Evidence against Evolution

[painted wolf]

My thoughts are that God made alot of things and some look alot alike. Take Dogs, cats, wolves, lions, ect...

Yes, but why can't God have used evolution to do it? God clearly uses physics to create stars and everything else.

If it's just God zapping things into existence, then God starts to look a little unimaginative. Certainly not as imaginative as your average sci-fi writer.

I believe that science cannot provoke the supernautral and therefore can be very wrong if God exists (as I believe).

Science doesn't say anything about the existance of God... even evolution doesn't. Evolution isn't counter to the existence of God.

I, for example, am a theist and a biologist.

For example, we all know Mt Rushmore was created by men with inteligence. However, One could explain it away as formed with natural causes if he wanted to. (Although he would be wrong) Thats how I see what going on here with some science and Evolution theories... Not once do we see God as the answer, but many of us know God Exists, so there becomes confussion...

Yes, but we don't judge things just based on the way they look to us... Mount Rushmore is man made, but there are plenty of natural formations that look like faces. Like the "Indian with an iPod".

Science is about weighing all the evidence, not just some of it.

wa:do

 

[ArtieE]

For years we taught that Pilt Down man(1912), as well as some others, where the true missing link. Science Evolutionist put this in text books and told us what he ate, what he hunted and where he lived. Basicaly everything we needed to know about him. Dating him and fit him in perfectly with in the Evolutionary chart. Hundreds of papers written, leading science down a blind alley for 40 years. Many other theories spun off because of this find and others like it. However, 40 years later, after it fueled the fire of Evolution theories that still exist today, it was found to be a fraud.

"As early as 1913, David Waterston of King's College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull.[4] Likewise, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the same thing in 1915. A third opinion from American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown's jaw came from a fossil ape."

"The hoax is often cited (along with Nebraska Man) by creationists as an example of the dishonesty of paleontologists that study human evolution, despite the fact that scientists had exposed the hoax themselves."

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you believe paleontologists are dishonest on whose authority do you believe that it was a hoax? Surely not the same dishonest people?

 

[outhouse]

the severe lack of education and knowledge from creationist is amazing.


what amounts to common knowledge is avoided like a 4 year old eating vegetables


they dont know whats good for them.

 

[painted wolf]

the severe lack of education and knowledge from creationist is amazing.
what amounts to common knowledge is avoided like a 4 year old eating vegetables
they dont know whats good for them.

Hardly a useful attitude if you actually want to discuss the subject. And people wonder why Atheists get a bad reputation. :bonk:

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

thats your personal opinion. not everyone elses.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm just saying being insulting for the sake of it, is both counterproductive and it only reflects badly on you.

I spend a lot of my time trying to convince creationists that not all scientists are atheists... not to mention having to deal with them thinking that "evolutionists" are all a bunch of rude, dismissive jerks. Not to mention getting them away from being defensive and dismissive due to prior treatment.

You make my job harder, not easier.

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

I understand and respect your position


and im sure you do reach out and grab a few minds with your excellent knowledge on the subject.

Most of the time I see your post ignored and they do not accept your knowledge, we have the same charactors that you have not reached with your kindness and generosity.

those are the people my post are directed to.



in this modern time there is no reasonable excuse to dismiss science in the fields of biology, geology, anthropology, dating methods ect ect ect due to theology.

If society put its foot down, we could stop the ignorance, or atleast put a big dent in it.

it does upset me to see your valuable time and knowledge thrown out in favor of mythology.



and like it or not it is a war with our childrens education on the line, I personally vote for knowledge over mythology for my child.

 

[painted wolf]

Yes, but many of these posters are new.... and I know how to handle the ones that have been around and who will and who won't actually pay attention to what I say.

I'm a big girl after all.

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

Yes, but many of these posters are new.... and I know how to handle the ones that have been around and who will and who won't actually pay attention to what I say.

