Remarkably complete’ 3.8-million-year-old cranium of human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia

[dad]

It is as far as any application to the sciences dating the ages of the earth, our solar system and our universe.

Dating based on beliefs is fiction. Trying to latch it to science is pitiful.

 

[dad]

This is terrible circular reasoning to justify a religious agenda, and no meaningful substance,The physical and chemical nature of the lamela is the same today as it was 7,000, 10,000, 100,00 and 500,000 years ago.

If the forces changed, then the atoms were affected. Trying to claim that 'chemicals' are the same is absurd. Just because forces affect rocks and isotopes and all things at all layers does not mean that the chemicals and physical nature of the materials was the same in the far past!

If you can come up with an alternate way the lamela form by objective verifiable evidence please do

In other words you want someone in this nature to form lamina fast. Ridiculous. The idea is that it formed fast in some nature you never saw and know diddly about.

There is abundant evidence that the nature of time is uniform through the whole history of the earth, ie uniform precision lake deposited lamela hundreds of thousands of years,

That is NOT evidence of a same nature. That is evidence you want to believe that the deposits were all laid down in this nature.

as well as other geologic stratigraphic evidence in the sediments and geologic history of the earth

There is none. All can be explained by a different nature past also.

. Of course, you can deny this, but you cannot provide any evidence whatsoever that the nature of time in the past is any different now

One would not use this nature to 'prove' there was another one! But let's face it you wave away history and God and the spiritual and Scripture records of the past while at the same time screaming for evidence of what the past was like!

, in recent history, 7000 years ago, one hundred thousand years ago, and millions of years ago.

You are not qualified to say when that was since we know you date things only with your religion.

I rely on hard geologic evidence in stratigraphy first, and not dating by radio isotopes ratios.

You apply a same nature in the past belief to it all, ratios and layers! That is not hard evidence that is believing real hard.

Radio isotope ratios only make dating more accurate, and confirm dating by geologic stratigraphy.

Example?

 

[nPeace]

I'm not convinced you understand what a strawman is.

Everything is interpreted. The question is whether or not the interpretation presented by evolutionary theory makes sense, is testable, and stands up to scrutiny. It does.

The theory of evolution does not make sense; Is not testable; Does not stand up to scrutiny.
In case you are shocked, please understand what the theory of evolution is.
The music in the video is very nice. Really quite relaxing.

It's relevant because evolutionary theory explains these facts, and does so well and in a way that is testable. For you to assert that it is insufficient requires you to posit a more probable explanation.

Since you cannot, your objection is baseless.

What facts do the theory of evolution explain? Surely not the facts of how life got here. No test has yet demonstrated that. It is the accepted belief, yes.
A more probable explanation has been given before, and it is not required to show the theory of evolution a failure.

It's not about alternative interpretations, it's about EXPLANATIONS. You can interpret the fossil record whatever way you want - the question is whether that interpretation better explains the facts and is better supported by evidence and examination.

Have you considered that other alternatives may be "perfect" explanations, but may be rejected, for various reasons.
They may, also not be testable, but neither is the theory of evolution.

Sure. But evolution is currently the most widely accepted and evidenced theory in modern science. There is no dissent in science with regards to what the fossil record displays, nor of the reality of common descent.

That is not true. You rejected the links where I pointed them out to you.
I won't post them again. The problems in the evolution theory are real, although supporters of the theory tend to "hide themselves in underground caves", so as not to see them.
1) In contrast to the slow and gradual process of evolution, as was suggested, "new species" - practically all major groups of organisms, appear on the scene = appear in the fossil record, remain unchanged or without any significant change.
2) They don't know if evolution took place gradually / slowly, or quickly. They don't know how it happened. Yet they say, it happens given enough time - millions / billions of years small changes add up.
This sounds more like an imagined thing - imagination and wishful thinking. Rather than it being science, it takes the form of a dictatorship political system - No explanation necessary. Just accept it.
...and yet, it is known that only very slight modification occur, due to the fact that mutations are random, rare, and need to be specifically located, in order to be passed on. They also know that mutations are non-adaptive in nature.

