The problem of evil

[bhsmte]

We are called to be discerning as Christians, absolutely. We are told not to believe everyone who claims they are doing things in Jesus' name, but to search the Scriptures and pray for guidance in all such matters. Jesus tells us we will know such people by their "fruit."

How do you judge people by their "fruit"?

Any examples of how you determine who is Christian or not?

 

[bhsmte]

Why don't scientists admit that they don't know for sure if we descended from a common ape-like ancestor then?

You call my terminology "sloppy", I consider such blatant claims on things they haven't even come close to proving "sloppy."

If scientists don't have the answers, they should admit that they don't. Instead, many of them make giant leaps to conclusions that are far from supported by any kind of replicated/repeated observation. Very sloppy.

Bald assertion.

Any specific examples to support these claims?

 

[Eudaimonist]

"Energy can neither be created or destroyed."

In the universe, yes. But can that apply to nothing?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Quote the specific comments you are referring to.

Here you go (1, 2, 3, 4). If I recall correctly, you addressed portions of 1, but did not address 2, 3, and 4 directly at all.

Bumping for @amariselle.

 

[amariselle]

Bumping for @amariselle.

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...st-common-ancestor-of-humans-and-neanderthals

In this article scientists and researchers discuss using virtual 3D computer modeling to "fill in the blanks" they readily admit exist in the fossil record.

In this article, they claim "we know we share a common ancestor with Neanderthals", all the while admitting they have no idea what such Neanderthals looked like, because they have found no fossil record as evidence. They then continue to admit that any fossils they DO have are "extremely scarce and fragmentary."

Yet, despite these admissions, they claim it is a fact that we have a common ancestor with these Neanderthals. And because they cannot produce ACTUAL fossil evidence, they have resorted to using 3D computer models instead. Absurd.

This method of "research" could be used to "prove" anything. If scientists want to accurately and honestly back up their claims, they had better find the real proof and fill in the gaps in the fossil record with actual fossils. Generating computer models doesn't count. Neither does that nice drawing of our progression from ape-like being to human. There has been no complete fossil record found to this day to support such a drawing.

What these scientists are doing is art, not science. They are making giant leaps that they have no actual evidence for, and because they know they don't, they are creating their own simulated "evidence." This is not true and honest science. Honest scientists would admit that they don't know, instead of overreaching and trying desperately the "prove" their prior claims by making their own "evidence." And yes, they may admit that such evidence is still incomplete, but the fact that they consider their computer models as actual trustworthy evidence at all is extremely problematic. Computer models prove nothing, actual fossil records are what is needed, and they have already admitted they don't have any actual complete fossil record.

So, if scients want to be honest about their claims and their research, they should stop producing drawings and computer models and instead invest their time and money into finding the REAL fossils, not making models of what MIGHT be true on a computer.

And yet, despite all the problems they readily admit they have with their theory of our common ancestor, their theory is still presented as absolute fact.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...st-common-ancestor-of-humans-and-neanderthals

In this article scientists and researchers discuss using virtual 3D computer modeling to "fill in the blanks" they readily admit exist in the fossil record.

In this article, they claim "we know we share a common ancestor with Neanderthals", all the while admitting they have no idea what such Neanderthals looked like, because they have found no fossil record as evidence. They then continue to admit that any fossils they DO have are "extremely scarce and fragmentary."

Yet, despite these admissions, they claim it is a fact that we have a common ancestor with these Neanderthals. And because they cannot produce ACTUAL fossil evidence, they have resorted to using 3D computer models instead. Absurd.

This method of "research" could be used to "prove" anything. If scientists want to accurately and honestly back up their claims, they had better find the real proof and fill in the gaps in the fossil record with actual fossils. Generating computer models doesn't count. Neither does that nice drawing of our progression from ape-like being to human. There has been no complete fossil record found to this day to support such a drawing.

What these scientists are doing is art, not science. They are making giant leaps that they have no actual evidence for, and because they know they don't, they are creating their own simulated "evidence." This is not true and honest science. Honest scientists would admit that they don't know, instead of overreaching and trying desperately the "prove" their prior claims by making their own "evidence." And yes, they may admit that such evidence is still incomplete, but the fact that they consider their computer models as actual trustworthy evidence at all is extremely problematic. Computer models prove nothing, actual fossil records are what is needed, and they have already admitted they don't have any actual complete fossil record.

