the search for natural explanations for natural processes.

In other words, by definition of the word "science", it is only the search for natural explanations, so any explanation which starts off with, "God did this, and God does that", is not by definition scientific, they are religious.
So they are not, by US law taught in government-school science classes, but they can be, and are, taught in religion classes.

Second of all, in scientific language, no theory is ever "proved", only "confirmed".
To pick out just one other example: Einstein's theory of relativity is not "proved", only "confirmed" by many observations and experiments.
Same with evolution theory.
Of course, whether you personally chose to accept either theory is strictly up to you, but your personal acceptance or rejection is irrelevant to science -- both relativity and evolution are confirmed scientific theories, regardless of your opinions.

DoughtyOne: "...scientists have not proven that man is the product of evolution.
So once again we have the religion of science vs the Christian religion."

Your efforts to declare science a "religion" are noted and rejected, because of the several and serious differences between scientific enterprise and religious beliefs.
Those differences begin with the basic fact that science begins with the facts, while major religions begin with their holy texts.
They include the fact that science asks nobody to believe anything spiritual, just the opposite, science by definition excludes the spiritual from its explanations.
Further, in the sense that you use the word "proved", science has never "proved" any of its theories, and so if you wish to reject any scientific theory which is not "proved", then you can reject them all, since none are "proved".
Of course, then anyone might ask: if all these theories are not "proved", why do they all work so well?
The answer is: to be considered a "theory" a hypothesis must be confirmed, and to be considered "settled science", it must be confirmed many times in many different ways, which evolution theory has been.

DoughtyOne: "Once agin for those who are unable to grasp it the first time, at least Christians admit to needing faith to belive what they do.
Those in the religion of science can't admit to themselves that they have to have faith also, to believe what they do."

Your word "faith" is a religious term, which science doesn't use.
Instead, science uses terms from the study of logic, terms like "assumptions", "presuppositions", "posit", "postulate", etc.
For example: a key, key first assumption of science goes by the name of "methodological naturalism" which is defined as follows:

"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method.
Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses.
To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically."

In short, by definition, natural-science looks for natural explanations of natural processes, period.

DoughtyOne: "So keep telling me what Christians believe can't be considered science, when your belief system itself can't be proven by science.
It is okay to preach man was the product of evolution even though that can't be proven, but it's not okay to preach that man was the product of Creation, something else that cannot be proven."

I'll say again: you can teach your creationism all day long, every day, in your religion classes and places of worship.
But in government school science classes, by law you can only teach science, which evolution theory certainly is, regardless of whether you personally consider it "proved" or not.

Teach religion in religion classes, science in science classes -- why is that simple concept so difficult for you to grasp?

DoughtyOne: "Science as it relates to evolution, is a fraud.
Evolutionists point to science to make their claims.
The facts simply don't back up their claims."

Regardless of your pathetic opinions, distortions and mocking, evolution is still a scientific theory, and your religious beliefs are not, period.

DoughtyOne: "Sure I'm mocking you."

Because distortions and mockery is all you have, pal, you have no serious arguments, not one.
But I am patient, and we'll work through all this...

DoughtyOne: "You tell me what can and can't be proven."

No again, I've told you now several times that in scientific terminology nothing is ever "proved", only "confirmed", and regardless of your opinions, distortions and mocking, evolution theory is many-times confirmed.

DoughtyOne: "None the less you allow evolutionists to teach that evolution was the origin of the human species.
Then you go so far as to defend them doing so, because it's based on science."

No, evolution theory is not just "based on science", it's an integral part of science, just like atomic theory, relativity theory, quantum theory, theory of gravity, etc., etc.
So I'll repeat: whether you personally agree with any of these theories, they are still theories and still part of science, to be taught in appropriate science classes.

DoughtyOne: "...scientific evidence does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution was the origin of the human species.
Yet this is exactly what is taught and we both know it."

I'll repeat: in scientific terms no theory is ever "proved beyond a shadow of a doubt", all theories are subject to falsification if and when new evidence is discovered to throw previous conclusions in doubt.
And for minor items, such things happen in science every day.
Even major theories are occasionally challenged in the media, while behind the scenes technical experts work quietly to address and modify detailed elements of theories which are well beyond the comprehension (or caring) of average citizens.

DoughtyOne: "So lets face it, what is taught under the label evvolution in our schools is not based on hard science.
It is based on faith in an unproven theory."

Those are ludicrous assertions based on no known facts or rational arguments.
Of course evolution theory is based on "hard science" -- it also draws from and supports ideas in every other "hard science", from geology and astronomy to biology, chemistry and nuclear physics.
So your claims to the contrary are noted and rejected.