I'm a big girl after all.

wa:do

fair enough

 

[Dirty Penguin]

My thoughts are that God made alot of things and some look alot alike. Take Dogs, cats, wolves, lions, ect... I believe that science cannot provoke the supernautral and therefore can be very wrong if God exists (as I believe).

It's not the role of science to address the claims of the faithful. Science is all about the evidence. Unfortunately the evidence does not reveal the hands of the gods.

Not once do we see God as the answer, but many of us know God Exists, so there becomes confussion...

"God" is not the answer for good reason and the only ones confused are those who can't fit the facts of scientific discovery into heir fables and nomadic tribal stories.

For years we taught that Pilt Down man(1912), as well as some others, where the true missing link. Science Evolutionist put this in text books and told us what he ate, what he hunted and where he lived. Basicaly everything we needed to know about him. Dating him and fit him in perfectly with in the Evolutionary chart. Hundreds of papers written, leading science down a blind alley for 40 years.

And because science progresses, it has no problem righting the wrongs of those out for notoriety and fortune. When technology got better it was the scientist that corrected the mistake.

Others like Java Man, Nebraska man, Peking man, Lucy, and even Neanterthal man either fall in the same situation or have unclear results that some have jumped to conclussions...

Can you give a clear and concise reason why Neanderthal would fall into the same category as Pilt Down Man.....mind you....we have multiple specimens of Neanderthal and a robust Genome to substantiate our genetic connection.....

 

[icebuddy]

Yes, but why can't God have used evolution to do it? God clearly uses physics to create stars and everything else.

My thoughts are that God created complete creatures and since creation we can adapt and evolve. As for Stars forming, Im unaware that we have witnessed any stars being formed. However, I have read many theories...

If it's just God zapping things into existence, then God starts to look a little unimaginative. Certainly not as imaginative as your average sci-fi writer.

Thats your opinion... However, what are we looking for? Facts or Imagination? I believe Evolution supplies alot of imagination and many believe God is our imagination...

Science doesn't say anything about the existance of God... even evolution doesn't. Evolution isn't counter to the existence of God.

Science can only explain things using the "Natural", while God is "Super Natural". If God did create things, then science could be wrong in many areas because science is godless when it comes to theories.

I, for example, am a theist and a biologist.

Thats great, but have you ever had a theory that God was involved?

Yes, but we don't judge things just based on the way they look to us... Mount Rushmore is man made, but there are plenty of natural formations that look like faces. Like the "Indian with an iPod".

I understand this...(clouds looking like or moon has a face...) But the difference is that you have the ability to look at Mt Rushmore and say a intelligant being created it and science cannot use that same ability...

Science is about weighing all the evidence, not just some of it.

Science is about weighing all the evidence in Natural ways only. It never weighs evidence with God in mind...

 

[icebuddy]

If you believe paleontologists are dishonest on whose authority do you believe that it was a hoax? Surely not the same dishonest people?

Just as my Church has good members and Bad members, I believe Science also has this problem...

However, Piltdown Man came at a time when the Theroy of Evolution was being formed and for about 40 years it stood as fact and many other theories were formed because of this find and it drove the Theory of Evolution for years... I find it interesting that it dated exactly where the Theory of Evolution needed it to fit...(Being that it was a fake)

 

[icebuddy]

It's not the role of science to address the claims of the faithful. Science is all about the evidence. Unfortunately the evidence does not reveal the hands of the gods.

Do you see how science could be explaining away Gods creation in error. (If God Exists and did create)

"God" is not the answer for good reason and the only ones confused are those who can't fit the facts of scientific discovery into heir fables and nomadic tribal stories.

i see the Evolution Chart as your tribal stories, just as you see mine...

And because science progresses, it has no problem righting the wrongs of those out for notoriety and fortune. When technology got better it was the scientist that corrected the mistake.

Their are good and the bad everywhere, There are open minded and close minded as well. You say mistake, but i believe it was a Hoax or a Fraud that was made to support Evolution.

