The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

I took the report to be of an email that promoted an anti-creationist meeting (you read anti-threat-to-science-education).

The persecution by the evolutionists I am referring to is of the Christian scientists, not of the ordinary Christians.

Well, specifically of Creationist scientists, although I appreciate the PR need to broaden it out, the narrow Creationist definition of Christian and, of course, their conversely broad definition of scientist.

amused,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

But is it so? Are there no other explanations for a young age and a vast distance light covers?

Well there can be explanations for anything, particularly when people are dealing with the supernatural.

The question you should be asking is are there scientific theories (models) that have tested and appear accurate, that include or support the young age.

wolfsbane wrote: »

An old universe is not apparent - it is inferential, based upon the idea that the speed of light is the determining factor in calculating the age of the universe.

Yes, though I'm not sure what you mean by "not apparent". That is how it is apparent. The universe is very big. The speed of light has an upper bounds. We can see far into the universe. Therefore it is apparent that the universe is old. It might not be old, but so far Creationists have not put forward much of a reason to believe it isn't, and the models where it is work perfectly well at predicting things.

If one removes the need to make nature appear to fit with your interpretation of the Bible, is there much reason to reject this?

wolfsbane wrote: »

They meant the common cosmological view held by evolutionists.

Why would anyone care what cosmological view evolutionary biologists hold? Evolutionary biology has nothing to do with cosmology.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I said, an inference.

Everything in science is, at the end of the day, inference Wolfsbane, given that science deals with theoretical models, not the real world, as bonkey has explained.

I'm not quite sure why you keep saying this as if it is some how a flaw in the idea that the universe is old.

The assertion that if you throw something out a window on Earth it will fall at 9.8m/s^2 is an inference based on the current models of gravity which appear to be accurate, at least to a point.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to the constancy of the speed of light, that is one avenue of thought, with time another, as your ref. pointed out:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/cosmology.asp

Avenues of thought are kind of irrelevant. They don't fall into science, as the 5th category of explanations, "Mystery and miracles!" demonstrates. It is easy to propose what you think might have happened, as the author does

"I propose a new model of type 3. During Creation Week, all clocks on Earth, at least up to Day 4, ran at about 10–13 times the rate of astronomical clocks."

It is quite a different matter to put this into a scientific theory and demonstrate that it is accurate through observation and prediction. The author is simply putting in numbers into a maths equation until he gets something that can match the Bible, or at least his interpretation of the Bible.

Ekancone

Creation Science made easy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO7IT81h200

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thank you for taking the trouble to explain this again. Yes, I see the point you are making. It's just that I never picked up on it before - only models are scientific, the interpretations based on them are not. Is that correct?

On the assumption you're not going to use you're rewording to try and change the meaning of what I've been saying....yes. thats more-or-less correct.

But don't you think most of the evolutionist sites ignore your definition?

I do wish you'd get over this fixation with evolution. I would agree that "pop-science", or science-presented-to-the-public, regardless of what scientific topic is being discussed, does not delve into the finer distinctions that we are discussing here. For example, I don't expect every single presentation of scientific thought to carefully explain that what is presented as "truth" is no such thing. I don't expect them to explain before everything they say that science may refine its models because thats what science involves.

One need only look at the amount of rubbish being spouted by the likes of some opponents of global warming...that science can't predict tomorrow's weather, so how can they predict it in 100 years....or that because our models aren't 100% perfect and are continuously being improved we can have no faith in them.

Seriously....we're over 10,000 posts and who-knows-how-many iterations of explaining that science is not a description of what is, and its only now that you say you've never realised that science is not a description of what is. And yet, you seem to fault popular science websites for not labouring this point (who knows how many times....before each paragraph, perhaps?) on top of what it is they want to present. Or maybe they shouldn't present stuff in readable form at all. maybe you'd prefer if it wasn't dumbed down for the public, but was left only in scientific language, and scientists only ever discussed it using such language.

Be a bit like if the bible was never translated, and never discussed except in whatever languages the original texts are in, and the public were simply told that...well...actually we couldn't really be told anything other than to go and learn those ancient languages.

If that response doesn't satisfy you, then consider this...

There are no end of people who have posted to this forum with arguments basically boiling down to "if we take this bit of the bible completely literally, its nuts". Why aren't you one of them? Why do you understand that the wording in certain parts of the bible needs to be considered for its truth to become evident....but then read anything to do with specific scientific fields purely and solely literally, looking for the same "literal==crazy" type of meaning?

Is the bible not only inerrant, but the only work where one must understand some of the context in order to comprehend the proper message?