So, if scients want to be honest about their claims and their research, they should stop producing drawings and computer models and instead invest their time and money into finding the REAL fossils, not making models of what MIGHT be true on a computer.

And yet, despite all the problems they readily admit they have with their theory of our common ancestor, their theory is still presented as absolute fact.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution

Apparently, if I made a computer model of God, I can prove God exists...right!

 

[bhsmte]

Apparently, if I made a computer model of God, I can prove God exists...right!

What known data would you enter into the computer to create this model?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...st-common-ancestor-of-humans-and-neanderthals

In this article scientists and researchers discuss using virtual 3D computer modeling to "fill in the blanks" they readily admit exist in the fossil record.

In this article, they claim "we know we share a common ancestor with Neanderthals", all the while admitting they have no idea what such Neanderthals looked like, because they have found no fossil record as evidence. They then continue to admit that any fossils they DO have are "extremely scarce and fragmentary."

Yet, despite these admissions, they claim it is a fact that we have a common ancestor with these Neanderthals. And because they cannot produce ACTUAL fossil evidence, they have resorted to using 3D computer models instead. Absurd.

What is absurd about it? And how does this relate to the comments on your posts that I linked to?

This method of "research" could be used to "prove" anything. If scientists want to accurately and honestly back up their claims, they had better find the real proof and fill in the gaps in the fossil record with actual fossils. Generating computer models doesn't count. Neither does that nice drawing of our progression from ape-like being to human. There has been no complete fossil record found to this day to support such a drawing.

But we do have hominid fossils. Creationists disregard them. In fact, if you read the story properly, you'd realise that the researchers relied on such fossils to build their models.

What these scientists are doing is art, not science. They are making giant leaps that they have no actual evidence for, and because they know they don't, they are creating their own simulated "evidence." This is not true and honest science. Honest scientists would admit that they don't know, instead of overreaching and trying desperately the "prove" their prior claims by making their own "evidence."

But they did admit that they don't know. That was the entire motivation for pursuing this line of inquiry. You seem to want to argue, on the one hand, that they refuse to acknowledge what we don't know, which is untrue. Yet on the other hand, you also want to argue that these unknowns justify disregarding what we do know about hominid evolution.

And yes, they may admit that such evidence is still incomplete, but the fact that they consider their computer models as actual trustworthy evidence at all is extremely problematic. Computer models prove nothing, actual fossil records are what is needed, and they have already admitted they don't have any actual complete fossil record.

So, if scients want to be honest about their claims and their research, they should stop producing drawings and computer models and instead invest their time and money into finding the REAL fossils, not making models of what MIGHT be true on a computer.

You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. The search for fossils continues. But what about the fossils that we already have? Are you going to just ignore those?

And yet, despite all the problems they readily admit they have with their theory of our common ancestor, their theory is still presented as absolute fact.

I already discussed this in one of my previous comments, which you haven't bothered to address directly.

 

[amariselle]

What is absurd about it? And how does this relate to the comments on your posts that I linked to?

You were asking for an example of scientists putting their theories forward as absolute fact. I gave you one.

But we do have hominid fossils. Creationists disregard them. In fact, if you read the story properly, you'd realise that the researchers relied on such fossils to build their models.

No, creationists don't disregard them. They instead admit that they are scarce and fragmentary at best.

And I read the entire story, thank you. I did not just copy and paste the link.

But they did admit that they don't know. That was the entire motivation for pursuing this line of inquiry.

Yes they admit they don't know, I already said that. The problem is that they don't stop there and choose to look for actual evidence, instead they make up their own "evidence" on computers.

Do you really not see a problem with this?

You seem to want to argue, on the one hand, that they refuse to acknowledge what we don't know, which is untrue. Yet on the other hand, you also want to argue that these unknowns justify disregarding what we do know about hominid evolution.

I said no such thing. Go back and read what I wrote. I acknowledged there is much we don't know, and that scientists themselves have even admitted this. My problem lies with the creation of "evidence" on computers. I do not think it is true science to make up your own evidence. That is what I'm arguing. Do you honestly think we should be able to manufacture our own evidence rather than finding real fossil records?

