Australopithecines aren't "just" apes

[lucaspa]

All that boils down to is you're saying "Goddidit"

"Goddidit" is used when God is supposed to have directly manufactured something. For instance, creationists say "goddidit" when they talk about the DNA code. What that means is God is supposed to have manufactured DNA and the code. There was no DNA and no code and then, poof, there was.

What is happening here is a detailed set of chemical reactions that link a solution of amino acids (non-living) to living cells. God did not do it by directly manufacturing life.

 

[brinny]

"inference" is very definitive in this context: "a : the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former"

For instance, the mosaic features of A. afarensis infer that the species is in transition from the common ancestor to H. sapiens.

the word used is appropriate, because inferences are based on finite "clues" at that particular time. Those clues could be found to be errant later in time...therefore, using the word "inference" is an "out" of sorts, in case there is that big ol' "Oops!" factor that arises later.

Makes sense.

 

[lucaspa]

God made animals according to their kind,thats why you see similarities within classes.Ive explained this.Ive explained common descent is true only to an extent.

This does not work for several reasons:
1. The nested heirarchy pattern Mallon described. Humans make cars "according to their kind" and their are similarities between cars from different manufacturers. BUT, you cannot classify cars in a nested hierarchy.

2. The "similarities within classes" breaks down when we start looking at the details. Let me provide just one example: sharks, ichthyosaurs, and dolphins. All have a very similar body plan: narrow head, sharp teeth, forefins, and a finned tail. All occupy similar ecological niches. But now we get to the details of that tail and the swimming motion. Sharks and ichthyosaurs have a vertical fin and swim by swinging the back half of their body from side to side. Dolphins have a horizontal tail fin and swim with a modified running motion. If you are postulating God directly manufacturing these species, then there is no reason why dolphins should have a swimming motion that is a modified running motion. The only explanation that makes sense is that dolphins are descended from land animals.

3. Phylogenetic analysis. We can now routinely sequence large amounts of DNA. If your idea of "separate kinds" is correct, when we compare DNA sequences from widely different species or within the separate "kinds", those DNA sequences should represent independent observations. OTOH, if common ancestry is completely true, then DNA sequences from worms, corn, humans, flies, etc. should all be related by historical connections. What's the result?
"As phylogenetic analyses became commonplace in the 1980s, several groups emphasized what should have been obvious all along: Units of study in biology (from genes through organisms to higher taxa) do not represent statistically independent observations, but rather are interrelated through their historical connections." DM Hillis, Biology recapitulates phylogeny, Science (11 April) 276: 276-277, 1997. Primary articles are JX Becerra, Insects on plants: macroevolutionary chemical trends in host use. Science 276: 253-256, 1997; VA Pierce and DL Crawford, Phylogenetic analysis of glycolitic enzyme expression, Science 276: 256-259; and JP Huelsenbeck and B Rannala, Phylogenetic methods come of age: testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context. Science 276: 227-233, 1997.

What this means is that any notion of separately created kinds is shown to be false.

You ignored again my question regarding lucys intelligence and how on earth you can tell how intelligent she was?

You look at the 1) the size and shape of the brain from the skull and 2) any artifacts you find associated with the fossils. In this case A. afarensis has the brain shape and size of a chimp. That gives them the intelligence of a chimp. Nor are there any stone tools associated with A. afarensis. Stone tools do not appear until H. habilis when the brain size is 50% larger.

You would think that almighty God would make our origins understandable to EVERYONE,

God did in His Creation! It is understandable to everyone who has done a bit of work to understand His Creation. Do not blame Mallon or God because you have not taken the effort to listen to God and study what you need to in order to understand the evidence God left us.

 

[lucaspa]

the word used is appropriate, because inferences are based on finite "clues" at that particular time. Those clues could be found to be errant later in time...therefore, using the word "inference" is an "out" of sorts, in case there is that big ol' "Oops!" factor that arises later.

If you are thinking that evolution will be overturned later and special creation shown to be valid, please remember that scientists started out inferring special creation. It was later clues that caused the "oops" that special creation was errant.