DoughtyOne: "I'm now a disciple of Saul Alinsky because I call you on your unGodly premise that evolution was the origin of the human species."

The fact is that you've made no serious, fact-based argument for any of your claims and opinions, but instead have followed entirely Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: personalize, distort and mock.

DoughtyOne: "You try to impress with a known transition within a species, and hope this will convince folks that man came from a single celled organisim billions of years in the process."

First, consider the vast diversity of different dog sizes & features generated by selective breeding in just a few thousand years.
Now extend the same rate of change out millions & hundreds of millions of years, and what do you get?
That is a basic argument for the plausibility of evolution.
Evidence of evolution is confirmed in fossils and DNA.

But if you wish to see "proof" of a theory, you won't find that anywhere in science.
Science does not claim "proof", only confirmation.

DoughtyOne: "And you wonder why I mock you."

No, I don't wonder, I know exactly why.
It's because you have no serious arguments to present, and somehow fantasize that distortions and mockery are an acceptable substitute for actual thinking.
In reality, you only mock yourself.

DoughtyOne: "And yet, what is taught in every science class in the nation?
And further, what happens to a child who outright rejects this pipe dream?
Do they get an "A" in the class?"

Of course, you would fail miserably, and rightly so, because you have nothing to offer but distortions and mockery of science.

But a bright child, who makes the effort to learn facts and theory, and not only answer test questions, but also ask intelligent researchable questions, such hard-working students nearly always do well.

DoughtyOne: "Okay, then we agree.
It cannot prove man was a product of evolution.
When did it confirm it?"

Evolution theory has been confirmed repeatedly by literal mountains of geological evidence, fossils, minerals and stratigraphic analyses, as well as analyses of microscopic DNA.
Evolution theory is also confirmed by predictions later found to be accurate, for examples this listing.

Evolution theory is also confirmed by evidence of common descent, for example, this listing of many categories of such evidence.

On the question of whether evolution is a fact or "just theory", here is a lengthy but interesting discussion on definitions of such words.

Finally, on the question of "transitional forms" I'll post yet again a photo which defies scientific explanation, if not "evolution":

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.)
•(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
•(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
•(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
•(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
•(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
•(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
•(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
•(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
•(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
•(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
•(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
•(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
•(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
•(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

DoughtyOne: "We see mutation within species.
We do not see new species formed.
That has not been confirmed."

Through DNA analyses of closely related breeds, sub-species, species, genera, etc., we can see much more than you realize.
Indeed, in the past 20-some years the entire biological classification system has undergone significant changes as a result of DNA results showing some creatures more closely related than we had supposed, and others less closely related.
I mentioned before the example of zebras -- perhaps one "kind", but over a dozen breeds and sub-species which readily interbreed, in three species which can but don't interbreed, and two genera which can no longer interbreed.
The fossil record shows and DNA analysis supports, that all this species diversification happened within the past few million years.
By comparing & contrasting different species' DNA, we can "see" where & when speciation took place.

DoughtyOne: "It is one theory.
A theory it remains.."

No, it remains the only scientific theory on this subject ever strongly and repeatedly confirmed.
That is a fact, pal.

DoughtyOne: "Do you realize how absurd that is?"

"Absurd" or not, it is the truth and you must chose to face it or ignore it.

DoughtyOne: "I generally don't get into religious debates, but this absurdity cannot be addressed without it."

False. You have only ever discussed your religious beliefs here, and you use those beliefs to justify mocking and distorting science.
Indeed, here is a good place to pause & remember that this is a News-Activism Forum, not Religion, and the rules here are a bit more rough & tumble than they allow in religion.
However, let me caution you right away not to let those relaxed rules incite you to uncontrolled verbal assaults on someone you disagree with.

DoughtyOne: "If God did not create man outright, the Bible is a complete sham.
Man living in the garden, sinning, choosing Satan over God to be the ruler of this earth, that's what is on the line here."

That is your religious opinion, and like everything else you've posted, it's false.
But it certainly does fully explain why you attack science with such intense mocking & distortions.

DoughtyOne: "So if evolution was the origin of Man, then Christianity breaks down at every single point."

That is your religious opinion, and like everything else you've posted, it's false.
But it certainly does fully explain why you attack science with such intense mocking & distortions.

DoughtyOne: "If God put building blocks out there that in billions of years became man, then he was not created in God's image.
He was not created by God.
The amoeba was."

That is your religious opinion, and like everything else you've posted, it's false.
But it certainly does fully explain why you attack science with such intense mocking & distortions.