False. They are explanations.

The difference being that there is no way to TEST the Bible to see if one interpretation is more valid than another. There is no way to demonstrate that you have directly asked God "What exactly does this passage mean?"

I don't find that to be true at all.
Just as there are tests in science, which may result in different opinions, due to different interpretation, as in the case of what we are discussing here, the same applies where testing the Bible is concerned.
As I mentioned here.

All you did was copy and paste bits of Darwin's writing that never stated any actual fault with the modern theory of evolution.

What faults do you think you have presented?

That just shows you did not even bother to look at the links, which had nothing to do with Darwin. Not good practice, but typical...

You said that new species just "appeared" in the fossil record. What mechanism does that?

If you want to claim that species suddenly appear and disappear in the fossil record, again, what other words would best fit that?

So why can't it require evolution?

Dissecting posts in this way can cause confusion, and result in questions not related to what was said.
Why can't what require evolution?

How? Do you or do you not understand that Darwin is not the final word on modern evolutionary theory?

I simply pointed out that what you wrote didn't make sense. If you found that offensive, I apologize, but to me it read like jibberish.

I call a spade a spade. To me, the sentence "You said if "such and such" were the case, "blah blah blah"" is clearly jibberish, and bordering on an insult to me. I'm sorry if pointing that out upsets you.

Then what point is it that you think you're making? Because quoting Darwin achieves next to nothing.

Don't hurt your head.

Why can't you answer the question?

Well I think I did.
Did you not ask, "Do you have any examples of a complex organ which could not possibly has formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications?"
So it seem obvious to me that if I ask you if you can describe how the cell formed, my answer must be... the cell has not been demonstrated to have "formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications".
So can you answer my question, please?

You earlier alleged that species "simply appeared" in the fossil record.

If the mechanism of this was not magic, what was it?

See above.

Then where did those species in the fossil record come from? If you believe God is responsible, but that it was not just "magic", then why could evolution not be the mechanism God used?

For one thing, one who creates - if they are not just a careless designer - will take time, and there will be purpose behind what goes into their design. That's called work.
The mechanism of evolution, as we know them, do not produce new organisms with completely new body plans. So if God used evolution he would have failed.
It would seem too, he would appear to be lazy, and careless to rely on random chemicals to produce their own makeup, and I think everything would be just ugly, and invalid - probably not even able to survive.
Imagine. Out of the billions of galaxies, in the universe, and only one life supporting planet with everything needed for life to survive, and you think that was a hit or miss event?
Some God that would be - careless, lazy, apathetic... Oh dear.

No. Your question seems wrong from every angle.
There is no evidence life started from a "worm" in "soup", and branched off to all life forms.
There is evidence that the information in the genes is no accident, but the result of careful design.

It makes sense to me, that life can adapt only to what is encoded within it. In other words, life either goes from its encoded blueprint, to a state of disrepair / degenerate, or the other direction - repair / regenerate. As the saying goes, "Its in the genes."
Creating a variety of creatures, and using reproduction to bring forth diversity, according to each kind, paints a correct picture of a real creator - not a man made idea.
So this explanation makes sense - The Wonders of Creation Reveal God's Glory in The Design of Life.

Not that reason alone, but hundreds more.
There are no missing gaps, or unanswered questions.
It makes sense that God Created the Earth, and life on it.

Do you acknowledge that it may be POSSIBLE that God's chosen mechanism of diversification was evolution?

No. Makes no sense to me, and they have not even - for nearly two centuries - demonstrated how those mechanisms work.

 

[nPeace]

You're not making sense.
The nested hierarchy is produced by reproduction and the way DNA is inherited.
Whatever is altering genes, these alterations are inherited by off spring.





No. It is based on the knowledge of how DNA and reproduction works.
The patterns we observe - not "imagine" or "superimpose" or "assume"), but the patterns we OBSERVE - are the exact patterns that would be produced by the process of evolution.