Brinny, you go with the data you have at the time. Inference means that you have valid conclusions based on the data you now have. That you think later data will most certainly overturn the inference is wishful thinking at best.

 

[brinny]

If you are thinking that evolution will be overturned later and special creation shown to be valid, please remember that scientists started out inferring special creation. It was later clues that caused the "oops" that special creation was errant.

Brinny, you go with the data you have at the time. Inference means that you have valid conclusions based on the data you now have. That you think later data will most certainly overturn the inference is wishful thinking at best.

you just took a huge step in some direction i'm nowhere near...i was speaking of science and its history. THere's historically an "Oops" factor because science is not exact. That is because man is finite and he is not perfect and cannot see all things, but only one step forward at a time. It makes putting that giant puzzle of learning (because we DON'T know) together, one piece at a time, like shining light on a small piece at a time, while the rest is shrouded in darkness. It's limited. Therefore 100% definitive words are avoided, because if they were more definitive, science would have to eat them later.

 

[lucaspa]

you just took a huge step in some direction i'm nowhere near...i was speaking of science and its history.

So am I. I am giving you some of the history of science to show where previous "oops" have happened.

THere's historically an "Oops" factor because science is not exact.

What you mean to say is science is tentative. Not that science isn't exact. Science is tentative about the positive statements for 2 reasons:
1. Because science uses deductive logic, it is impossible to "prove" with deductive logic.
2. No matter how much support we have for a theory, there may still be a better theory out there we haven't thought of. For instance, the initial theory about the shape of the earth was that it was spherical. Later data caused this to be revised to an oblate spheroid. New data may mean that the shape of the earth will be modified in the future. Mallon, myself, and others have noted that evolution has been modified since Darwin published Origin of Species. But note that the 5 core theories in evolution have not been modified.

However, please note that, because of deductive logic, we can definitively disprove. So the absolutey certain statements in science are the negative ones:
1. The earth is not flat.
2. Proteins are not the hereditary material.
3. The earth is not less than 20,000 years old.
4. Species did not arise from special creation.

That is because man is finite and he is not perfect and cannot see all things, but only one step forward at a time.

You might remember that "man is finite" when you consider scripture. Remember, it was written by humans, not God. And humans, being finite, cannot percieve the totality of God.

Man may not be perfect but you believe God is, right? Well, what science studies is evidence God directly left in creation. Thus, when we are wrong, God will eventually tell us so in His Creation. Yes, we take one step forward at a time, but we know the false steps.

Unfortunately, you are trying to put "inference" as "not definitive". Not because science is tentative, but because you don't like the inference, so you are trying to downgrade it. But you don't do that with everything in science, do you? You do not question the inference that the earth is round, or the inference that DNA is the hereditary material. You are cherry-picking which inferences you want the word "inference" to call into question.

Ask yourself: is that honest?

 

[brinny]

So am I. I am giving you some of the history of science to show where previous "oops" have happened.



What you mean to say is science is tentative. Not that science isn't exact. Science is tentative about the positive statements for 2 reasons:
1. Because science uses deductive logic, it is impossible to "prove" with deductive logic.
2. No matter how much support we have for a theory, there may still be a better theory out there we haven't thought of. For instance, the initial theory about the shape of the earth was that it was spherical. Later data caused this to be revised to an oblate spheroid. New data may mean that the shape of the earth will be modified in the future.

However, please note that, because of deductive logic, we can definitively disprove. So the absolutey certain statements in science are the negative ones:
1. The earth is not flat.
2. Proteins are not the hereditary material.
3. The earth is not less than 20,000 years old.
4. Species did not arise from special creation.



You might remember that "man is finite" when you consider scripture. Remember, it was written by humans, not God. And humans, being finite, cannot percieve the totality of God.

Man may not be perfect but you believe God is, right? Well, what science studies is evidence God directly left in creation. Thus, when we are wrong, God will eventually tell us so in His Creation. Yes, we take one step forward at a time, but we know the false steps.