In fact, it takes virtually no imagination to see that God intended mankind to be the end result of His creative act from before Day One.
Therefore, what exact process God used in creating the Universe and us is utterly irrelevant.
What matters is: God intended it, and He did it, period!

DoughtyOne: "You can't stradle the fence on this one.
You either believe in God, Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, or you believe in the Amoeba, evolution, and man all on his own."

Nonsense, an utterly false choice which should be obvious to even the dimmest of dim wits.
In fact, God's infinite majesty in creating the Universe and us should be more than adequate to confirm the Bible's entire message, regardless of which scientific theories may or may not describe His processes.

DoughtyOne: "God has told us through His word what his version of religion is.
Evolution is Satan's version.
Satan always presents us with an alternative to the truth.
The break-down is in discerning which version is the truth."

And so yet again you confirm, indeed you "prove beyond all reasonable doubt" that this whole debate has nothing to do with science or evolution -- zero, zip, nada -- and everything to do with your religious doctrines.

So, you wish to teach your religion in science classes, and the law says you can't do it.
So teach it in church -- what's wrong with that?

DoughtyOne: "Bud, you are so far off the beaten path, you don't know which way is up.
You're off in the primordial muck."

Not me, pal, it's 100% you who have now lost all credibility and standing regarding the teaching of your religious doctrines in government-school science classes.
I can guarantee you it will never happen, for precisely the reasons that you have here put on full display.

DoughtyOne: "...you're so confused you now claim I admitted to having no real concept of science.
You charged me with that.
I never stated I didn't understand the tenets of science."

In fact, you've demonstrated with every post that you have no real clue what science is all about, how it works or what it can & cannot do.
Your only real concern is to distort & mock science in obvious defense of your unusual religious doctrines.

DoughtyOne: "You know what, one point that you could make is that I do not have the scientific vernacular down as good as you do.
In layman's terms, those are theories."

But you are arguing against science, and science is all about careful precision in measurements and definitions of terms.
Words have meanings, especially scientific words, and if you misuse those words you distort and mock science, while at the same time demonstrating your own abysmal ignorance.

The difference between hypothesis and theory is huge.
A hypothesis is mere formal speculation, such as, how life might have first risen on earth.
On that, there are many hypotheses, none confirmed.

The word "theory" tells us it's been confirmed, has some substance and reality, and can be used in future analyses, for example: evolution theory, gravity theory, etc.
The fact that you don't like, or don't agree with certain theories doesn't effect their status as "confirmed" or "settled science".

The word "fact" tells us it's been observed and confirmed.
So the debate over evolution -- fact or theory? -- involves distinguishing between what has been actually seen (fact) versus what is implied (theory).

DoughtyOne: "If evolution is the answer, then either lightening, a meteor, or volcanic activity had to have caused the spark of life.
There's only one other idea out there, and God is the answer."

A quick google search will produce several lists of hypotheses on "origin of life".
This particular list includes ten hypotheses (which like you it also mislabels as "theories"), leaves out space aliens planting earth with seeds, but does include your favorite as Number One.

Again, my opinion is that regardless of how, precisely, it all happened, God is still due all credit & praise as the Designer, Creator & let's say manager of everything.

DoughtyOne speaking of origin of life hypotheses: "NONE OF THEM YET CONFIRMED
And yet, taught in every science class today, as if proven and without dispute."

No, not in real science classes.
Origin of life on Earth is always said to be unknown, with several unconfirmed hypotheses.
Personally, I remember learning at a quite young age the difference between scientific fact, hypothesis and theory.
I remember questioning just where facts end and theory begins on the subject of evolution, and receiving a very clear answer.
I've seen no evidence to support your claim that science classes today have been corrupted beyond all recognition.

DoughtyOne: "Don't lecture me about the proper use of terms, when you're using them to advance a theory that can't be proven, and I address that on point.
You may not like how I address it, but tough."

Rubbish, my words which you took the effort to quote in full were 100% factual.
Your hand-waving here cannot change that and only demonstrates again what we already know: you'll say pretty much anything to avoid making a serious scientific argument.

DoughtyOne: "Yes, and what else could account for that?
Well, the fact is that these may or may not be links in an evolutionary chain at all.
They may have similar characteristics, but does not prove a certainty."

Well, what do you know? An actual scientific observation, which amounts to this: what scientific explanation besides evolution might account for the progression in fossil types found in the geological column?
OK, fine, it's a good question, one suitable for "brainstorming" amongst scientific colleagues, maybe after work on a Friday?

