Early Man

[Noddingdog]

Originally posted by seesaw
No there are scientists that are creationist (i guess) but I have never met one. But creationist don't use real science. When they put god into science it nolonger is science.

Not always. If a piece of evidence is dated to be millions of years old it rules out creationist 6000 year theory. Well you could say that the dating is wrong like any good conspiracy theorist does.



Backup your claims that it's been taught as a fact. I was taugh it in school and it was taught as a theory.



Because there is no evidence for the theories. Or like I said creationist put god into there theories which make it nolonger science.

If it is absolutely confirmed set-in-stone fact that that article is undoubtedly millions of years old then it is hard to take a creationist view. But otherwise we can critically analyse the data etc. Also, we would only say that the date was questionable if there was known to be inconsistencies or failures with the technique.

Hey, I didn't directly claim it was a fact. They teach it like it is one but they do not say "This is evolution and this is fact".

When you put God into science, from an atheistic or non-Christian point of view it is no longer science so they do not teach it. Plus, what if the creationists are right? Then the atheists have to admit that there is a God and they are in sin and in the wrong. That's one of the reasons why it's no longer considered science when God is mentioned.

"Evidence" can be obtained, as I said, from critically analysing data. One piece of data can represent an evolution supporter or a creation supporter when looked at through different pairs of glasses.

God and science can co-exist, after all, from a Christian point of view God put the laws of science into place.

 

[Noddingdog]

A religious concept? Oh tut! Now I will have to send creationism to the theology class... but the theology students may not understand the science involved. Oh well. If you want to call it that, I suggest prefixing it like so: "a scientific religious concept"

 

[Noddingdog]

 

[lithium.]

If it is absolutely confirmed set-in-stone fact that that article is undoubtedly millions of years old then it is hard to take a creationist view. But otherwise we can critically analyse the data etc. Also, we would only say that the date was questionable if there was known to be inconsistencies or failures with the technique.

So if the evidence disagrees with what you believe then the technology that dated the evidence is wrong?

Hey, I didn't directly claim it was a fact. They teach it like it is one but they do not say "This is evolution and this is fact".

Sorry.

When you put God into science, from an atheistic or non-Christian point of view it is no longer science so they do not teach it.

Ask any scientist's (Christian or non Christian) and they will tell you the same thing. God is supernatural and can't be part of scientific theories. Science is only about the natural not the supernatural.

Plus, what if the creationists are right? Then the atheists have to admit that there is a God and they are in sin and in the wrong. That's one of the reasons why it's no longer considered science when God is mentioned.

How is anyone going to show that creationists are right? I mean other than god coming to earth and saying the earth is 6000 years old. The bible doesn't even say the earth is 6000 years old. What ifs IMO doesn't matter; what matters is evidence, and facts.

God and science can co-exist, after all, from a Christian point of view God put the laws of science into place.

And as I said ask a christian scientist and he/she will tell you what I said that god can't be apart of science.

 

[Noddingdog]

OK, here are my thoughts.
Did I say that if the evidence disagrees with what I believe then the technology that dated the evidence is wrong? I merely said that inconsistencies suggest that certain dating methods are flawed.

I can't prove to you that the Bible is right about the origin of life.
I can't prove that God created us.
But creationists can look at the data, interpret it and see if it matches Biblical information. And it does.

Finally, surely you mean a creationist? Creationism and christian science are different...

Also remember what I said (i.e. that God put the natural laws of science into place even though he is supernatural. Surely that means he is a part of science?)
ND

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Noddingdog
OK, here are my thoughts.
Did I say that if the evidence disagrees with what I believe then the technology that dated the evidence is wrong? I merely said that inconsistencies suggest that certain dating methods are flawed.

I can't prove to you that the Bible is right about the origin of life.
I can't prove that God created us.
But creationists can look at the data, interpret it and see if it matches Biblical information. And it does.

Finally, surely you mean a creationist? Creationism and christian science are different...

Also remember what I said (i.e. that God put the natural laws of science into place even though he is supernatural. Surely that means he is a part of science?)
ND

Well fine, because you believe different something is flawed. I see.

I'm sorry but I have never seen any data that shows creationist right.

I think I said creationist, I don't think I said Creationism or Christian Science.

No. Science (and dang this has been said so many times by so many people on this forum) can't not deal with god. Well when a person says something like "goddidit' for there theory then they are removing the natural world. Sense science only works with the natural world (which isn't god) god can't be apart of science.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Noddingdog
A religious concept? Oh tut! Now I will have to send creationism to the theology class... but the theology students may not understand the science involved. Oh well. If you want to call it that, I suggest prefixing it like so: "a scientific religious concept"

What science? There is no science behind the idea of special creation. In fact, it is the very opposite of science (since any and all scientific laws can be broken at will to satisfy the explanation).

 

[Noddingdog]

I did not mean inconsistencies with my belief, I mean inconsistencies in the results of the dating.

You haven't seen data that shows creationism right because you have not looked at the data and done what a creationist would have done i.e. compare to his beliefs and the Bible etc. or you haven't seen relevant data.

