Science is hurting my faith.

[thessalonian]

Whatever Juan. Thank you for backing my humility claim. No evidence for creationism? Well I guess if your throw it out of the solution space right from the start there wouldn't be now would there.

 

[Novum]

Whatever Juan. Thank you for backing my humility claim. No evidence for creationism? Well I guess if your throw it out of the solution space right from the start there wouldn't be now would there.

No, thess. Juan is correct. The scientific community is forced to analyze each new theory and explanation that comes its way. Claims and explanations that lack evidence or support are discarded until a better version is obtained. Creationism has long since been discarded by the scientific community because of a lack of evidence or support.

When ID came along, it too was given a chance to provide support for its claims. However, none was forthcoming; this is why ID is not taken seriously by the scientific community. Any potential conspiracy here is one of your own formulation. There is no debate or controversy about the subject within the scientific community.

Edit: Thess, I am not saying that you are "wrong" to support Creationism - that is certainly your prerogative and I will not deny you that right. However, I will object if you claim that science supports your position, as it demonstrably does not.

 

[thessalonian]

This all sounds well and good because it fits your line of thinking. Of course anyone who holds a religous type view is thrown out in the first place and so the deck is stacked. There is no lack of evidence for a higher power creating nature. That is completely absurd except in your godless mind. There are many scientists who hold such a view. Am I claiming that science proves creationism? Not at all. But for your to claim their is no evidence is simply showing your bias in removing a creator from the possible solution space. The very complexity of nature with equations that man has not even discovered yet very likely governing nature, shows the absurdity of it.

 

[Novum]

This all sounds well and good because it fits your line of thinking. Of course anyone who holds a religous type view is thrown out in the first place and so the deck is stacked. There is no lack of evidence for a higher power creating nature. That is completely absurd except in your godless mind. There are many scientists who hold such a view. Am I claiming that science proves creationism? Not at all. But for your to claim their is no evidence is simply showing your bias in removing a creator from the possible solution space.

I made no such claim; this is your strawman. I stated - accurately and correctly, I might add - that the scientific community at large has rejected creationism and ID because of a lack of evidence and support. This is not any "claim" on my part, thess. My opinion is irrelevant and this is not subjective - it's just like me stating "World War II happened". This rejection by the scientific community, too, is factual - it happened. Go look it up if you don't believe me.

The very complexity of nature with equations that man has not even discovered yet very likely governing nature, shows the absurdity of it.

Another argument from incredulity. I'd have thought you would know better by now. ;)

 

[ArtGuy]

It's just that it's hard to be really objective on matters where faith is concerned.

Is one being objective if he discounts God, i.e. faith?<snip>

First of all, I apologize if I offended you by calling your objectivity into question. I was stating it more as an objective fact - people are always less objective about matters in which they have a personal stake. I could not be objective about whether or not my wife loves me - I believe this to be the case, and it would take a huge amount of evidence to the contrary before I even considered it, because I would give her the benefit of the doubt for quite awhile.

I would also say that the average Muslim, or Hindu, or Jew has objectivity issues as pertains to their religions. If everybody could be completely objective, I don't think we'd see a large number of organized religions, and I don't think we'd see people who tended to absorb the religions of their parents. We, as a species, are largely unobjective. I am, you are, we all are.

Moving on, as I've stated before, I don't think God is terribly relevant to science. Science doesn't care about God, and the opinions of scientists on religion are beside the point. When we explained the mechanism behind planetary motion, this didn't mean that God didn't have a hand in it. We didn't kick God to the curb and say, "Well, we know that gravity is the culprit here, so God can just vamoose." We just discovered the mechanism by which God moves things around. From the scientist's perspective, maybe God created the laws, or maybe the laws came into being on their own somehow, but that's not important. Scientists care what the laws are, but they don't care who created them. Similarly, God isn't necessary to craft a society with laws that work in the best interests of everyone. While religion may be the source of many laws, it's not necessary to invoke God in order to execute them. In fact, it's better if you don't, because it's easier to justify to a non-Christian why the laws are as they are if you don't have to appeal to God to do so. There's a secular justification for all of the laws we have worth keeping (and most of the laws we have that should be trashed), so why bring in God? It just angers non-believers, and it's unnecessary.