You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. The search for fossils continues. But what about the fossils that we already have? Are you going to just ignore those?

Once again, (I will repeat this one more time for you) I have NOT ignored the fossils we already have. When it comes to our "common ancestor" however, scientists themselves have admitted that the fossil record is "scarce and fragmentary". Since they cannot therefore support their theories with the fossil record, they are manufacturing their own evidence. This is not true science.

I already discussed this in one of my previous comments, which you haven't bothered to address directly.

You are conveniently skirting around the real issue here. Scientists are creating their own evidence because they have no complete ACTUAL evidence. Do you not see a problem with this?

How is it any less a matter of faith to believe in the claims science makes about our "common ancestor"? There is no conclusive or complete evidence to back this claim up.

Some scientists and archaeologists believe that there is evidence for Noah's ark and the flood. What if I made a computer model based on such evidence in order to fill in the gaps? Would that then prove that the Biblical account of the flood is true? You would reject my computer model completely, and would insist that I find actual evidence instead of making up my own.

Case in point. Science is doing no different in regard to the fossil record.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

What known data would you enter into the computer to create this model?

Dunno, probably find some pig tooth somewhere and let my imagination go wild. Just like a real scientist. [emoji4]

 

[bhsmte]

Dunno, probably find some pig tooth somewhere and let my imagination go wild. Just like a real scientist. [emoji4]

LOL

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...You have this strange idea that scientists claim to 'have all the answers' to questions and problems before us. Nothing could be further from the truth. I like the way that British physicist Brian Cox puts it......he says that he welcomes the reality that we don't have all the answers - he wants there to be unanswered questions, because these provide the motivation for scientists to do the work they do.

Yes, indeed - when the discovery of the Higgs boson was announced and it turned out to be almost exactly as predicted by Prof.Higgs 40 years before, I was quite surprised at the number of physicists expressing disappointment that it fitted so neatly with their expectations; they really wanted to see some unexpected novel or confounding results indicating new physics to get their teeth into.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You were asking for an example of scientists putting their theories forward as absolute fact. I gave you one.

No you didn't. You gave me an example of scientists presenting their findings, which is what they do.

No, creationists don't disregard them. They instead admit that they are scarce and fragmentary at best.

Umm... that's what your source did as well, and your source is not creationist.

Yes they admit they don't know, I already said that. The problem is that they don't stop there and choose to look for actual evidence, instead they make up their own "evidence" on computers.

Do you really not see a problem with this?

But they didn't "make it up." They used actual fossils to produce a computer model. In other words, their model drew upon existing data. They didn't just turn on a computer and start playing around with Paint, which is what you seem to think they did.

I said no such thing. Go back and read what I wrote. I acknowledged there is much we don't know, and that scientists themselves have even admitted this. My problem lies with the creation of "evidence" on computers. I do not think it is true science to make up your own evidence. That is what I'm arguing. Do you honestly think we should be able to manufacture our own evidence rather than finding real fossil records?

In other words, your problem is that you don't understand the techniques they used.

Once again, (I will repeat this one more time for you) I have NOT ignored the fossils we already have. When it comes to our "common ancestor" however, scientists themselves have admitted that the fossil record is "scarce and fragmentary". Since they cannot therefore support their theories with the fossil record, they are manufacturing their own evidence. This is not true science.

No, they are not. And you are ignoring the fossils we already have.

You are conveniently skirting around the real issue here. Scientists are creating their own evidence because they have no complete ACTUAL evidence. Do you not see a problem with this?

But they do have evidence! The flipping fossil record! The very thing you are ignoring because it is inconvenient to your argument that they are just "making stuff up."

How is it any less a matter of faith to believe in the claims science makes about our "common ancestor"? There is no conclusive or complete evidence to back this claim up.

I take it you are not familiar with the evidence for evolution then?

By the way, I addressed your comment about faith here and here. You still haven't responded.

Some scientists and archaeologists believe that there is evidence for Noah's ark and the flood.

No they don't. You are talking about a fringe group of quacks.

What if I made a computer model based on such evidence in order to fill in the gaps? Would that then prove that the Biblical account of the flood is true? You would reject my computer model completely, and would insist that I find actual evidence instead of making up my own.