The answer, so far as I've ever seen is: none, zero, zip, nada -- no other legitimate scientific hypothesis.
So what about non-scientific possibilities?
Well, then the sky's the limit, let your imaginations rip!
Wandering space aliens, multidimensional beings from "the beyond", debris from the exploding planet Krypton, and of course, every creation story found in every ancient culture on earth -- so how many different "hypotheses" is that?
Question: Is there any way to test these hypotheses scientifically?
Answer: No.
So should any be given special credence?
Answer: sure, from their followers and believers, but science itself cannot say anything about non-scientific ideas.

And here I have to stop for now.
My monthly contributions to Free Republic may not be enough to cover the costs of such lengthy posts! ;-)

[BroJoeK]

DoughtyOne speaking of ancient Neanderthal & Denisovan remains: "What you have found are similarities [to humans].
Whether these entities were related by procreation is purely speculative.
Creation could account for what you are grasping at straws to prove."

First -- of course Creation can account for anything & everything, but by definition, Creation is not science.
Creation should be taught appropriately in houses of worship, or dedicated religious study classes, not science.

Second, you obviously know nothing about DNA analysis.
Do you comprehend that DNA is used to "prove" paternity in courts of law?
That is not, in your words, "grasping at straws", rather it's as close to certainty as science can get.

By those same process types, analysis can establish how much "Neanderthal DNA" some humans may carry.
The answer turns out to be: none for Africans, but non-Africans carry from 2% to 4% Neanderthal DNA (roughly equivalent to one great-great-great grandparent), clearly suggesting a small amount of ancient interbreeding.
Similar amounts of Denisovan DNA are found among Melanesians and Australian Aborigines.
These are observed & confirmed facts, not "grasping at straws", pal.

DoughtyOne: "Let me guess.
This is not an example of mocking.
And since God's word does provide the account of creaton of manin His image by the hand of God, who is it that you would be mocking?
Oh that's right."

No, seriously, you are totally 100% entitled to believe whatever you wish, provided you don't call such beliefs "science", because by definition of the word "science" your religious beliefs cannot be science.
So I am mocking neither you nor God, simply stating the facts.

My religious belief is that God used evolution as one of His tools to create mankind in his image.

DoughtyOne: "Because science is your only one true God.
Yes, I know.
So anything that buttresses the concept of creation, is now hereby declared to be unscientific by none other than you."

Now look who is ridiculously "grasping at straws".
By definition of the word, "science" cannot be God because science is only concerned with the natural, material realm, while God is First and Foremost, Ruler of the spiritual realm.
Before there even was a natural realm (a Universe), God was Ruler of Heaven.
By stark contrast, science rules nothing, it merely explains, as best it can given it's basic assumptions, the natural realm of God's creation.

FRiend, the theological reason why God is not science is that God is spiritual, not material, while science is material, not spiritual -- the two don't mix.
God created and rules the material realm, but He is not it, and it is not Him.
So it's really not that difficult, if you try, you can grasp it.

DoughtyOne speaking of "settled science": "Well that's certainly not irrelevent to you, when it comes to creation science.
You dismiss it out of hand.
And this provides no small amount of pride to you."

Creation "science" cannot, by definition be real science, since it introduces a supernatural explanation for the natural realm.
Natural-sciences, as a matter of working assumptions, exclude such possibilities.
Of course, those are not my definitions, though I certainly agree with them.

As for your accusation of "pride", there's no "pride" here, just the facts, sir.

DoughtyOne still speaking of "settled science": "Oh yes, the high priests of Science have spoken.
All bow on bended knee.
Nevermind what they can't prove, just keep those science classes with evolution going strong."

Spoken like a true Alinskyite -- personalized, distorted, mocking & derisive.
I'll repeat, natural-science is what it is, it does not "prove", it confirms, and is always subject to falsifying data or experiments.
The bottom-line larger value of science is not that it provides some spiritual certainty or comfort, but rather that science works -- it keeps our machines & factories running, creating "smart" gadgets and ideas which make sense.

DoughtyOne: "Since there is no settled science on the subject of Evolution as the origion of the human species, it stands right there with creation as one explanation for life as we know it."

In actual fact, the science on evolution is largely "settled", since your personal opinions and religious beliefs on the subject are irrelevant to science.
Of course, your notions of "creation" are "one explanation for life as we know it," but they are in no way a scientific explanation, and they cannot possibly be, as I've explained above.

DoughtyOne: "Science does not prove what you are peddling."

I'll repeat: science does not "prove" anything, it only confirms hypotheses, making them theories pending some future falsification by new data or experiments.
That's not just evolution science, that's all of science.
Of course, you have every right to reject scientific findings, but not to claim that your own religious opinions are somehow "scientific".

DoughtyOne: "You have no proof how life spontaneously came forth. Strike one."