Lastly, my I ask what you believe to be the non-evolutionary old earth explanation for life on Earth? I'm curious as to your belief, here.

 

[reznwerks]

evidence

There is no lack of evidence for a higher power creating nature.

Can you show us the evidence for a higher power other than with a plea of "what else can it be"?

 

[John the Baptist]

Re: evidence

There is no lack of evidence for a higher power creating nature.

Can you show us the evidence for a higher power other than with a plea of "what else can it be"?

******
John here: Yes, surely! But only for myself (see Hebrews 6:4-5's Positives only) & perhaps a few who knew me some 40 years ago? Something like a killer Saul to a Christ LOVING Paul! :fadein: I can assure you that it was not a big bang creation theory, but a REAL Born Again creation.

 

[Klee shay]

So we know that much about DNA to make the assessement above, proof beyond reasonable doubt?

The short answer is yes. Whatever evidence there is, it is far more than making the claims of the alternative solution.

The alternative solution doesn't have to make any claims though. It's relative substance is of faith. You either believe in the written word of God or you don't. God doesn't have to claim to be the creator or that he made the world in 6 days.

On the other hand, Mankind has to prove evolution in it's relative forms in order to give authority to its claims. God doesn't have to prove he is the Alpha and the Omega. You either believe the written word of God or you don't.

We haven't unravelled the mystery of the DNA strand yet to claim any such leap in evolution. At what point do you know the DNA changes a lot in the evolutionary case?

The fact that we do know it changes at all should be sufficient evidence.

A supposed hypothosis is not evidence to prove fact inconclusively. It opens a doorway of possibility and nothing more. It is "possible" that DNA changes a lot in evolution to bring about a leap from animal to human. It is not fact.

I know it is not fact because research on bones thousands/millions of years old has not yet been able to yield enough organic matter to reconstruct a DNA strand, to compare it with the human DNA strands of today.

The term "evolutionary theory" is a worn out and misunderstood term. Evolution occurs and that is a fact. I have provided several instances where evolution has and is occurring during our lifetime and the nail in the coffin is the yearly evolution of the flu bug. What is not totally understood is the process on how and why it occurs. These are answers waiting to be answered not proof of a supernatural being with a plan.

Evolution as a term in scientific circles is not in question here. What is in doubt is whether evolution is responsible for mutating monkies into humans.

There are mountains of scientific facts to back up a hypothisis of such an evolution, but they are yet to prove it as FACT. Therefore the evidience to date is inconclusive.

To suppose I should take the same leap of faith you have to bridge the gap between fact and fantasy, is to suppose the same leap of faith you reject in the creator. :wink: I just thought that was a tad ironic, LOL.

I'm hoping to laugh with you, not at you, so please take my last comment as tongue in cheek.

 

[Drew]

[quote="Klee shay":3b7fb]So we know that much about DNA to make the assessement above, proof beyond reasonable doubt?

The short answer is yes. Whatever evidence there is, it is far more than making the claims of the alternative solution.

The alternative solution doesn't have to make any claims though. It's relative substance is of faith. You either believe in the written word of God or you don't. God doesn't have to claim to be the creator or that he made the world in 6 days.

On the other hand, Mankind has to prove evolution in it's relative forms in order to give authority to its claims. God doesn't have to prove he is the Alpha and the Omega. You either believe the written word of God or you don't.
[/quote:3b7fb]
I must confess that I do not understand this line of thinking. Its really not much of an argument to simply claim that you either "have to believe the written word of God or not". And then, after having set up this rather non-demanding criteria - non-demanding in the sense that all necessity for empirical support is evaded by a direct appeal to faith - you then impose a "you have to prove its true" requirement on the evolutionist.