No, because I at least understand the value such models can bring. In fact, I would welcome it. Let's see if you can produce a realistic computer model that matches the description of the flood found in the Genesis and which doesn't require us to ignore or disregard everything we know about biology, geology, and physics. Go ahead.

 

[bhsmte]

Dunno, probably find some pig tooth somewhere and let my imagination go wild. Just like a real scientist. [emoji4]

Or, make stuff up that matches their faith belief, like creationists do.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Here is the actual paper in Journal of Human Evolution 2016;91:57–72:

The timing and geographic origin of the common ancestor of modern humans and Neandertals remain controversial. A poor Pleistocene hominin fossil record and the evolutionary complexities introduced by dispersals and regionalisation of lineages have fuelled taxonomic uncertainty, while new ancient genomic data have raised completely new questions. Here, we use maximum likelihood and 3D geometric morphometric methods to predict possible morphologies of the last common ancestor of modern humans and Neandertals from a simplified, fully resolved phylogeny. We describe the fully rendered 3D shapes of the predicted ancestors of humans and Neandertals, and assess their similarity to individual fossils or populations of fossils of Pleistocene age. Our results support models of an Afro-European ancestral population in the Middle Pleistocene (Homo heidelbergensis sensu lato) and further predict an African origin for this ancestral population.

 

[amariselle]

No you didn't. You gave me an example of scientists presenting their findings, which is what they do.

Umm... that's what your source did as well, and your source is not creationist.

But they didn't "make it up." They used actual fossils to produce a computer model. In other words, their model drew upon existing data. They didn't just turn on a computer and start playing around with Paint, which is what you seem to think they did.

In other words, your problem is that you don't understand the techniques they used.

No, they are not. And you are ignoring the fossils we already have.

But they do have evidence! The flipping fossil record! The very thing you are ignoring because it is inconvenient to your argument that they are just "making stuff up."

I take it you are not familiar with the evidence for evolution then?

By the way, I addressed your comment about faith here and here. You still haven't responded.

No they don't. You are talking about a fringe group of quacks.

No, because I at least understand the value such models can bring. In fact, I would welcome it. Let's see if you can produce a realistic computer model that matches the description of the flood found in the Genesis and which doesn't require us to ignore or disregard everything we know about biology, geology, and physics. Go ahead.

STILL conveniently skirting around the real issue. Apparently you can be a true scientist and manufacture your own evidence based on scarce and inconclusive fragments. If that's the kind of science you choose to trust, so be it, I don't in any case. I want ACTUAL evidence and actual fossils to support their claims. I do not want a computer model. Anyone can make a computer model or even a drawing, that proves nothing. Such scientists are conveniently filling in the gaps they already admitted exist, because they can't support their theories any other way. Again, that is art, not science.

And speaking of art, I have a project to get to.

 

[amariselle]

Or, make stuff up that matches their faith belief, like creationists do.

And interestingly,like scientists do as well. Apparently it's human nature.

 

[amariselle]

Here is the actual paper in Journal of Human Evolution 2016;91:57–72:

Oh, what's this? Scientists producing conflicting research? Who knew?

This does nothing to convince me that any such claims are trustworthy. Gaps are being filled without actual evidence. I can understand why you don't like that.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

STILL conveniently skirting around the real issue. Apparently you can be a true scientist and manufacture your own evidence based on scarce and inconclusive fragments. If that's the kind of science you choose to trust, so be it, I don't in any case. I want ACTUAL evidence and actual fossils to support their claims. I do not want a computer model.

Your demand has already been satisfied! We have actual hominin fossils! Why are you ignoring them?

Anyone can make a computer model or even a drawing, that proves nothing.

Really? Anyone can make a computer model? Okay, I challenge you to produce a realistic computer model that matches the description of the flood found in the Genesis and which doesn't require us to ignore or disregard everything we know about biology, geology, and physics. Go ahead. Anyone can do it, right?

Such scientists are conveniently filling in the gaps they already admitted exist, because they can't support their theories any other way. Again, that is art, not science.

Read the actual paper. You don't seem to understand what the researchers actually did. They used real fossils. How else do you think they developed their model?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Oh, what's this? Scientists producing conflicting research? Who knew?

This does nothing to convince me that any such claims are trustworthy. Gaps are being filled without actual evidence. I can understand why you don't like that.

What conflicting research are you referring to here?