There are many questions which science cannot answer, indeed doubtless more questions than it can answer, so the origin of life question is just one of many.
But that does not make all other scientific theories invalid!

DoughtyOne: "You have no continual examples of man along the supposed evolutionary trail... Strike two."

But the word "mankind" is defined by scientists as meaning: biologically indistinguishable from today's humans in physical form and DNA.
The first remains said to be fully biologically modern appeared in Africa around 200,000 years ago.
At the time there were several other species and sub-species of pre-human creatures on earth.
Some of those pre-human populations could have been human ancestors, others doubtless were not.
Regardless, DNA analysis tells us that some of those early humans did interbreed with other populations, and some of us carry their DNA today.
Here again is that photo of pre-human to human skulls:

DoughtyOne: "And a leap of faith has to take place, for you to buy in. Strike three.
And then you announce that it's settled science."

Science requires no "leap of faith", because science does not deal in "faith", but rather in informed hypotheses, confirmed facts and theories.
There's no "belief" in it, rather it's a matter of accepting or rejecting the latest findings, pending some future improvements.
A particular theory can become "settled" (or "unsettled") based on the continuing efforts of other scientists to falsify it.
Your personal opinions and religious beliefs are irrelevant to science.

DoughtyOne: "As I do this, I don't do it without noticing what you are doing.
You try to dismiss the other person's point, by calling them distortions and mockery, when your theories are repleat with real distortions and mockery."

But your posts here are, almost without exception, distortions, mockery and derision of science, as well as my efforts to explain it.
That you can't even see the difference between such polemics and actual science tells us all how far away from reality you are.

By contrast, I've "mocked" nothing, only reported factually on your own misunderstandings.

DoughtyOne: "Science has not proven evolution to be the origion of the human species.
It's a theory.
Evolutionists try to sell their beliefs based on science, but at the end of the day, they are theories and that's all they are."

Do you not see how close you are to the truth here, and yet you refuse, completely, to say it: evolution is a scientific theory, period.
That's all it's ever been and all it will ever be, the same as many other scientific theories.
But that's enough -- they are science and should be taught in appropriate science classes.

By stark contrast, your Creation ideas are not science, never were and never will be -- until the spiritual realm is made manifest in the natural world, for all to see, record and study, as if it were Itself natural.
So, your Creation ideas are 100% appropriate in classes on religion and places of worship.

DoughtyOne: "So you come here and demand that science be the only true gage of what is true or not."

I said nothing of the sort.
I merely distinguished between the natural and super-natural realms, calling science the appropriate tool to understand the natural, and your religion an appropriate response to God's Creative actions.
I'm merely saying: don't teach religion in science classes and don't teach natural-science in your worship services.

DoughtyOne: " Then you support the teaching of evolution as the origin of the species, which is not scientifically provable at all.
Not without a shadow of a doubt you can't.
And if there is one, you've got a massive problem on your hands.
And so, you do."

I'll say it again: science is not about metaphysical certitude.
There are doubts, unknowns and probabilities in every aspect of science, not just evolution.
But science does claim one thing: it works.
No theory is ever "proved", but every theory can be, and has been, confirmed to work.
That, and that alone, is the great claim of science to validity -- not "proof".

So doubt is not, in your words, "a massive problem", but rather doubt is at the heart of, indeed is a chief driver of the scientific enterprise.
Scientists love doubt, because that is what peeks their curiousity, and drives their efforts.
Do you not "get" that?

DoughtyOne: "And yet evolution takes Divinity and Humanity out of it.
We are not the sons of God, created in His immage."

I don't see why you can't grasp such a simple concept.
Just consider any human manufacturing process -- it first begins with marketing and engineering concepts/drawings of the finished product, but production itself starts with the simplest, most basic raw materials, often forms of dirt, "dust of the ground" which is filtered, sifted, sorted, melted, poured into molds of a rough image.
Next it is machined, polished, dipped, painted and assembled with many other parts... Don't you "get" it?
That "dust of the ground" which ends up as a shiny new automobile, is valued based on it's end state (automobile), not it's beginning condition (dirt).

And so with God's creation of human beings: if we started out billions of years ago as amoebas, it's only because that's the way God intended it.
So how can that conceivably be a problem for you?

DoughtyOne: "We are the sons of an amoeba all the way up to ape-like creatures and beyond, because God couldn't possibly have created us as Genesis states."

Ludicrous! Genesis 2:7 specifically says: "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground..."
Evolution tells us precisely that, and my analogy with a human automobile is precisely accurate -- so what is your problem?