This does not seem like an "even playing field" to me.

Klee Shay, I believe in the reality of God and that He is at work in the world. So I am probably with you on your overall conclusion, if not your actual reasoning.

 

[Klee shay]

[quote="Klee shay":f498e]So we know that much about DNA to make the assessement above, proof beyond reasonable doubt?

The short answer is yes. Whatever evidence there is, it is far more than making the claims of the alternative solution.

The alternative solution doesn't have to make any claims though. It's relative substance is of faith. You either believe in the written word of God or you don't. God doesn't have to claim to be the creator or that he made the world in 6 days.

On the other hand, Mankind has to prove evolution in it's relative forms in order to give authority to its claims. God doesn't have to prove he is the Alpha and the Omega. You either believe the written word of God or you don't.

I must confess that I do not understand this line of thinking. Its really not much of an argument to simply claim that you either "have to believe the written word of God or not". And then, after having set up this rather non-demanding criteria - non-demanding in the sense that all necessity for empirical support is evaded by a direct appeal to faith - you then impose a "you have to prove its true" requirement on the evolutionist.

This does not seem like an "even playing field" to me.

Klee Shay, I believe in the reality of God and that He is at work in the world. So I am probably with you on your overall conclusion, if not your actual reasoning.[/quote:f498e]

You're certainly keeping me on my toes today Drew...and so you should. :wink: My understanding is not above criticism itself.

When mankind steps down from God's authority however, it's inevitably not going to be an even playing field though is it?

God created mankind and the reason for faith existing in the first place. If mankind wants to invest their faith and understanding of creation, away from God then they have to wear the responsiblity of such a task and that's proving it.

God has proven he has the ability to forgive sins, to heal and to raise mankind from the dead. I will believe humans evolved from monkies when science can prove it beyond reasonable doubt. :wink:

 

[John the Baptist]

"I must confess that I do not understand this line of thinking. Its really not much of an argument to simply claim that you either "have to believe the written word of God or not". And then, after having set up this rather non-demanding criteria - non-demanding in the sense that all necessity for empirical support is evaded by a direct appeal to faith - you then impose a "you have to prove its true" requirement on the evolutionist.

This does not seem like an "even playing field" to me.

Klee Shay, I believe in the reality of God and that He is at work in the world. So I am probably with you on your overall conclusion, if not your actual reasoning."

****
John here:
Faith is interesting huh? Remember that the Hebrews 11:13 ones 'All' died [IN] the Faith.

'God spake and it (Colossians 1:16-17) stood fast' :fadein: And Adam? God created him, how old was he? Man has gotten some rocks from the moon, :wink: yet how [old] was the moon when God created it? (or the universe) Educated created man, huh? :o

It is true that mankind will not truly believe & LOVE God until he is Born Again with these positives seen in Hebrews 6:1-5. But when one surrenders the entire 'will' to the Lord, this will then be an on the spot done deal!

One will question (reason together) with the Creator in study, yet none of these will ever again not believe Him & His Words! If they come to this ending ever again? They will come into the Hebrews 6:6 verse & the finished product of James 1:15. See Davids Psalm 19:13 insight of how the 'Great Transgression' comes about.

 

[reznwerks]

other

uot;] The term "evolutionary theory" is a worn out and misunderstood term. Evolution occurs and that is a fact. I have provided several instances where evolution has and is occurring during our lifetime and the nail in the coffin is the yearly evolution of the flu bug. What is not totally understood is the process on how and why it occurs. These are answers waiting to be answered not proof of a supernatural being with a plan.

Evolution as a term in scientific circles is not in question here. What is in doubt is whether evolution is responsible for mutating monkies into humans.

There are mountains of scientific facts to back up a hypothisis of such an evolution, but they are yet to prove it as FACT. Therefore the evidience to date is inconclusive.

.