It's what inevitably happens when you have systems that reproduce with modification and pass on those modifications to off spring.

It accounts for all the known facts and it's explanatory power allows us to accurately predict new facts (like the finding of tiktaalik - and many many many other things).

It's not a "presumption". It is, instead, the only reasonable and rational account for the data we have and continue to discover, with NOTHING to contradict it. And MANY things could potentially contradict it.

A single creature that rapes the pattern of nested hierarchy would actually suffice. Evolution would be put on its head.



As explained, not an assumption at all.

The origins and evolutionary relationships between the three main groups of amphibians are hotly debated.
I think when they can solve these, and other problem, with DNA sequencing, we can discuss this further.

Nice. That's quite different from "demonstrating the whole of evolution", now isn't it?
So what were the results and conclusions? Do you know?

What point was I making about the fruit fly experiment? Do you know? ...and no, it was not "demonstrating the whole of evolution".

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not fluctuation of this nature, but a change of natures. It affects everything...atoms..laws of thermodynamics...etc etc.

Everything in the natural record supports the idea that the laws of physics have remained constant, and natural processes have continued as normal down through time. You have zero evidence to the contrary. IOW you have made this up out of whole cloth.

Just because you can't detect other remains does not mean the one you can was 'isolated'!! Ha.

We know that isolation of a species is one of the pre-requisites of evolution. It is necessary that they be pigeon holed in a specific environment they they are not best suited for. That way when a better mutation comes along, natural selection will pick it. In the case of cyanobacteria, it is obvious that some of the species was isolated and some of it not. The portion that was isolated evolved.

Such as?

I cannot even imagine a scenario or something even close to maturation that would take place during a line of evolution. Things adapt. Period. It is not a matter of becoming a "higher" level.

No you cannot equate 'the fall' with your fantasy of man evolving from ape like thingies.

Sure I can. In both cases you are talking about mankind coming into the understanding of the difference between right and wrong on a significant level -- qualitatively higher than i.e. chimpanzees have.

A created being uses God given free will to attain some products of other created creatures on a created world in a created universe and thinks he had no help. Lame.

You are making things far more difficult than they actually are. We make decisions every day for which we do not consult God. It doesn't mean that God doesn't contribute to the outcome. It just means that we didn't go to God for help in reaching our decision. It is that way for science. God is the author of the universe. He decided what the laws of the universe would be. Evolution is his modus operendi in creation. Yet in as much as when 51% of scientists acknowledge this, they don't consult God when they do their scientific studies. That's the way it SHOULD be.

Using it does not mean doubting Him and inventing foolish fables.
Post flood and post nature change also...what about them??

Another change in natural laws after the flood? You just make this stuff up again and again.

 

[nPeace]

OK, so primates are not all of one kind. How can we determine which are and which are not in the same kind? The same question applies to trees.

Or are you saying this just isn't a question we will ever have an answer to?

In which case, I reject the whole scheme as simply not being very useful for biology. The *goal* is understanding. If the notion of kinds doesn't help with that goal, then it should be rejected (yes, even if it is in the Bible).

And this is what makes the Bible and science at odds: those who want to follow the Bible reject anything leading to questions the Bible doesn't answer. But human curiosity requires us to pursue understanding well past that. And, in practice, that has meant rejecting the Biblical ideas.

Oh. Is this what this is all about... "you hit at my beliefs, so I hit at yours"?
If I knew, I could have saved myself a few finger taps.
Look. The Bible is already rejected. God, as described in the Bible is already rejected.
Why would you think it would make any difference if "kinds" as mentioned in the Bible, is rejected. If I only knew.

 

[nPeace]

There's a disconnect between us somewhere.

Apparently.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh. Is this what this is all about... "you hit at my beliefs, so I hit at yours"?
If I knew, I could have saved myself a few finger taps.
Look. The Bible is already rejected. God, as described in the Bible is already rejected.
Why would you think it would make any difference if "kinds" as mentioned in the Bible, is rejected. If I only knew.