DoughtyOne: "There goes God the Father, Jesus His Son, the Holy Spirit, Satan and his angels, the Test of Man in the Garden, the reason for Jesus to die for us, all right out of the process in every meaningful way connected to Christianity."

Rubbish. All of those can be deeply understood in their biblically-literal, literary, historical, metaphorical and even scientific senses.
It diminishes none of those, indeed it highly enriches them, to comprehend the other understandings.

Regardless of which lens you look through, Genesis accurately describes our human condition in relation to the Creator and sustainer of the Universe, of us, and of our infinitesimally small place in it.

DoughtyOne: "I understand a lot more here than you think I do.
It's just that you are dismissive of anyone who isn't bowing at the alter of the religion of science."

The real truth of this matter is that you have no interest -- zero, zip, nada -- in actual understanding.
Your only real interest is in enough understanding to make your distortions, mocking and derisions sound half-way plausible.

DoughtyOne speaking of Origin of Life hypotheses: "Speculation?
So speculation is now the scientific hurdle to be taught exclusively in our nation's schools."

If Origin of Life ideas are to be taught in government-schools at all (and I'm not certain if they ever are), they can only taught as unconfirmed hypotheses, mere scientific speculations.
Non-scientific speculations should not be taught in science classes, but should be taught appropriately in places of worship.

DoughtyOne: "And to me, there is no other truth than God's word.
I am a Christian.
I am not a member of the religion of science."

Science is not a religion, among other reasons because it make no claims on "the truth".
The Truth is vastly bigger than science.
Instead, science is first and foremost concerned with the facts about nature, and with confirmed explanations (theories) of how the natural world works.

Yes, science is, in a sense, a brotherhood, but there are many brotherhoods which have nothing to do with religions, and science is one such.

DoughtyOne: "So the schools are your temples, and Christian's temples are exactly what they claim to be."

More distortion, mocking and derision, not serious.
The truth is: government-schools are kept more-or-less free of official religions for the same reasons the rest of government is: the US Constitution forbids government established religion.

DoughtyOne: "Is this your way of claiming abstention due to you're refusal to acknowledge your membership in the religion of science."

Again: distortion, mocking and derision.
No serious discussion to be found.

DoughtyOne: "None the less, he assures me it is reasoned to preach his ideology in our schools, but can't see any reason to preach mine there."

You can teach your religion in religion classes and places of worship, but not in government-school science classes.
It's that simple.

DoughtyOne: "And sence what is being taught in our schools today can't be proven without a shadow of a doubt, then you have no right to be presenting what you are there to the exclusion of anything else.
And claiming science has anything to do with it, sans proof, you have a massive double-standard on your hands.."

First, no "double standard" at all, either "massive" or minute.
Rather, just one standard: does it qualify as natural-science or not?
Your religion is not, and therefore cannot be taught in science classes, but can be taught in religion classes and places of worship.

Second, I'll repeat: all science, without exception comes with some level of doubt, uncertainties, probabilities and unanswered questions -- so teaching science is not all about teaching certainties, it's about what we do know as well as what we don't.

But science is 100% consistent in insisting on its methodological naturalism: only natural explanations for natural processes can qualify as legitimate science.

DoughtyOne: "And your theory is not scientific either.
It's a belief derived from faith in the religion of science.
You cannot prove what they are teaching."

But those are lies or nonsense, about which you've now been instructed repeatedly, indeed ad nauseum.
So you have no excuse for telling them, none.
But knowing the truth, you continue to lie about it, and I don't think that's good for your soul, FRiend.

DoughtyOne: " If creation did take place, your science goes right out the window.
So far, you are only able to grasp the Christian religion's theory going out the window, you are so blinded to reality."

I'll repeat: Creation certainly did take place, and science merely describes some of the tools God used to make it happen.
Genesis 1 clearly says that Creation did not happen all at once, magically, but rather that God worked hard, for "days" to create, make and place various objects in the Universe.
At the end of each day He reviewed his hard work, found it good and blessed it.
So God was not only the "imaginer", but also the chief construction engineer, and quality control engineer.
Theologically speaking, as the Spiritual Power of Good, God controls the material realm, but He is not of it and He is not it.
Do you grasp all that?

DoughtyOne: "You call others dishonest. You call other liars."

Only because you have been dishonest and lied in several respects, FRiend. You need to stop that.

DoughtyOne: "You claim science is the true measuring stick.
It never dawns on your it has become your god.
You measure beliefs by scientific methods only."