I was referring to this statement:
"And as I said ask a christian scientist and he/she will tell you what I said that god can't be apart of science."

From an atheist point of view, science cannot deal with God. There are unexplained mysteries about God that science at our level cannot explain. I do see where you're coming from though. God is IN the natural world if He made it! He leaves His design marks in nature so of course, if science deals with the natural world then it deals with God.

ND

 

[Noddingdog]

*sigh* I am talking to 2 people so I can't answer fast enough. Sorry. Please, Pete Harcoff, explain yourself.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Noddingdog
"Evidence" can be obtained, as I said, from critically analysing data. One piece of data can represent an evolution supporter or a creation supporter when looked at through different pairs of glasses.

The issue of interpreting the data is being able to take the cumulative data to see if it fits the explanation. In the case of creationists, they typically (at least, from my own reading experience) cite specific examples here and there to concoct theories about how God could have done this and that, all the while ignoring the bigger picture.

This is why creationism (specifically, the literal Genesis version) was tossed out by the scientific community some 150+ years ago. The cumulative evidence did not fit the explanation, therefore the explanation was deemed to be incorrect. This isn't to say God couldn't have created the universe, life, etc. But rather the specific ideas about how God created did not fit with the physical evidence.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Noddingdog
Jerry Smith,
Of course, finding data to be analysed and then labelling it as "evidence" are two different things.

Perhaps. Could I hear what you think the term "evidence" means? I've seen that some PC's (Professional Creationists), in an effort to salvage their myth that there is no evidence for evolution, have made an effort to redefine "evidence" practically out of existence.

Please don't allow them to confuse you with fancy talk about "alternative explanations/interpretations" of the evidence, and how "creationists" and "evolutionists" have the "same evidence" but different interpretations of it. This is hand-waving. When you look at the evidence, it all points toward evolution, strongly. The ad hoc explanations that are contrived for this or that bit of evidence by these PC's rarely support any theory - they merely offer a convenient-seeming way out of accepting the fact that the evidence for evolution is voluminous. Even in that they ultimately fail, because there is more evidence than there are contrived explanations for it.

Creationists may take a certain argument or piece of data, etc, and interpret it as creation evidence, whereas evolutionists may interpret it as evolutionary evidence. Looking at both sides of the argument is, of course, important as it is necessary to keep open-minded in this sort of argument.

As I mentioned before, it seems you are working from a non-scientific definition of "evidence". Data are observations. Evidence are data that are expected to exist because of a theory (or expected not to exist because of a theory). Evidence of the first type is found in abundance for evolution. Evidence of the second type is not found for evolution. This is the strongest point. Science works by falsification, and evolution - while it is falsifiable, has withstood a century and a half of data that fails to falsify it.

Creationist "evidence" seems to be data that can be interpreted to be consistent with creationism. Any data can be interpreted to be consistent with any hypothesis or theory. Creationism does not give us a set of evidence that we can expect to be found or that we can expect not to be found. Without doing so, there are no "two sides". There is one theory that makes accurate predictions of the evidence, and could be falsified but has not been. There is a second theory that makes no predictions of the evidence (until after the fact), and cannot be falsified by any observation. 

As far as your argument is concerned, I will analyse it and return with my thoughts on the matter.
Thanks for the genetic info,

I hope you will review that. I think you will begin to see what I mean about "reinterpretation" of the evidence. Professional Creationists will do anything to get you to believe them. I think that you will learn that they have been misleading you, and you will be glad to see the truth of the issue.

Regards,

Jerry

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Noddingdog
*sigh* I am talking to 2 people so I can't answer fast enough. Sorry. Please, Pete Harcoff, explain yourself.

Well, first you'll have to expand on what version of creationism you are specifically talking about. For example, if you are referring to the idea that all life forms were spontaneously created in there present forms by God, then that violates a number of scientific laws in the process.

Furthermore, since there's no empirical test to determine what is and isn't affected by God, there is no way to empirically determine where He may have had a hand in things.

 

[HellboundLiberal]

But creationists can look at the data, interpret it and see if it matches Biblical information. And it does.

And that is a problem. An Islamic scientist can do the same thing to prove the Quaran. What is happening is they ignore all the facts except for the ones that happen to support their view. If such an approach is taken, ANY idea, no matter how rediculous, can be "proven". The search for truth is not about starting with a conclusion and finding facts that support it, instead it's about collecting all the facts before making ANY conclusions or ANY assupmtions to begin with. Scientific theories are made using only facts and evidence, and no intervention of bias.

Remember, during Darwin's time, creation WAS the "science" of the day for explaining our origins. Scientists examined facts and evidence with the thought of being able to prove creation. After finding that creation did not stack up against their findings, a fresh new approach had to be taken that supported the facts.

 

[lithium.]

From an atheist point of view, science cannot deal with God. There are unexplained mysteries about God that science at our level cannot explain. I do see where you're coming from though. God is IN the natural world if He made it! He leaves His design marks in nature so of course, if science deals with the natural world then it deals with God.