Not "rejected". A literal interpretation of the Bible has been shown to be wrong. So much so that creationists are claiming that their God is a liar.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The theory of evolution does not make sense; Is not testable; Does not stand up to scrutiny.
In case you are shocked, please understand what the theory of evolution is.

This is the sort of thing that is said by someone who doesn't know what evolution is, what the theory of evolution is, and what lines of evidence there are for both of those.

Evolution is the gradual change in allele frequency. The evidence for this, largely the fossile record over billions of years as well as finding cases of new species emerging within our own lifetimes, is overwhelming. Evolution by this definition is an established fact, as is the fact that it creates enough variety to go from single cell organisms to the variety of life as we know it today.

The theory of evolution is our highly educated guess at the things which drive evolution, such as natural selection. While we can't prove causation 100%, the evidence we have is pretty doggone strong. For example, we see natural selection at work in the survival of moths when birds eat the colors that stand out as the environment changes depending on how much smoke is in the air. The general color of the moths becomes either frequently dark or frequently light. It stands to reason that if something like natural selection can change the coloring of moths in just a few seasons, it can produce radically new species over the course of billions of years.

And so, evolution is a highly reasonable, highly scientific assertion, back by a plethora of evidence -- what can be sensed and measured.

The same cannot be said for creationism. Creationism is taken 100% on faith.

 

[nPeace]

I asked,



You replied,



I said that I would accept the hypothesis of intelligent design if the consensus of opinion among biologists supported it.

You are now going back on your word and are saying that you will not accept evolution if the consensus of opinion among biologists supports it.



First, I cited genetic evidence and evidence from biogeography as well as the fossil record. Second, it is not true that 'The fossil record shows all major life forms arriving on the scene, fully formed, and leaving the scene with little or no change.'

For example, Donald Prothero, in Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, mentions (pp. 287-8) the anagalids and mimotonids as Paleocene transitionals between early mammals and the first rodents and rabbits, and also says that rodents evolved into different forms so rapidly that their teeth are used as index fossils for very precise dating of sedimentary rocks.

The first bats did not use echo-location, and 'their large skulls and eyes show that they probably hunted by day using sight ... Eocene bats have many other primitive features of the skull, hands and feet that are not found in any other living bat' (ibid., p. 288).

The fossil record of the mustelids (weasels, skunks, otters, badgers, etc.) and of raccoons also shows that 'the early members of these groups ... would look nothing like their living descendants if you saw them today' (ibid., p. 290).

On pages 318-22, Prothero describes the 'amazing array of transitional whale fossils that clearly link terrestrial land mammals to full-fledged aquatic whales.' For good measure, these fossils also confirm the genetic evidence that whales are related to artiodactyls (hippopotami, pigs, cattle, camels, deer, antelopes, etc.).

I could say more, but it would take too long, and I advise you to read the book for yourself. The examples that I have cited should be enough to show both that there are many examples of transitions leading to major groups and that these groups do not exist for long periods without any change before disappearing.

Thanks, but first of all, you totally lost me, in the first part.
This...
You are now going back on your word and are saying that you will not accept evolution if the consensus of opinion among biologists supports it.
...totally blew me away. I have no idea where you got that from, and it does not seem to reflect the truth.

Second. The opinions on the fossil record vary.
What was suggested, as to how rapidly rodents evolved?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thanks, but first of all, you totally lost me, in the first part.
This...
You are now going back on your word and are saying that you will not accept evolution if the consensus of opinion among biologists supports it.

Actually he did not say this.

What he said is that he would accept intelligent design if the consensus of biologists supported it.

He also said that YOU had gone back on your word when you said that you would believe in evolution if the consensus of biologists supported it. Well the consensus (meaning nearly all) of biologists DO support evolution. So you need to accept it.

 

[nPeace]

If there is a consensus of scholars, I go with the consensus. If there is a divergence of opinions, I examine to see what is the cause of the disagreement and form my own opinion. I also look to see what biases and assumptions are at play -- what axes there are to grind.

