Science and Religion

[GodLovesCats]

I guess you don't really care about paleontology, astonomy, geology, and related subjects. None of it has anything to do with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ because they are God's creations.

 

[The Barbarian]

Why are there no chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record?

Forests typically don't produce fossils, and chimpanzees were assumed to always have been forest-dwelling. Turns out, that's not true:

Nature volume 437, pages105–108 (2005)
First fossil chimpanzee
Sally McBrearty & Nina G. Jablonski

...Here we report the first fossil chimpanzee. These fossils, from the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya, show that representatives of Pan were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene, where they were contemporary with an extinct species of Homo. Habitats suitable for both hominins and chimpanzees were clearly present there during this period, and the Rift Valley did not present an impenetrable barrier to chimpanzee occupation.

 

[SkyWriting]

You don't know what science is to be giving misinformation like that. A theory is knowledge about science that has often been repeated in studies using the scientific method. So before there can be a theory there must be a hypothesis, then a conclusion, then follow-up studies that produce similar conclusions.

You are also wrong about science only being about natural phenomenons. There is no technology without science. The phrase "science and technology" is common because often those subjects are closely related.

Yes, Science only works with natural phenomenons, excluding any conceived supernatural influence. Naturally.

 

[SkyWriting]

Forests typically don't produce fossils, and chimpanzees were assumed to always have been forest-dwelling. Turns out, that's not true:

Nature volume 437, pages105–108 (2005)
First fossil chimpanzee
Sally McBrearty & Nina G. Jablonski

...Here we report the first fossil chimpanzee. These fossils, from the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya, show that representatives of Pan were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene, where they were contemporary with an extinct species of Homo. Habitats suitable for both hominins and chimpanzees were clearly present there during this period, and the Rift Valley did not present an impenetrable barrier to chimpanzee occupation.

I think in the movie 2001, the chimps were in a desert.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think in the movie 2001, the chimps were in a desert.

I don't know if the producers realized it, but it is hypothesized that the colder, drier Plio-Pleistocene, as the forests retreated, some apes moved out onto the savanna, among them the ancestors of Australopithecines. I don't think any species of ape, other than our own, would be successful in a desert environment.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Dover ID/Creationism trial was, in the words of the man who invented ID, "a train wreck." In it, the plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that ID was essentially creationism in disguise. One disaster was the revelation of a typo in the "ID textbook" Of Pandas and People,in which it was shown that the book was originally written to be a creationist work, and the publisher merely removed "creationist" in every mention in the book and substituted "design proponent."

This didn't help, either.

Michael Behe on the stand:
Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.


A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.


Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?


A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.


Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.


A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.


Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?


A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.


Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?


A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.


Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?


A Yes.


Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?


A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.


Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?


A That is correct.


Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?


A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.


Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?
From the trial transcript,Kitzmiller vs. Dover

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't know if the producers realized it, but it is hypothesized that the colder, drier Plio-Pleistocene, as the forests retreated, some apes moved out onto the savanna, among them the ancestors of Australopithecines. I don't think any species of ape, other than our own, would be successful in a desert environment.

It reflected the consensus or perhaps a fringe idea of the time it was filmed.
The movie showed private owned space travel.....which was not fulfilled prophesy till recently.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I guess you don't really care about paleontology, astonomy, geology, and related subjects. None of it has anything to do with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ because they are God's creations.

Jesus is the Word of God and it is through His Word that He created.

"15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. " (Col1:6)

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1)

 

[GodLovesCats]

What is your point Joshua? I was responding to someone else who thinks the Creation and Resurrection - which are totally different and unrelated events - belong on the same page.