I just want to clear one thing up. No one is saying that monkeys or apes evolved into humans. Humans are a species unto themselves like monkeys are like monkeys. Man is a hominoid species of which originally five species existed. The present day man is the only surviving species . So there is no evidence at all that man is decended from monkeys but more than ample evidence that man did in fact evolve as creatures of the ape family.

 

[John the Baptist]

Re: other

uot;] The term "evolutionary theory" is a worn out and misunderstood term. Evolution occurs and that is a fact. I have provided several instances where evolution has and is occurring during our lifetime and the nail in the coffin is the yearly evolution of the flu bug. What is not totally understood is the process on how and why it occurs. These are answers waiting to be answered not proof of a supernatural being with a plan.

Evolution as a term in scientific circles is not in question here. What is in doubt is whether evolution is responsible for mutating monkies into humans.

There are mountains of scientific facts to back up a hypothisis of such an evolution, but they are yet to prove it as FACT. Therefore the evidience to date is inconclusive.

.

I just want to clear one thing up. No one is saying that monkeys or apes evolved into humans. Humans are a species unto themselves like monkeys are like monkeys. Man is a hominoid species of which originally five species existed. The present day man is the only surviving species . So there is no evidence at all that man is decended from monkeys but more than ample evidence that man did in fact evolve as creatures of the ape family.

******
John here: Some times I too, wonder about the 'posts' that I read here? :wink:

 

[Bubba]

"Human Evolution"
by Frank Sherwin, M.S.
Abstract
"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them" (Genesis 1:27).
In a 1979 college textbook on evolution by Ayala and Valentine, the authors assert: "To be sure, both butterflies and humans have descended from a remote common ancestor, most likely a small worm-like marine animal resembling a flatworm." Such a statement is void of empirical evidence, and it must therefore be taken by faith. Scientific research has shown that the origin and complexity of the biological world cannot be explained by neo-Darwinian principles.

Since science is found in science journals and Darwinian explanations are absent, Darwinism is not science (Michael Behe, Commentary, September 1996).

The worldview of the evolutionary community precludes asking if the evolution of man occurred, only how such a strange process occurred. The alternative, creation, is anathema to the naturalist. Therefore the secular community will continue to teachâ€â€as factâ€â€the evolution of man from lower life forms. "To be sure, the possibility of there being humans at all resulted from a process of biological evolution through some billions of years . . ." (G. D. Kaufman, Zygon, June 1997). In the field of anthropology one must work with so few facts and little physical evidence that such dogmatism as the previous quote must also be taken by faith.

What do we know about evolutionary anthropology? In December 1996, one of the world's leading paleoanthropologists and archaeologists, the late Mary Leakey, said: "All those trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense." Nonsense? Taught as fact? At almost the same time as this startling pronouncement, Carl Swisher of the Berkeley Geochronology Center " … published his results and set the world of anthropology on its head" (Newsweek, December 23, 1996). Why? Swisher's discovery places Java Man (H. erectus), in the era of modern humans … and argue(s) against an ancestral relationship" (Macleans Magazine, science section, December 23, 1996). Despite the vigorous damage control undertaken by the evolutionary community, this discovery conflicts with the concept of human evolution.

Much of what we see in evolutionary science magazines and television science programs is artistic speculation. Boyce Rensberger, writing in Science in 1981 states:

Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture. The guesswork approach often leads to errors.

Such a revealing quote is supported by artist John Gurche who said in reference to his work on Australopithecus afarensis in the March, 1996, issue of National Geographic, "I wanted to get a human soul into this apelike face, to indicate something about where he was headed."