In the case of the authoring of the Torah, one group is basing their opinion on tradition (that Moses wrote it) and the other is basing their opinion on a careful analysis of the texts. It seems obvious to me that the second is miles ahead of the first in terms of scholarship. The first is on par with rumor!!! It seems to me that the first group seems to believe that if Moses didn't write the Torah that it would somehow loose its authority (which is nonsense). That means they have an axe to grind and have an observation bias.

I never read of any group saying they base their opinion on tradition (that Moses wrote it). Did they tell you this, or is that, you forming your opinion?

 

[Deeje]

Again, let's not conflate abiogenesis with evolution. It's an entirely different area. The truth is that science doesn't rally have a wonderful theory of how life came from non-life. It has some hypotheses, which it is in the process of testing. That's all.

Abiogenesis is the more important question IMO. What does it matter how life changed, if you don't know how it began? You do understand that if you answer the question of abiogenesis, then everything else is answered as well? If you cannot prove how life began, everything else is meaningless speculation, IMO.

Evolution, which is what happened AFTER life came to be, is a proven fact.

Proven? I don't think so....the scientists here tell me that there is no "proof" in science.

And how do they know this with any certainty? How can they say categorically that the first simple forms of life (which we know are not simple at all) gradually mutated and evolved into all the life forms we see, past and present? I see no real evidence for any of that. I see lots of suggestion and assumption however.

In addition, the driving forces behind evolution are what is known as the Theory of Evolution. A scientific theory is a good deal more sound than a philosophical theory -- it has an incredible amount of evidence to back it up.

Yes, we know. Scientists can call a theory...."not really a theory" because....well...its "scientific", so that makes it more like a fact. But it never is.

But as I've said, this distingishing that creationists make between "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution is without merit.

I disagree. Adaptation in no way proves organic evolution. All they have is evidence that any member of any established taxonomy can make minor adaptations to facilitate a change in environment or food supply. A classic example that is often put forward as an example of evolution is the Peppered Moth. Due to coal fire pollution the moths changed to a darker color to blend in more with the dark discoloration of the affected trees that they inhabited. The darker ones survived and became more prevalent. But as soon as the pollution problem was addressed, the moths changed back to their original color. How did adaptation make this moth into anything but a different colored version of itself? No matter how much times elapsed, this moth would still be a moth. So how does this prove evolution?

Speciation experiments never once took any of the subjects outside of their taxonomy. They created various versions of themselves in response to changes that threatened their survival, but the fish were still fish and the fruit flies were still fruit flies. Bacteria remain bacteria no matter how many adaptations take place. This mechanism is pre-programmed into all living things....it is a "design" feature that required an intelligent mind to protect the species from extinction.

The only difference is how much time you have, aka how old the earth is, and the earth is clearly billions of years old. Life began billions of years ago. Thus "macro" evolution is what we are left with by default.

I believe that the earth itself is ancient. I am not laboring under any YEC criteria. In fact the Genesis account allows for this by making the statement it does in Genesis 1:1. Thereafter, without stating a timeframe, the account goes into the details of how the earth was made habitable...thoughtfully, with everything that living creatures would need. The air they breathed, the food they ate, and the water they drank, were all provided well ahead of their arrival.

I believe that the "days" in Genesis were not 24 hour periods, but eons of time set aside by the Creator to accomplish a set amount of work for each period. They could each have been millions of years in length. At the conclusion of each period, God made a statement that indicated that he was pleased with his efforts. You see the Creator is not a magician, but a craftsman....an artisan with incredible talent, who tweaks and adds and refines things until they are just right. And like any artist, if something is not up to expectation it gets left out.....not displayed in the exhibition of the artist's work. Other creatures, like the dinosaurs may have served a purpose that in time may have seen their usefulness become redundant, and no longer needed to fulfill God's purpose. There are no dinosaurs that existed in the time when humans first walked the earth.