Unfortunately, you are trying to put "inference" as "not definitive". Not because science is tentative, but because you don't like the inference, so you are trying to downgrade it. But you don't do that with everything in science, do you? You do not question the inference that the earth is round, or the inference that DNA is the hereditary material. You are cherry-picking which inferences you want the word "inference" to call into question.

Ask yourself: is that honest?

Can science dis-prove the existence of God?

 

[Skaloop]

Can science dis-prove the existence of God?

Yes.

 

[Mallon]

Can science dis-prove the existence of God?

No. Science cannot test the supernatural.

 

[Skaloop]

No. Science cannot test the supernatural.

Here, I disagree. Depending on the specific nature and definition of God, He can indeed be disproven.

 

[Mallon]

Here, I disagree. Depending on the specific nature and definition of God, He can indeed be disproven.

Sure. The key word is "depending". You can disprove certain versions of God, but science cannot do away with the supernatural altogether. It isn't designed to.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No. Science cannot test the supernatural.

My youngest daughter has always been interested in the paranormal from when she was in her early teens, and said she has witnessed some sensations or existence of spirits.

As she has gotten older, she has trended away from it, but still likes watching paranormal and haunting shows on TV [so does my wife for that matter ]

Paranormal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific skeptics advocate critical investigation of claims of paranormal phenomena: applying the scientific method to reach a rational, scientific explanation of the phenomena to account for the paranormal claims, taking into account that alleged paranormal abilities and occurrences are sometimes hoaxes or misinterpretations of natural phenomena. A way of summarizing this method is by the application of Occam's razor, which suggests that the simplest solution is usually the correct one.[14] The standard scientific models gives an explanation for what appears to be paranormal phenomena is usually a misinterpretation, misunderstanding, or anomalous variation of natural phenomena, rather than an actual paranormal phenomenon.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
Can science dis-prove the existence of God?

Yes.

ok, you say yes....Mallon says no....

 

[brinny]

My youngest daughter has always been interested in the paranormal from when she was in her early teens, and said she has witnessed some sensations or existence of spirits.

As she has gotten older, she has trended away from it, but still likes watching paranormal and haunting shows on TV [so does my wife for that matter ]

Paranormal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific skeptics advocate critical investigation of claims of paranormal phenomena: applying the scientific method to reach a rational, scientific explanation of the phenomena to account for the paranormal claims, taking into account that alleged paranormal abilities and occurrences are sometimes hoaxes or misinterpretations of natural phenomena. A way of summarizing this method is by the application of Occam's razor, which suggests that the simplest solution is usually the correct one.[14] The standard scientific models gives an explanation for what appears to be paranormal phenomena is usually a misinterpretation, misunderstanding, or anomalous variation of natural phenomena, rather than an actual paranormal phenomenon.

i find that joyful singing, and even laughter, keeps the spooks away

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

i find that joyful singing, and even laughter, keeps the spooks away

"I do believe in spooks, I do believe in spooks".......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZR64EF3OpA&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

 

[brinny]

ROFLOLOLOL!!! that's me fav'rite part

well almost....

 

[troodon]

ok, you say yes....Mallon says no....

As Mallon said, it depends on what attributes you ascribe to God.

If you believe in a God that resides in a palace atop Mt. Olympus, yeah that one's falsifiable.

 

[brinny]

As Mallon said, it depends on what attributes you ascribe to God.

If you believe in a God that resides in a palace atop Mt. Olympus, yeah that one's falsifiable.

ok, i'm tired, but that's hilarious....you know i don't believe that....

 

[Skaloop]

Sure. The key word is "depending". You can disprove certain versions of God, but science cannot do away with the supernatural altogether. It isn't designed to.

Yes, I agree, we can't do away with the supernatural altogether. But God (as opposed to god) has specific attributes by which he can be disproven.

 

[brinny]

Yes, I agree, we can't do away with the supernatural altogether. But God (as opposed to god) has specific attributes by which he can be disproven.

which attributes can be dis-proven?