Is it so inconceivable to you that when scientists dumb their work down for the average layman to understand, that they perforce sacrifice some degree of strict accuracy?

When's the last time you heard of any scientist throwing his hands up in despair at some new scientific discovery, proclaiming that he was horrified that what was previously held to be true was suddently a pack of lies, and that nothing in science can mean anything? And yet, this very argument has been presented here as well as countless others that one will never see in the scientific world, simply because scientists understand the frameworks that define their craft without the need to go into it time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.....something we seem incapable of here.

Even in this thread, our anti-creationists friends have claimed to be offering scientific argument when they advanced interpretations of the evidence/models. JC and I have accepted such argument as scientific (albeit mistaken).

Thats an excellent point. JC has indeed accepted such arguments as scientific and has based his own arguments on the same (mistaken) basis....but he (unlike you) claims to be a scientist.

And those so-called creationist scientists that you put so much faith in....they too seem to be confusing the model and the interpretation of it.

Why is that? Why are they not applying their scientific learning to explain to the public (as I have been trying to do here) that science does not claim to be an explanation of what is...and rather have chosen to attack the scientific model on the false premise that it does exactly that?

Do they not realise they are attacking a false premise, and if not, what does that say about their scientific learning?
Worse...if they do realise they are attacking a false premise...what does that say about the honesty of their argument?

Maybe I'm just wrong. After all, I'm no more a scientist than you are.

*** Would each scientist here please indicate if bonkey is correct in his definition? ***

Excellent idea. Why don't we let JC go first. After all, it would be too easy for those "on my side" (so to speak) to just nod and agree with the broad argument that I've made here and in previous posts.

JC, on the other hand, almost certainly must disagree with me, and as far as I'm aware, he's the only poster here claiming to be a scientist who is also supporting creationism.

He has to disagree with me, or else it raises the questions I've posed above about his understanding of science or the honesty of his argument. I'm looking forward to his explanation as to how the likes of Feynman simply didn't understand the fundamentals of science.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here is the letter that The Times chose not to run (just as it did not do when we submitted a letter a few months ago after a Times’ guest writer outlandishly claimed that AiG believes a person had to believe in a literal Genesis to be a Christian!).

Seeing AiG regularly disagree with reality is fun, but it's much more enjoyable to see them disagree with themselves:

Gish wrote:

Yes, one can be a Christian and an evolutionist, but such a position is both scientifically and biblically untenable. The Lord Jesus took a literal view of Genesis. The theory of evolution is dishonouring to God as Creator, and its teaching leads to a disastrous secularizing of society.

...from which appearance on AiG's website, I think it's fair to assume assume that it's a rather less "outlandish" view amongst his colleagues in Kentucky than Looy believes.

You'd have thought that at this stage of the game, that AiG would have worked out, and been able to remember, what on earth a "christian" is!

robindch

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, specifically of Creationist scientists, although I appreciate the PR need to broaden it out, the narrow Creationist definition of Christian and, of course, their conversely broad definition of scientist.

...a definition of "scientist" which ID-advocate Dr Behe -- a creationist with faculty tenure, of all things -- was forced to admit in the Dover trial, would have to be broadened to support the inclusion of astrology as a "science".

Funny that creationists don't bang on about prejudice against astrologers amongst the world's astronomy departments.

bonkey

robindch wrote: »

...a definition of "scientist" which ID-advocate Dr Behe -- a creationist with faculty tenure, of all things -- was forced to admit in the Dover trial, would have to be broadened to support the inclusion of astrology as a "science".

Funny that creationists don't bang on about prejudice against astrologers amongst the world's astronomy departments.

I believe it was both astrology and witchcraft....just in the interests of accuracy

Zombrex

daithifleming wrote: »

Creation Science made easy

Excellent video

MooseJam

Am I actually the life form or are genes the life form, lots of genes got together and in doing so creating me, me being like the shell of a snail, the snail is the life form not the shell ?

Tomk1

Wicknight wrote: »

Excellent video

Agree: what is the user name?

bonkey

MooseJam wrote: »

Am I actually the life form or are genes the life form, lots of genes got together and in doing so creating me, me being like the shell of a snail, the snail is the life form not the shell ?

That would be heading into philosophical territory.

Ekancone

Tomk1 wrote: »

Agree: what is the user name?

http://ie.youtube.com/user/potholer54

JimiTime

It has been stated here on a few ocasions, that evolution is the basis of most modern medicine. Can i ask specifically, how is this? Does this mean that medicine is based on knowing that we all evolved from 1 cell creatures into fish, amphibians etc etc. Or is it that its based on knowing the process of adaption and mutation etc? Basically, can anyone qualify the statement. Cheers.
J.