Finally, as I've stated many times, and you insist on being deaf to, science does not replace God with Mother Nature. 51% of scientists believe in God or a higher power.

I have no interest in what "theists" might think....scientist or not. They do not dictate my beliefs. I find that people who modify God to suit their own agenda have nothing of value to teach me.

It is TRADITION to say that Moshe wrote the Torah. Like it is tradition to say that George Washington chopped down the cherry tree.

If the Bible attributes the Torah to an inspired Moses, I will take his word over the words of uninspired men any day.

And by the way some Jews buy into the tradition also. People often make the mistake of believing Jews are somehow monolithic when in fact we are a very diverse group. Anytime you hear "the Jews this" or "the Jews that" you can be sure it is mistaken. We don't agree on anything.

I know. All we have to do is look at their history to know that they were never ones who could do as they were told. Somehow they always did what they wanted to do...and where did it get them?
I have heard that you can have a dozen Jews in a room with a dozen different opinions....and they would all be right. Doesn't say much for Judaism, does it?

Textual criticism examines the actual Hebrew text for writing style and there are dead giveaways that there are at least four authors. We don't know their names of course, but we refer to them as J (J-hw-h writer), E (Elohim writer), D (Deuteronomy writer), and P (priestly writer).

I won't buy into that. The Hebrew scriptures are important to create the beginning of the Bible's story, but the coming of the Messiah and what happens after that is what Christians focus on. As far as I can see, the Jews have no focus because their Messiah has never turned up. Is he still coming or have Jews now given up on the idea?

We believe that we are in "the last days" or what Daniel called "the time of the end". (Daniel 12:4; 9-10)
What is happening now was all foretold in prophesy....including who would be ruling when the end comes. It will be sooner than most people think.

 

[Deeje]

For instance, the first story of creation, which extends from Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:3 is written by E. God is continually referred to as Elohim. Then in Genesis 2:4, when the second story of Genesis begins, God is suddenly referred to as J-hw-h. Thus it is obvious that whoever wrote the second story is a different person than the one who wrote the first story.

OK....lets take Genesis 2 from verse 4 and see what it is that is stated there.....

From the Tanach....
"These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, on the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."

The word "generations" here, according to Strongs Concordance....is "towlĕdah" which means...."descendants, results, proceedings, generations, genealogies. . . account of men and their descendants."

So this is about what took place concerning the humans, its not a altered rehash of ch 1. The writer condenses all of the creative periods into one "day" here. It is obvious that the word "day" (yowm) has a much broader meaning in Hebrew than it does in English, though we use the same idea when we talk about our grandfather's "day". It can mean an undetermined period of time.

"5 Now no tree of the field was yet on the earth, neither did any herb of the field yet grow, because the Lord God had not brought rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work the soil.


6 And a mist ascended from the earth and watered the entire surface of the ground."

This tells us how God watered the earth before he made it rain. Because in the creation account in ch 1 "Light" was the first thing to hit the planet, the next thing needed for plants besides photosynthesis was water. Since it speaks of 'no man working the soil' yet, it is an indication that man would be a gardener....'subduing' the earth outside the garden.

"7 And the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul."

So we can see that man was not 'given' a soul but "became" one with the breath (spirit) of life.
It is rendered in a different way to most other Bibles, because it says "the soul of life" here. But the Hebrew word "nĕshamah" means "breath or spirit" not soul, which is "nephesh". All living, breathing creatures are "nephesh"......all are animated by the same "spirit" (breath)

"8 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden from the east, and He placed there the man whom He had formed."

Eden was planted as a kind of blueprint for the rest of the world, when God made Adam. The humans did not need to be gardeners in Eden. God was the gardener...but they had strong healthy bodies that would not age, so the work assigned to the humans was to be ongoing....'subduing the earth' was to be a perpetual assignment. They were placed here as caretakers, created with God's primary attributes and free will.

