Early Man

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Noddingdog 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.

But this is where creationists stop being good scientists.  They will never admit that the technique is good because to do so means giving up their theory.  And the oath required by AiG and ICR says that under no circumstances can creationists give up the theory.

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".

Thank you for saying that evolution is being taught exactly as it should be taught: a theory with so much supporting data that we accept is as (provisionally) a 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.

Nice try. Really. But science is agnostic.  The way we do experiments -- methodological materialism -- prevents us from directly testing for God.  The only way to get God into science is through the back door -- by proposing a material mechanism by which God works. And then we don't test God, but only the material mechanism. 

However you do it, science can't comment on the whether God exists or supervises nature.

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.

Science doesn't care about that.  So atheists are wrong.  Big deal.  Then they are wrong.  Science leaves out deity because it must, because the scientific method simply won't let us look for God directly.  Tell me how to set up an experimental control for God and you can use God in science.  Until then, we can't.

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

We're not talking about hte co-existence of God and science.  You are the one trying to paint evolution as atheism, not the evolutionists. We are talking about the validity of two particular scientific theories: creationism and evolution.  Creationism is falsified. Evolution is supported.

 

[lucaspa]

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

If you mean a literal intepretation of the Bible, absolutely not.  The data absolutely shows a literal interpretation to be false.

Now, if you mean a theological interpretation of the Bible, limiting Genesis to the theological messages, then science neither matches nor denies Biblical information.  Basically, science can't comment on the theology.  So while you don't get scientific denial of the theology, you don't get scientific support, either.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Noddingdog 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've read Whitcomb and Morris' The Genesis Flood and Morris' Scientific Creationism, the ICR and AiG websites, plus a lot of independent websites. I've read Mere Creation, Darwin's Black Box, and No Free Lunch plus several other creationist works.  What "relevant data" have I missed?

What you are saying is that I have to discard data that don't match Christian religious beliefs or a literal interpretation of the Bible?  If I do that, then I'm not doing science anymore. 

From an atheist point of view, science cannot deal with God.

From a science point of view.  We simply lack the methodology.

There are unexplained mysteries about God that science at our level cannot explain.

Yes, but irrelevant.  Two sentences later you do make statements about God that we should be able to explain:  He leaves His design marks in nature.

This is stating that some entities in nature are manufactured artifacts.  Unfortunately, we haven't been able to identify them as artifacts and design separate from natural selection.

God is IN the natural world if He made it! , if science deals with the natural world then it deals with God.

First, if you really mean "He made it!", then science tells you how God made the world.

Otherwise, if you are simply saying that God sustains the world, then you are basically re-stating Butler and now your argument isn't with evolution but with atheism. Science can't settle the theism vs atheism debate.

This is in the fontispiece to Origin of the Species (you may have heard of the book)

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."  Butler:  Analogy of Revealed Religion

 

[lucaspa]

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.

To reinforce this to seesaw (who does know better but sometimes slips in his terminology), science specifically does not say that the natural also requires the supernatural.

Please notice, however, that creationists don't really use the supernatural, either.  Instead, what they propose is a particular natural method that deity is supposed to have used. 

While saying "spoken into existence by a deity" sounds supernatural, what it really means is that deity manufactured the object in its present form and put it into its present place.  That we don't understand the manufacturing process is irrelevant.  We don't fully understand the manufacturing process of the pyramids, but there is no doubt that they are manufactured objects.

 

[webboffin]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Much of what the article discusses was already known. It seems less a case of science being "baffled" again, and moreso a case of BBC journalists that don't keep up to date with fossil hominid discoveries.

You obviously don't understand the BBC. It is a very well respected internationally- British based broadcasting corporation [non commercialised, publically funded via licence here].  

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by webboffin
You obviously don't understand the BBC. It is a very well respected internationally- British based broadcasting corporation [non commercialised, publically funded via licence here].  

And what part of that means that their journalists stay up to date on the latest science? I've seen many news articles where journalists act suprised at something that science has known for decades. Many times it appears that journalists have to play catch up when they're assigned a story to write. Of course it doesn't help that many scientists exagerate evolutionary aspects of their work when talking to the public.

 

[webboffin]

I am not questioning evolution as a whole in this thread [not it's purpose] just seems that man = ape is being pushed further away.