Ekancone

JimiTime wrote: »

It has been stated here on a few ocasions, that evolution is the basis of most modern medicine. Can i ask specifically, how is this? Does this mean that medicine is based on knowing that we all evolved from 1 cell creatures into fish, amphibians etc etc. Or is it that its based on knowing the process of adaption and mutation etc? Basically, can anyone qualify the statement. Cheers.
J.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/relevance/IA1antibiotics.shtml

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

[/B] I mean that you STILL haven't provided an explanation of how Spontaneous Evolution could be scientifically falsified.

Spontaneous Evolution is, I assume, your term for abiogenesis plus evolution? Is it both that you discount or just the combination?

Abiogenesis is difficult for us to test directly- perhaps there is a way- but nobody here has ever called abiogenesis a theory and it is not integral to the Theory of Evolution any more than the Big Bang is. It is certainly something that would be very interesting to develop tests for... I'll give that some thought and return to it again.

Evolution itself has been demonstrated on very short time scales under controlled conditions countless times. It could be falsified by demonstrating the emergence of a species (or even a subspecies or strain- which would allow us to do the experiment over a timescale more like years rather than thousands of years) without the influence of the evolutionary mechanism. This has never been demonstrated and so, to date, the theory holds.

J C wrote: »

Evolution can be falsified by Creation Science and ID.....
........and these sciences are not just "hypothetical valid alternatives".......they are ACTUAL valid REPLACEMENTS for Spontaneous Evolution!!!!

At best, ID and Creationism are philosphical alternatives to abiogenesis. That said, I doubt modern philosophers would be any more willing to accept those notions than scientists are. Since ID and creationism don't proceed from testable initial assumptions, they are not valid scientific alternatives to anything.

JimiTime

daithifleming wrote: »

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/relevance/IA1antibiotics.shtml

Cheers Daithi. Please excuse my ignorance, but this seems to be talking about adaptation, resistance building etc. If one believes that adaptation etc can occur, does one have to accept the process that humanity formed from one cell - fish - amphibians etc?

2Scoops

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Evolution itself has been demonstrated on very short time scales under controlled conditions countless times. It could be falsified by demonstrating the emergence of a species (or even a subspecies or strain- which would allow us to do the experiment over a timescale more like years rather than thousands of years) without the influence of the evolutionary mechanism. This has never been demonstrated and so, to date, the theory holds.

Nope - it would only support the existence of a credible alternative...

Falsifying evolution would need to show that the putative "evolutionary mechanisms" do not exist! And that would be very easy to do... if they didn't exist. :pac: C'mon scientists who are creationists, get cracking!

AtomicHorror

Anyone up for some thought-experimentation? Let's think about abiogenesis and how it might be appropriately tested. Then we can decide whether the research done on the topic to date really tests the hypothesis, and whether it has been strengthened. So far as I'm aware at the moment, earth origin abiogenesis is still best described as a hypothesis (though perhaps it is a strong one) due to our limited observations.

A scientific hypothesis must be testable (Popper says we must be more rigorous still- his hypothesis would need to be falsifiable). So we first state our hypothesis in the most basic possible terms.

How about this:

Life arose on Earth from reactions between various forms of non-living, native matter.

To test or falsify this hypothesis, we would probably need to break it down further. We would need to set out what the implications of this hypothesis would be, were it correct, and test those.

To get the ball rolling, we can already lay to rest the first and most obvious implication. If the hypothesis is correct, we would need to be able to demonstrate that life, composed of native matter, existed on Earth at some point in its history. We can tick that one off our list, however this implication may also satisfy rival hypotheses such as the panspermia hypothesis. We need more implications that may be tested or falsified by observation. So, I'd invite other posters to suggest ways we could either directly test the hypothesis or test its implications.

AtomicHorror

2Scoops wrote: »

Nope - it would only support the existence of a credible alternative...

Well, it would falsify the hypothesis that evolution is the cause of all observed species on Earth. That would probably satisfy the creationists.

2Scoops wrote: »

Falsifying evolution would need to show that the putative "evolutionary mechanisms" do not exist! And that would be very easy to do... if they didn't exist. :pac: C'mon scientists who are creationists, get cracking!

The mechanisms in question are:

1) Natural selection
2) Gene flow
3) Genetic drift

Since all three have been directly observed, that does indeed make it rather tricky to prove their non-existence.

2Scoops

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Well, it would falsify the hypothesis that evolution is the cause of all observed species on Earth. That would probably satisfy the creationists.