We find the track record of human evolution to be dismal:

Ramapithecusâ€â€a pongid or great ape, not a hominid.
Piltdown Manâ€â€greatest paleontological hoax.
Nebraska Manâ€â€extinct pig.
Cro-Magnon Manâ€â€indistinguishable from modern Europeans.
Homo habilisâ€â€In 1992 Dr. Ian Tattersall stated in Evolutionary Anthropology that: " … it is increasingly clear that Homo habilis has become a wastebasket taxon, little more than a convenient recipient for a motley assortment of hominid fossils from the latest Pliocene and earliest Pleistocene...."
Neanderthalsâ€â€Researcher L. A. Yaroch, writing in the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 1996, stated that "the uniqueness of Neanderthals appears to have been exaggerated ... " They were fully human.
Australopithecusâ€â€In a 1995 biology text published by Prentice Hall, the two authors state: "At the present time, scientists cannot agree on how many species of Australopithecus there were or whether or not they were the ancestors of human beings." Perhaps one reason is because they are so apelike. Upright walking that these creatures may have engaged in is hardly reason to speculate that they were on the way to becoming human. The living pygmy chimpanzee walks upright. Australopithecus anamensis of Kenya was discovered in August 1995. However, this creature coexisted "4 m.y. ago" with another "early pre-human species" Ardipithecus ramidus, causing "conflicting interpretations" according to Worldbook Science Year, 1997.
In May 1997, Homo antecessor of Spain was reported. But once again there is a problem according to Science magazine: "But identifying these people as a new species, not to mention claiming them as a key human ancestor, is highly controversial.... What's more, if H. antecessor is indeed the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans, it could bump two other favored contenderâ€â€H. erectus and H. heidelbergensisâ€â€off the main line of descent leading to modern humans.... "

Two months later, Scientific American reported the discovery of Morotopithecus hominoid (the term encompasses the great apes and humans) of Uganda, East Africa. The report went on to say: " ... the jury is still out on the ape from Moroto and its role, if any, in our own genesis."

A 1994 issue of Time magazine said "Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn't fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debated."

Does the new field of molecular anthropology lend support for man's alleged evolutionary past? In his article, "A Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans," Dr. Takahata, writing in the Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1995, stated that: "Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination."

In 1992, Bernard Wood reported in Nature magazine that "it is remarkable that the taxonomy and phylogenetic relationships of the earliest known representatives of our own genus, Homo, remain obscure. Advances in techniques for absolute dating and reassessments of the fossils themselves have rendered untenable a simple unilinear model of human evolution, in which Homo habilis succeeded the australopithecines and then evolved via H. erectus into H. sapiensâ€â€but no clear alternative consensus has yet emerged."

The December 4, 1995 issue of U.S. News & World Report addressed work done by Michael Hammer of the University of Arizona. The article said something that shouldn't come as a surprise to creationists: "We are finding that humans have very, very shallow genetic roots which go back very recently to one ancestor ... that indicates that there was an origin in a specific location on the globe and then it spread out from there ... researchers suggest that virtually all modern men 99.9% of them, says one scientistâ€â€are closely related genetically and share genes with one male ancestor, dubbed Y-chromosome Adam."

Here, then, is human evolution in the '90s: little more than phrases like, "creative imagination," "so few clues," "highly controversial," "conflicting interpretations," "maddeningly sparse," "furious debate," "remain obscure," "not enough fossil records," "(evolutionists) cannot agree." No wonder evolutionists must concoct new theories every time the world of anthropology is "set on its head." As recently as 1995 anthropologist Takahata said: "However, there are not enough fossil records to answer when, where, and how H. sapiens emerged" (author's emphasis). This is an altogether refreshing and incredible admission, especially with the eleven references Takahata lists after this quote! Clearly, such a lack of evidence calls for a non-evolutionary theory. For the time being, however, these evolutionists will continue, as G. K. Chesterson has said in Everlasting Man, to display their chunks of bone as weapons. One can only wonder, and protest, why tax dollars are used to teach impressionable young minds the "fact" of human evolution.

* Mr. Frank Sherwin has an M.A. in zoology and is a speaker for ICR.