Can you give a clear and concise reason why Neanderthal would fall into the same category as Pilt Down Man.....mind you....we have multiple specimens of Neanderthal and a robust Genome to substantiate our genetic connection.....

Leaving us Creationists out of it, the Scientific community doesnt know what Neanderthal is exactly either. Some say a subspecies of Homo sapiens, some say Homo neanderthalensis is a separate species and not a subspecies at all, others say interbreeding has gone on with another Homo specices...

Creationist add that Rickets would have the same effect on us today if enough time passes. Bowed legs, cupped hands, dental problems, Skeletal deformity, knock knees, Cranial, pelvic, and spinal deformities. The list goes on, but I posted off Rickets - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Me Myself]

So far where is the evidence against evolution?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Just as my Church has good members and Bad members, I believe Science also has this problem...

However, Piltdown Man came at a time when the Theroy of Evolution was being formed and for about 40 years it stood as fact and many other theories were formed because of this find and it drove the Theory of Evolution for years... I find it interesting that it dated exactly where the Theory of Evolution needed it to fit...(Being that it was a fake)

If one ignores the fact that Piltdown Man was decried as a fraud by many paleontologists from the beginning, and that it was evolutionary biologists who verified that it was a fraud...

(It was more of a headline grabbing claim than an actual peer reviewed claim.)

 

[fantome profane]

Creationist add that Rickets would have the same effect on us today if enough time passes. Bowed legs, cupped hands, dental problems, [/I]Skeletal deformity, knock knees, Cranial, pelvic, and spinal deformities. The list goes on, but I posted off Rickets - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creationists might say such a thing, but it is complete nonsense. Do you have any real scientific evidence that indicateds that rickets would actually make a human skeleton resemble a neanderthal skeleton?

 

[painted wolf]

My thoughts are that God created complete creatures and since creation we can adapt and evolve. As for Stars forming, Im unaware that we have witnessed any stars being formed. However, I have read many theories...

We can see stars forming all around us in various stages. Just as we can watch stars dying in various stages.

Thats your opinion... However, what are we looking for? Facts or Imagination? I believe Evolution supplies alot of imagination and many believe God is our imagination...

The facts support evolution from fossils to genetics and more.
But evolution says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of god.

Science can only explain things using the "Natural", while God is "Super Natural". If God did create things, then science could be wrong in many areas because science is godless when it comes to theories.

If Goc created things then there would still be "non-supernatural" evidence for it.
Genetics for one thing would quickly show it. But genetics shows we are all related and fit into a nested hierarchy.

Thats great, but have you ever had a theory that God was involved?

No, because science can't measure the supernatural. If I can observe and measure something then it is natural, not supernatural.

I understand this...(clouds looking like or moon has a face...) But the difference is that you have the ability to look at Mt Rushmore and say a intelligant being created it and science cannot use that same ability...

True... and when we look at evolution we don't see Mt. Rushmore... we see the "indian with an iPod".

Science is about weighing all the evidence in Natural ways only. It never weighs evidence with God in mind...

Because it's impossible to do so. How do you measure God? Ask him nicely to stand under the microscope?

If you can measure it, it's not supernatural.

And just to add... Neanderthals don't have rickets... their bones are sturdy, surdier than ours even... and except for the "Old Man" and a couple of others with traumatic injuries they were exceptionally healthy people.
Rickets leaves very specific marks on the bones and such marks are absent in fossil hominids.
Plus it would be very odd to find all these thousands of these people all of whom had rickets, and never find a single one that didn't have it.

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Do you see how science could be explaining away Gods creation in error. (If God Exists and did create)

No. I think your whole premise rest on the (what if). I see science as providing an explanation based on evidence for the mysteries of the natural world and even the universe for which man has attributed to the supernatural for far too long.

i see the Evolution Chart as your tribal stories, just as you see mine...

Hardly. The biggest difference is the charts of man's evolutionary path is back by scientific fact and not faith.

You say mistake, but i believe it was a Hoax or a Fraud that was made to support Evolution.