No, you still misunderstand.
Of course science is the "measuring stick" -- but only of science.
Your religion is the measuring stick -- of your religion.
But science does not measure your religion, and your religion should not waste its time trying to measure science -- nothing good comes of that.
It should be fully adequate to respond that whatever science discovers (confirms, not "proves") is the way God created it, and intends the natural world to be.
Why is that so hard?

DoughtyOne: "God's word means nothing. You believe in science over God's word.
You have no faith in God, but a rock solid faith in science."

First of all, science is all about varying degrees of doubt, not faith.
Second, your accusations regarding my alleged lack of faith in God are utterly false, like most everything else you post.
Obviously, I understand God's Word somewhat differently than you do (though not so different as you suppose), and I think my views more carefully thought out and accurate than yours.

DoughtyOne: "You do not want other poeple's regligious dogma taught in our schools.
If it's the religion of scientific's dogma which ultimately can only be deemed right if you have massive faith in it, you think that's reasoned."

Lies and more lies!
First, I do want religious doctrines taught in places of worship and even government-schools, in religion classes.
But science classes should be, and so far have been, reserved for those subjects which qualify as genuine natural-science.
That certainly does not include anybody's religions beliefs.

DoughtyOne: "Yes, and of course leave the Evolution-centric temples alone, to conform to Satan's plan."

If you fantasize the study of science is "Satan's plan", then you are part of a very small minority of Christians who hold such views.
They are mistaken, imho.

[DoughtyOne]

First -- of course Creation can account for anything & everything, but by definition, Creation is not science.

That was actually pretty close.

First --- of course Creation can account for anything and everything, but by definition, only the interpretation and dogma of the religion of science can be allowed.

Any time that science can be used to prove building blocks of creation, it ceases to be science.

You folks are scared to death to allow evolution to withstand the same scrutiny you expect creation to stand up to.

You're basically frauds, and haven't the slightest clue that you are.

[BroJoeK]

DoughtyOne: "First --- of course Creation can account for anything and everything, but by definition, only the interpretation and dogma of the religion of science can be allowed."

First, you seem doggedly determined not to grasp the simplest of ideas, so let me try analogies: we don't teach English in Math classes, we don't teach Shop in History classes, we don't teach Chemistry in Phys Ed, we don't teach Spanish in German classes, and we don't teach Religion in Science classes. Comprende?

Second, it's a lie to claim that science is a "religion", for at least the following reasons:

1. Science deals only in facts and theories, not "faith".
   
2. Science begins with confirmed observations, not with "revealed Truth".
   
3. Science explicitly excludes a Spiritual component, while all religions are explicitly devoted to the Spiritual realm.
   
4. Science is all about inquiry, investigation and debates over scientific ideas, while religions are all about, as the old song says, "trust and obey".
   
5. Because it is strictly devoted to the natural-material realm, science makes no claims regarding "Higher Truth", none.
   
6. There is no scientific remotely-equivalent of a religious worship service.

Third, I firmly believe that religion classes should be allowed in government-schools, certainly as voluntary electives, even after normal school hours, taught by their own ministers, priests & rabbis, subject only to limited & reasonable restrictions -- i.e., no Satanists, no suicide bombers, etc.
In such classes, taught by a minister, children can be introduced to the idea that science is just one aspect of life, not the Be-All and End-All of life, that there is something out there, a spiritual realm, which goes far beyond science and is ultimately in charge of science, and here is the Book where you can learn about that, let's start with Genesis...

Pal, do you not "get" that?
You don't want atheist government teachers teaching that stuff, you want the proper people in the proper conditions telling your children about the Majesty of Almighty God!

DoughtyOne: "Any time that science can be used to prove building blocks of creation, it ceases to be science."

Rubbish. By definition, it ceases to be science when you introduce a non-natural, spiritual element.
That is the point where it leaves science class, and goes into a properly taught religion class.

DoughtyOne: "You folks are scared to death to allow evolution to withstand the same scrutiny you expect creation to stand up to."

Rubbish. We want creation taught by ministers, priests or rabbis, not by officially atheistic government employee teachers.

DoughtyOne: "You're basically frauds, and haven't the slightest clue that you are."

Sorry pal, but it's you who are the liar and fraud, and now you know it, so you need to stop with the nonsense.
Constant, knowing lying is very bad for your soul.

[Lexinom]

I would say it’s the religion of naturalism, not science, since the Judeo-Christian worldview provides us with a solid foundation for the axioms necessary for science in the first place. For them, they need to borrow from that worldview in order to formulate polemics to attack it...

[DoughtyOne]

Lexinom, I think that’s a rational comment. I agree with your logic. The problem is, they claim that science proves their theory. If you only believe their interpretation, perhaps it comes close. The reality is, there other interpretations.