Ha! Creationists are satisfied by far, far less. :pac:

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Since all three have been directly observed, that does indeed make it rather tricky to prove their non-existence.

That's why scientists who are creationists shy away from actual science (we're still waiting for a single instance of an actual practicing creation scientist :eek:) and deal exclusively with hyperbole and wild speculation.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Cheers Daithi. Please excuse my ignorance, but this seems to be talking about adaptation, resistance building etc. If one believes that adaptation etc can occur, does one have to accept the process that humanity formed from one cell - fish - amphibians etc?

The adaptation of bactria is support for the model of neo-Darwinian evolution, in that the model predicts and models quite accurately how and why this would happen. There is lots more support for this model, to the point where we can say the model is highly accurate at providing a modeling of what did happen and what is still happening in the biological world around us, at least on the observable Earth (it is possible that life on either other planets or on undiscovered part of Earth develop and grow using a different system to Darwinian evolution).

The model could be nothing at all like what actually happened or what is actually happening, but if that is the case the question becomes how come this model appears to match and predict what we observe so well.

At the end of the day, despite all the bluster Creationist have about the purpose of evolution and science being to tell people God does exist, the purpose of science (including evolution) is to produce accurate models because it is only when these models are accurate can they actually be used for something useful, such as medicine or landing a man on the moon or building a computer.

And inaccurate model, or a false model, is useless. Science has no interest in producing inaccurate or false models because they can't be used for anything and they don't explain anything.

Ekancone

JimiTime wrote: »

Cheers Daithi. Please excuse my ignorance, but this seems to be talking about adaptation, resistance building etc. If one believes that adaptation etc can occur, does one have to accept the process that humanity formed from one cell - fish - amphibians etc?

I think you need to get your mind off of the micro/macro divide, because one doesn't exist. It is all micro, or adaptation as you call it. Of course we are never going to see bacteria evolve into more complex organisms right in from of our eyes, because this process takes millions, if not billions of years. But of course you don't need to see this occurring to believe its true any more than you need to see a murder take place before you find the suspect guilty. What you look at is the evidence (fossil record, DNA, etc) involved and make your decision based on that, just like a court of law does. If you want to know about the evidence for evolution I suggest you but a book on the subject, because there is only so much one can relay on a forum. Here is a video to give you a quick synopsis anyway:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4

In addition, this may help answer your queries:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU

But if you want to go further than this, I recommend a book on evolution. One that was written within the last 25 years.

Scofflaw

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Anyone up for some thought-experimentation? Let's think about abiogenesis and how it might be appropriately tested. Then we can decide whether the research done on the topic to date really tests the hypothesis, and whether it has been strengthened. So far as I'm aware at the moment, earth origin abiogenesis is still best described as a hypothesis (though perhaps it is a strong one) due to our limited observations.

A scientific hypothesis must be testable (Popper says we must be more rigorous still- his hypothesis would need to be falsifiable). So we first state our hypothesis in the most basic possible terms.

How about this:

Life arose on Earth from reactions between various forms of non-living, native matter.

To test or falsify this hypothesis, we would probably need to break it down further. We would need to set out what the implications of this hypothesis would be, were it correct, and test those.

To get the ball rolling, we can already lay to rest the first and most obvious implication. If the hypothesis is correct, we would need to be able to demonstrate that life, composed of native matter, existed on Earth at some point in its history. We can tick that one off our list, however this implication may also satisfy rival hypotheses such as the panspermia hypothesis. We need more implications that may be tested or falsified by observation. So, I'd invite other posters to suggest ways we could either directly test the hypothesis or test its implications.

Hmm. Implications:

1. that life can arise from reactions between various forms of non-living, native matter

2. that life can be described in terms of reactions between various forms of non-living, native matter

These are testable, I think - the Life 2.0 projects certainly haven't turned out to require any mysterious "added ingredient" yet.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

daithifleming wrote: »

I think you need to get your mind off of the micro/macro divide, because one doesn't exist. It is all micro, or adaptation as you call it.

Thanks for the links etc, i'll watch them when i get the chance. As for this Micro/macro thing. If we leave out those particular terms, so as not to invoke the prejudices attached. Coming back to my original question. Does one 'have' to accept that the evolution of man occurred from one cell - fish etc, to accept that evolution occurs? Or is it 'reasonable' to say that you believe that this adaptation occurs, however you reject the idea that this adaptation has lead us to where we are over billions of years? i understand, you may disagree with such a stance, but could it be demed a reasonable stance?