Well all I'm saying is that True science doesn't look at something and say it's something from god, or that god did it. Science no matter what will not use supernatural explanations.

Thanks to jerry for the last part. Because dumb me couldn't put it into the right words.

Edited: I had some errors.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by webboffin
So science is baffled again.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2709797.stm

I don't see that.  What I see is an argument over the exact lineage of humans, not that humans evolved.  There are some aspects of the news story that puzzle me. For instance,
"Its bone structure shows it did not walk like modern chimps, using the knuckles of its hands.

It probably walked on two legs when it was on the ground but spent much of the time climbing trees, says Dr Ron Clarke, of the University of the Witwatersrand, who discovered the fossil. <B>Tool-making</B> Dr Clarke goes further. He argues that the fact the hominid was not a knuckle-walker suggests chimps and humans are not as closely related as we thought."

First, A. afarensis didn't knuckle walk, and those fossils are as old as this one.&nbsp; So I don't see any basis for Clarke's assertion of relatedness.

Clarke also has another unsupported assertion in the article:
"It pushes the last common ancestor of chimps and humans much further back in history, he says."

There's no reason to suppose this.&nbsp; The last common ancestor is 6-7 million years back by genetic evidence, and the recent fossils like Toumai support that view.&nbsp; This fossil doesn't change that.

Clarke is working on the hypothesis that the last common ancestor was a knuckle-walker and that chimps and gorillas haven't changed.&nbsp; However,&nbsp;an equally viable hypothesis is Compton's "Knuckle-walking and vertical climbing - up and down tree trunks - are a specialisation of chimps and gorillas after humans split off from them."

Therefore, the last common ancestor wouldn't be a knuckle walker but probably a tree-dweller.

Notice this part showing the transitional nature of the new fossil:
"It would appear, therefore, that the strong opposable thumb evolved in the human ancestral stock for grasping branches. Then, in the mainly terrestrial subsequent descendants in the form of <I>Homo</I>, it was to prove useful for tool-making and manipulation. "

Exaptation.&nbsp; A very common tool used by evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Noddingdog
Evolution is not a theory! It's a hypothesis if anything. It does not have substantial supportive evidence. Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.

Please go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi&nbsp;and enter "evolution" as your search term.&nbsp; I would say that nearly 120,000 articles is "substantial supporting evidence", wouldn't you? And that's in a medical database since 1965. Imagine what you get if you search biology and paleontology databases back to 1859.

 

[Jerry Smith]

science will only say something happened naturally with out any help from a supernatural being.

seesaw - close: science will only say that something happened naturally, and will not use supernatural explanations. Science doesn't say there was no help from a supernatural being - it just doesn't say there was. I think this is what you intended.

Atheism (and theism) are philosophical views. Science is empirical knowledge and cannot address philosophical views.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by webboffin
Though, scientific institutions would like to push it as fact.

We also refer to round earth as fact, don't we? Yet round earth is a theory, just like evolution is a theory.&nbsp; After a theory has accumulated enough supporting evidence, we treat it as (provisionally) fact unless and until it is shown to be wrong. Evolution long ago passed that point.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
seesaw - close: science will only say that something happened naturally, and will not use supernatural explanations. Science doesn't say there was no help from a supernatural being - it just doesn't say there was. I think this is what you intended.

Atheism (and theism) are philosophical views. Science is empirical knowledge and cannot address philosophical views.

Thank you. That is what I was wanting to say but couldn't put it into words.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Noddingdog Not accepted all through scientific community&nbsp;- unless you are saying that creationists aren't scientists.

They are very poor scientists because they won't admit their theory is falsified.

And are the majority always right? As I said, whether it's evidence for creation or evolution depends on how you interpret the data.

Nope. Sorry, but theories are independent of the people who promote them and the interpretation of the data.&nbsp; Theories are statements about the physical universe. Those statements have deductions that lead to observational consequences -- data we should see if the theory is true and data we should not see if the theory is true.&nbsp; When we see the second -- data that shouldn't be there if the theory is true, then we know the theory is false -- and interpretation doesn't enter into it.

There is data out there that can't be there if creationism is true. God simply didn't create that way.&nbsp; Now, did a deity create by evolution?&nbsp; Science can't tell you that.&nbsp; Therefore evolution doesn't falsify creation, only creationism.

So they don't say that they think it's a fact, but it is taught in most schools, accepted in most institutions, etc,&nbsp;like it is one. They mostly don't even consider other theories.

Other theories have been considered and falsified. For instance, creationism was the accepted scientific theory prior to 1831. It was falsified by the data.&nbsp; Raelianism is a current theory that all life on earth is a gengineering experiment by ETs.&nbsp; That too has been falsified when specific statements of Raelianism have been looked at.

Your problem is that you think the alternative theories are still valid. They're not.&nbsp; They have been falsified.&nbsp; Think about heliocentrism.&nbsp; Do we teach the "other theories" about the shape of the solar system?&nbsp; Why not? Same reason. They have been falsified.