 

[Klee shay]

I just want to clear one thing up. No one is saying that monkeys or apes evolved into humans. Humans are a species unto themselves like monkeys are like monkeys. Man is a hominoid species of which originally five species existed. The present day man is the only surviving species . So there is no evidence at all that man is decended from monkeys but more than ample evidence that man did in fact evolve as creatures of the ape family.

Can you spot the contradiction?

Humans are a species unto themselves...

except when...

man did in fact evolve as creatures of the ape family

BUT!

monkeys are like monkeys.

How can mankind be a species unto themselves if as you stated (quite categorically) we evolved from the ape family? The evidence says it does, but what evidence? What evidence marries that we evolved from the ape family and not from the monkies?

 

[Novum]

I admit that I am honestly surprised when I see people doubt evolution. All of biology is built around the conclusion that not only has evolution happened, but that it continues to happen.

Though, to be fair, I imagine there are some people on these forums who believe the exact opposite.

 

[reznwerks]

contradictions

I just want to clear one thing up. No one is saying that monkeys or apes evolved into humans. Humans are a species unto themselves like monkeys are like monkeys. Man is a hominoid species of which originally five species existed. The present day man is the only surviving species . So there is no evidence at all that man is decended from monkeys but more than ample evidence that man did in fact evolve as creatures of the ape family.

Can you spot the contradiction?
There is no contradiction, only a failure to understand.

Humans are a species unto themselves...

Correct. Monkeys are monkeys, apes are apes, orangatan are orangatans and man is man. They are all of the same family but different.

except when...

man did in fact evolve as creatures of the ape family

[b[ Correct again. Mans developement or evolution is strongly evident in what has been found.[/b]

BUT!

monkeys are like monkeys.

Still no contradiction.

How can mankind be a species unto themselves if as you stated (quite categorically) we evolved from the ape family?
We are part of the ape family. Grizzly bears polar bears, brown bears are all of he same family but different. Robins, eagles, blackbirds are all of the same family but different.

The evidence says it does, but what evidence? What evidence marries that we evolved from the ape family and not from the monkies?
You are still not getting it. Man lived alongside apes and monkeys at one time. I don't know how else to explain it to you. Lets hypothetically go back a million years and assume their is a book that show pictures of animals. In this book you will see pictures of apes , monkeys and man.

 

[Klee shay]

We are part of the ape family.

So mankind says...

Man lived alongside apes and monkeys at one time.

We still do; only with a few more moblile phones, cars and sky scrapers. I guess that still makes us neighbours.

Oops! I mean...family? :

Lets hypothetically go back a million years and assume their is a book that show pictures of animals. In this book you will see pictures of apes , monkeys and man.

Who can argue with pictures? :

So I'm off to do a murial of my dog, two cats and four birds now so that future generations can see my family and call us all "related". :wink:

 

[Novum]

We are part of the ape family.

So mankind says...

Man lived alongside apes and monkeys at one time.

We still do; only with a few more moblile phones, cars and sky scrapers. I guess that still makes us neighbours.

Oops! I mean...family? :

Lets hypothetically go back a million years and assume their is a book that show pictures of animals. In this book you will see pictures of apes , monkeys and man.

Who can argue with pictures? :

So I'm off to do a murial of my dog, two cats and four birds now so that future generations can see my family and call us all "related". :wink:

Argument from incredulity. I respect you Klee shay, and I think you should know better. All the complaining and whining in the world doesn't move the mountains of evidence for evolution, and specifically, our evolution. ;)

 

[Klee shay]

Argument from incredulity. I respect you Klee shay, and I think you should know better.

I respect you too Novum :D and yes I should know better. The picture book with mankind, monkeys and apes living side by side as family however, was worthy of an equally incredulous argument. :wink:

All the complaining and whining in the world doesn't move the mountains of evidence for evolution, and specifically, our evolution.

If by moutains of evidence you mean "hypothetical" story books; then as a fellow skeptic you will understand if I'm not entirely convinced. What mountains of evidence do you believe points to our linkage with the ape family?