They use “science” as a club to beat non-believers over the head with. That’s why I reference their belief system as the religion of science. It requires faith to buy in. Therefore, it’s not confined to science.

If I don’t address this as the religion of science, they can simply continue to use the word science as if they own it. They don’t.

Both sides own it.

Is it the religion of naturalism? Do they claim naturalism provides the proof and hit everyone over the head with it? Not really.

I try to place the focus on the problem.

And you know what, that might not be right.

I don’t accuse every scientist of being a member of the religion of science, but when it comes to the origin of the human species and their belief system, I think it is the religion of science.

Not trying to be argumentative. Once again, I think your comments made sense too.

[Lexinom]

Their theory is not falsifiable, which disqualifies it as science altogether.

Every new fact that comes to light - even something as fundamental as the discovery of Noah's Ark - will be interpreted in such a way that it reinforces their theory.

It is, properly speaking, a pseudo-science with heavy bleed over into philosophy, bearing many of the the marks of a religion as you astutely observe. Its perceived veracity rests heavily on the logical fallacy of the argumentum ad populum: "No true scientist rejects evolution", the smug implication being that one must accept (on faith) the circular arguments and twisted interpretation of fact that enforces the historical science (i.e. not measurable, observable, or repeatable in controlled conditions) in order to perform regular observational science. That distinction between historical science (origins) and observational science is critical - and apparently not widely understood.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for your additional comments. I like the way you addressed the issue with them.

This, “No true scientist rejects... (evolution)” matra, is an interesting parallel with theories Stephen Hawking and other Theoretical Physicists differ on.

For decades a certain theory will hold sway. Those who are not quite comfortable, but can’t prove their point may spend decades being known as heretics, as “no Theoretical Physicist worth their salt agrees with them.” And then it happens.

One Theoretical Physicist will come up with a method to prove what they thought was more correct during that period, and a certain aspect of Theoretical Physics will be turned on it’s head. Then the people on the outs are in, and the others have pie on their face.

Science is often times not as settled as people think it is.

I have a suspicion that carbon dating at some point in time may be found to not be quite the be all end all of measuring elapsed time, that some folks today are convinced it is.

There are things about evolution, massive periods of time, even the age of the universe, that I read with some interest, but only consider them today’s accepted truth, and not anywhere near the rock solid science some folks think they are.

We make jokes about the flat earth, but the age of the universe is revised from time to time. Who knows what portions of today’s rock solid science will be overturned by new discoveries in coming years.

When it comes to the issues we’re discussing here, it’s silly to act as if you have all the answers. God is the only being that has them all.

He must get a real chuckle watching humans.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

The scientific question was settled more than a century ago

The science is settled, it's a scientific consensus dammit.

[Lexinom]

Here is a true feast for the mind:

Black Holes and White Holes

Dr. Humphreys reconciles the huge cosmic timeframes with the biblical creation account simply by using a different set of starting assumptions from the Big Bang theory but using the same Einsteinian general relativity equations and "turning the mathematical crank."

Because of time dilation effects at the event horizon and outside the Euclidean zone, billions of years can indeed pass at the outer edges of the universe in the space of but a few hours in the solar system. That allows the light to travel the distance while, at the same time as God stretches the heavens, the wavelengths enlongate explaining the redshift seen in more distant objects. It's absolutely beautiful how it all fits together, like a Bach concerto.

I think you might enjoy watching this.

[HiTech RedNeck]

There is a determined group known as old earth creationists. Hugh Ross of www.reasons.org is among the best presenters of this philosophy that I have seen.

We might never be able to figure this one out in this mortal coil. There are too many variables out of our sight.

[Lexinom]

I think Humphreys' theory, which parallels Hawkings' co-author Ellis' (who disagrees with Hawkings about black holes) jives beautifully with Scripture without the need to capitulate to the need for long ages on earth. The universe is 6,000 years old as is the earth, yet billions of years passed outside the Euclidean zone in the space of 24 hours on the earth, which is very near the center of the universe and had the longest time in the Euclidean zone.

With this view, there's no need to compromise on the length of days in Genesis (they were 24 hours), no need to insist that the light was created in-transit (which is repulsive to reason), no need for a faster speed of light at an earlier point in the universe's history (although that is, in fact, a reasonable possibility).

[DoughtyOne]

BTW: From your description, you may have linked me to a difference video than you had first intended. I will check out the others at the site, and look for the one you described.

Take care.

[Lexinom]

No, as contrary to intuition as it seems, that actually is it: Black holes relate closely to timeframes and is one very rational way to reconcile the age of the earth with that of the universe. It’s quite mind-blowing, but the math works out.