"9 And the Lord God caused to sprout from the ground every tree pleasant to see and good to eat, and the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden, and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil"

Again, this is about the humans and where God placed them and how he fed them and gave them the most pleasant surroundings. The two trees mentioned here, (separate from their food) determined their future. One would give them everlasting life....the other would deliver death if they disobeyed God's command.

So Genesis ch 2 from verse 4 is an account regarding what happened with the humans; it is not the same as the chronological account of creation in Genesis ch 1.

And my friend, these two stories also conflict with each other. For example, in the first story, plants are created before man. In the second story, plants are created after man.

There is no conflict. If ever there is conflict in God's word, it is because humans have misinterpreted it....not because the word of God is in error.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I never read of any group saying they base their opinion on tradition (that Moses wrote it). Did they tell you this, or is that, you forming your opinion?

I grew up with that opinion. If you ask them why, they will simply tell you "Because it's true." It's not based on any scholarship.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Abiogenesis is the more important question IMO. What does it matter how life changed, if you don't know how it began? You do understand that if you answer the question of abiogenesis, then everything else is answered as well? If you cannot prove how life began, everything else is meaningless speculation, IMO.[/quest]Whether abiogenesis is more important is beside the point. We are not discussing it. We are discussing evolution, which is an entirely different topic. And no, I disagree that "if we answered the question of abiogenesis, then everything else is answered as well."

Proven? I don't think so....the scientists here tell me that there is no "proof" in science.

Not true. Gravity exists. Magnetism exists. Photosynthesis exists. Etc. We know many facts.

And how do they know this with any certainty? How can they say categorically that the first simple forms of life (which we know are not simple at all) gradually mutated and evolved into all the life forms we see, past and present? I see no real evidence for any of that. I see lots of suggestion and assumption however.

The biggest lines of evidence for evolution are simply that the fossils in the various strata of rocks going back billions of years gradually change--change gradually enough that we can follow the line of change as it evolves, AND the fact that we have experiences new speciation within our own lifetime.

Yes, we know. Scientists can call a theory...."not really a theory" because....well...its "scientific", so that makes it more like a fact. But it never is.

Oh please don't whine. Often times a given word will have one definition in one discipline and a different definition in another discipline. Meh.

I disagree. Adaptation in no way proves organic evolution.

Like I said, adaptation aka natural selection is part of what is known as the Theory of Evolution. It is not known for certain. It does however, have a ton of evidence leading us to think it is true. We see adaptation working to produce change within our lifetime. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that given time, this very process will produce all the life forms we see today.

Speciation experiments never once took any of the subjects outside of their taxonomy. They created various versions of themselves in response to changes that threatened their survival, but the fish were still fish and the fruit flies were still fruit flies. Bacteria remain bacteria no matter how many adaptations take place. This mechanism is pre-programmed into all living things....it is a "design" feature that required an intelligent mind to protect the species from extinction.

Only because science cannot reproduce billions of years of time.

I believe that the earth itself is ancient. I am not laboring under any YEC criteria. In fact the Genesis account allows for this by making the statement it does in Genesis 1:1. Thereafter, without stating a timeframe, the account goes into the details of how the earth was made habitable...thoughtfully, with everything that living creatures would need. The air they breathed, the food they ate, and the water they drank, were all provided well ahead of their arrival.

I believe that the "days" in Genesis were not 24 hour periods, but eons of time set aside by the Creator to accomplish a set amount of work for each period. They could each have been millions of years in length. At the conclusion of each period, God made a statement that indicated that he was pleased with his efforts. You see the Creator is not a magician, but a craftsman....an artisan with incredible talent, who tweaks and adds and refines things until they are just right. And like any artist, if something is not up to expectation it gets left out.....not displayed in the exhibition of the artist's work. Other creatures, like the dinosaurs may have served a purpose that in time may have seen their usefulness become redundant, and no longer needed to fulfill God's purpose. There are no dinosaurs that existed in the time when humans first walked the earth.

You are very close to the truth. You just need a good book that goes into detail with all the lines of evidence.