 

[webboffin]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
And what part of that means that their journalists stay up to date on the latest science? I've seen many news articles where journalists act suprised at something that science has known for decades. Many times it appears that journalists have to play catch up when they're assigned a story to write. Of course it doesn't help that many scientists exagerate evolutionary aspects of their work when talking to the public.

I trust the BBC before I trust you when it comes to scientific news. Prove to me this was known decades ago. And now it is an exageration of facts!!!!

Maybe you should work for the BBC as you seem so updated and scientifically superior.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by webboffin
You obviously don't understand the BBC. It is a very well respected internationally- British based broadcasting corporation [non commercialised, publically funded via licence here].  

My point was, there was nothing really "new" in that article that I hadn't heard before (primarily when reading up on other Australopithecine fossil finds, like Lucy).

Furthermore, the title of the article "Fossil find stirs human debate", is misleading, since that implies that the line of hominid evolution is already firmly established, when in fact, there is still plenty of debate over where the human/chimp split would have occured, among other things.

This is why I can see you'd make a claim like "science is baffled again", which is certainly not true (if it were a completely human 3.5 million year old skeleton, THEN they'd have reason to be baffled).

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by webboffin
I trust the BBC before I trust you when it comes to scientific news. Prove to me this was known decades ago. And now it is an exageration of facts!!!!

Maybe you should work for the BBC as you seem so updated and scientifically superior.

Personally, I would trust scientific journals over news reports any day of the week for science info. Remember the "broken speed of light" fiasco from a couple years ago?

The fact is, news articles act as a filter for the actual scientific data being researched. The best bet is to go straight to the data, to bypass any spin journalists might put on the story.

 

[webboffin]

double posted

 

[webboffin]

I am reporting a news item. And did not make any initial comment about it. In fact it in reading seems fairly balanced. The web link is not even anti-evolutionary and was not saying exclusively it is or it isn't - but then I am not trying to protect a theory.
I have seen pro-evolutionary links posted here a lot more questionable in title and content.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by webboffin
You obviously don't understand the BBC. It is a very well respected internationally- British based broadcasting corporation [non commercialised, publically funded via licence here].  

That's irrelevant.  The Wall Street Journal and NY Times are also respected papers, but they get science stories wrong all the time, too.  Journalism doesn't do science well.

 

[webboffin]

I refer to my posting above.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by webboffin
I am reporting a news item. And did not make any initial comment about it. In fact it in reading seems fairly balanced. The web link is not even anti-evolutionary and was not saying exclusively it is or it isn't - but then I am not trying to protect a theory.
I have seen pro-evolutionary links posted here a lot more questionable in title and content.

Your very first post included the phrase, "So science is baffled again."

Do you not think this statement was erroneous (or at the very least, highly exaggerated)?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by webboffin
I am not questioning evolution as a whole in this thread [not it's purpose] just seems that man = ape is being pushed further away.

If that is your statement, then the link is poor journalism because Clarke is only stating that the common ancestor was not a knucklewalker, not that "man = ape" is invalid.  It is obvious that humans are apes. For the article to say otherwise is poor journalism.

But to explain the real debate is too complicated for most journalists, so they accept inaccuracies in order to simplify. And then either confuse you or have you erroneously jump on it to try to bolster your position.

In any case, I can't see any justification in the article for you claim that science is "baffled again".

 

[webboffin]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Your very first post included the phrase, "So science is baffled again."

Do you not think this statement was erroneous (or at the very least, highly exaggerated)?

Was it?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by webboffin
I am reporting a news item. And did not make any initial comment about it.

Not an initial comment?  What was that "So science is baffled again." sentence if not a comment about the article?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by webboffin
Was it?

Yes, as I demonstrated with quotes from the article.  Or are you just going to pretend that post didn't happen?

 

[webboffin]

I don't know. I have seen pro-evolutionist begin their threads far more controversial than "Science baffled again" seems like sour grapes.
Yes, well the discovery must of been baffling - it is new data questioning the validity of old data whether it is a possibilty of change in the age of human evolution or it's altered anatomical structure. So the relevancy of the link is not in question just how I worded a post.
I have not pushed any pro-creationist comments just stuff on newer evolutionary data. Why not try and discuss the implications of this new data instead.