I agree. It was a hoax. It was either to prop up evolution or done to hopefully strike a blow to evolution. It did neither. The "hoax" was discovered, exposed and removed by scientist.

Leaving us Creationists out of it, the Scientific community doesnt know what Neanderthal is exactly either. Some say a subspecies of Homo sapiens, some say Homo neanderthalensis is a separate species and not a subspecies at all, others say interbreeding has gone on with another Homo specices..

What is known is that the specimens we have show clearly that there is a noticeable difference genetically from homo sapien. We also have evidence that shows that at one point in our history neanderthal and homo sapien existed during the same time.

Creationist add that Rickets would have the same effect on us today if enough time passes. Bowed legs, cupped hands, dental problems, Skeletal deformity, knock knees, Cranial, pelvic, and spinal deformities. The list goes on, but I posted off Rickets - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then creationist are missing or misrepresenting some very importan fact that rules out "Rickets".... Your link says...;

"Rickets is a softening of bones in children due to deficiency or impaired metabolism of vitamin D, magnesium, phosphorus or calcium,[2] potentially leading to fractures and deformity."


But we know the bones of neanderthals were bigger and denser. So this rules out your hypothesis of Rickets.

Evolution of Modern Humans:* Neandertals
"The Neandertals were physically diverse, but in general they were larger boned and more heavily muscled than most modern humans. This was particularly true of the European Neandertals, like the La Chapelle-aux-Saints man. Some of the Southwest Asian Neandertals were less robust in appearance and somewhat more like modern humans. The Neandertals were relatively short and stocky compared to some other archaic humans and modern Europeans. Adult male Neandertals averaged 5 feet 5 inches tall (164 cm.) and 143 pounds (65 kg). Females averaged 5 feet 1 inch tall (155 cm) and 119 pounds (54 kg). They probably stood as erect as we do and were fully bipedal. They were not only strong but apparently quite flexible. The thickness and high density of their leg bones suggest that they did a great deal of walking and running. Their lower arm and leg bones were short compared to modern humans. These traits were likely adaptations to an aggressive hunting and gathering way of life as well as to the cold climates in which most Neandertals lived. The fact that adult Neandertal skeletons frequently have multiple healed bone fractures suggests that these people had rough lives. Some researchers believe that many of the broken bones were the result of hunting large game animals up close with jabbing spears--a dangerous enterprise."

 

[johnhanks]

Science is about weighing all the evidence in Natural ways only. It never weighs evidence with God in mind...

This is because the moment you start weighing evidence with a pre-existing agenda you are no longer doing science. You will no doubt respond that scientists have a pre-existing agenda that you will call 'Naturalism', but all that means is that you take nothing more from the evidence than logical inference.

However, Piltdown Man came at a time when the Theroy of Evolution was being formed and for about 40 years it stood as fact and many other theories were formed because of this find and it drove the Theory of Evolution for years... I find it interesting that it dated exactly where the Theory of Evolution needed it to fit...(Being that it was a fake)

The motivation behind the Piltdown hoax was probably at least in part to tweak the noses of British anthropologists, who at the time were frustrated that advances in human evolution were being led by discoveries on the continent. It also played to the 'brain-first' school of thinking at the time. I suspect its perpetrator intended only a practical joke on his colleagues, and that he was dismayed when the hoax took off so spectacularly. You are quite wrong, however, to suggest that it "drove the Theory of Evolution" in any way. It might have misled workers in the field of human evolution, but the broader theory was in no way affected.

 

[porphery]

Just as my Church has good members and Bad members, I believe Science also has this problem...

However, Piltdown Man came at a time when the Theroy of Evolution was being formed and for about 40 years it stood as fact and many other theories were formed because of this find and it drove the Theory of Evolution for years... I find it interesting that it dated exactly where the Theory of Evolution needed it to fit...(Being that it was a fake)

Wow you are so right.
Just look at Ted Haggard, liars are always scientists like Kent Hovind. Did I get that right?