I have no interest in what "theists" might think....scientist or not. They do not dictate my beliefs. I find that people who modify God to suit their own agenda have nothing of value to teach me.

Now now, don't go shifting the goalposts. The question was whether science and evolution was antithetical to following God. Obviously it isn't, if 51% of scientists believe in God or a higher power.



[quote[If the Bible attributes the Torah to an inspired Moses, I will take his word over the words of uninspired men any day.

Again, you are assuming that this sort of claim in the Bible is going to be accurate. That a pretty big assumption. And what is it based upon? Not scholarship, but raw faith. I prefer scholarship.

I know. All we have to do is look at their history to know that they were never ones who could do as they were told. Somehow they always did what they wanted to do...and where did it get them?

NEVER did as we were told? Are you serious? The history of Israel went back and forth between good kings and bad kings, times of obedience and times of disobedience, times of faithfulness and times of idolatry. The prophets don't dwell on the times of obedience because that's not their job. Their job is to call Israel back from unfaithfulness to God's way. The good times just get a mention, but they are there if you read.

I have heard that you can have a dozen Jews in a room with a dozen different opinions....and they would all be right. Doesn't say much for Judaism, does it?

The expression is "Two Jews; three opinions" and we don't say that all the opinions are correct.

As far as I can see, the Jews have no focus because their Messiah has never turned up. Is he still coming or have Jews now given up on the idea?

Jews have focus -- our focus is on what behaviors God expects of us, and being faithful to that. The Messiah is simply not a big part of our religion. The messiah will come at the end of days, and we are not itching for the end to come the way Christians are.

It is Christians who have a problem with veracity, because according to your stories, Jesus claimed that before all the men in his presence died, he would return. Not only did that not happen, 2000 years has gone by.

We believe that we are in "the last days" or what Daniel called "the time of the end". (Daniel 12:4; 9-10)
What is happening now was all foretold in prophesy....including who would be ruling when the end comes. It will be sooner than most people think.

I don't think we are in the end times. Things are better than they ever have been. We are healthier and live longer. There is considerably less war. The streets are much safer -- violent crime in the cities is way down. There are new forms of immorality, but some of the old immoralities have died away or are now scandalized. Sorry, but I just don't see it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

OK....lets take Genesis 2 from verse 4 and see what it is that is stated there.....

I'm not sure what your point is. The story that begins in Genesis 2:4 is still written chronologically. the Mist that covered the earth happens i.e. before God creates the Garden. And so Man is created before there are plants. And that, sir, is a direct contradiction with the first story in Genesis 1.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The origins and evolutionary relationships between the three main groups of amphibians are hotly debated.
I think when they can solve these, and other problem, with DNA sequencing, we can discuss this further.

The stuff that is "hotly debated" is the pinpointing of when this groups diverged.
That they diverged at some point and thus share ancestors, is not a point of debate.
You should read the articles you post. This one doesn't say what you would want it to say.

What point was I making about the fruit fly experiment? Do you know? ...and no, it was not "demonstrating the whole of evolution".

Yet, that was what you previously said about it:

The fruit flies, and bacteria experiments were used to demonstrate evolution.

You didn't specify anything specific, nore does this statement hint at all to the fact that experiments typically test just one aspect.

It's fine if you wish to retract it off course, if you really meant something else.
But you can't really blame me for misunderstanding you, if that was the case, considering I just took what you actually wrote and ran with that.

Also, you "forgot" to answer my question: what were the results and conclusions of this experiment?​

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Oh. Is this what this is all about... "you hit at my beliefs, so I hit at yours"?

No.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh. Is this what this is all about... "you hit at my beliefs, so I hit at yours"?
If I knew, I could have saved myself a few finger taps.
Look. The Bible is already rejected. God, as described in the Bible is already rejected.
Why would you think it would make any difference if "kinds" as mentioned in the Bible, is rejected. If I only knew.

No, the point is that the notion of 'kinds' is not helpful for understanding the varieties of life that we see.

But more so, the Bible has been found to be an unreliable witness to history.