2Scoops

Scofflaw wrote: »

These are testable, I think - the Life 2.0 projects certainly haven't turned out to require any mysterious "added ingredient" yet.

What are the Life 2.0 projects? I tried googling but all I got was a bunch of rubbish on Second Life the computer game. :rolleyes:

Incidentally, why is ;rolleyes; now a cyclops??

Asiaprod

2Scoops wrote: »

Incidentally, why is ;rolleyes; now a cyclops??

It either evolved naturally, or it was part of a created plan:D

*could not resist that opportunity *

Ekancone

JimiTime wrote: »

Is it 'reasonable' to say that you believe that this adaptation occurs, however you reject the idea that this adaptation has lead us to where we are over billions of years? i understand, you may disagree with such a stance, but could it be deemed a reasonable stance?

It would mean that you would simply have to ignore the evidence that doesn't suit your belief of what evolution means, and that just not very scientific. Its like the judge in a court case starting off with the belief that the defendant is innocent of murder, and disregarding any evidence to the contrary. Science is not a democracy, its a never-ending, yet always progressing court case.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Or is it 'reasonable' to say that you believe that this adaptation occurs, however you reject the idea that this adaptation has lead us to where we are over billions of years? i understand, you may disagree with such a stance, but could it be demed a reasonable stance?

How reasonable it is depends on why you are saying that in the first place.

Do you (as in the theoretical person in this example, not you specifically) reject the model of how life developed on Earth because it has been demonstrated inaccurate or false? Or is it for some other reason, such as religious conviction. If it is something like religious conviction then from a scientific point of view that is not reasonable.

There is nothing that says all or part of the evolution model can't be wrong. In fact to be considered a good scientific theory it must be possible that all or part of the model is wrong. The question becomes on what basis do people say the model is accurate or inaccurate, right or wrong.

bonkey

JimiTime wrote: »

Coming back to my original question. Does one 'have' to accept that the evolution of man occurred from one cell - fish etc, to accept that evolution occurs?

No. You don't have to accept at all.

Or is it 'reasonable' to say that you believe that this adaptation occurs, however you reject the idea that this adaptation has lead us to where we are over billions of years?

I know I'm being picky here, but that question isn't an "or" following from the first one. Its not a case that either you have to believe A, or that its reasonable to believe B. It can be the case that you don't have to believe A and that its still not reasonable to believe B.

This is a degree of misdirection (deliberate or unintentional, it matters not) which one sees all to often in the whole Christian-Creationist / Evolution debate. It is not the case that rejecting one makes the other more reasonable until one can show that this is the case.

But lest I digress too far from the point....your question still merits an answer.

I am going to assume that we are disussing this scientifically. In other words, I am assuming that the question is whether or not it is reasonable from a scientific point of view to accept the observations and the immediate conclusions from them, but not to accept the more generalised picture.

I make this assumption (should anyone care) because once we are not talking scientifically, then the question of what constitutes "reasonable belief" must be answered before we can address the question at all.

So...

Let me try and explain it with a non-scientific analagy (albeit a mathematical one)

Imagine I have a set of data points which we can plot in an X, Y plane. With one point, there is no perceivable trend. I can draw any line...straight or curved which passes through that point, and it is a perfect fit for the data.

With two points, I can draw one, and only one straight line that passes through the points, but any number of curved lines (the simplest of which is defined as having a single curve). No matter how many data points we add after this, there is always an infinite number of curves which will fit the data.

Mathematically, we tend to try and find the simplest fit to the data. When we move from pure mathematics to actual real-world data, there are techniques for finding the "best fit" line...the one that the data on average lies closest to.

So lets imagine we have some data, and it lies in-and-around the following points : (1, 1), (2, 2), (3, 3). By in-and-around, I mean that it might be (1.1, 1.05) and (2.05, 2.1) and so forth. Allowing for small inaccuracies, it would appear that a simple X=Y line is going to be a pretty good fit.

SO we have that data and predict that if we could find data with X somewhere out around 100, we'd expect Y to be around 100 as well. We find that data somwhow, and our predition is shown to be correct. Score! We make further predictions, to the effect that X=1027 will have Y somewhere around 1027 as well. And so on. Over time, we build up more and more and more data points, and those points all agree that within small margins of error, Y=X is a good fit.

So then, someone says "But that measn that if Y = 1000000000, you're suggesting that X will be around 1000000000". Thats just crazy".

Why is it crazy?

Lets remember that at the outset, I acknowledged that there are always an infinite number of lines which fit any given data set....so I'm admitting that there's an infinite number of equations (lets call them 'models') to fit my data (lets call the data 'observations'). Is it reasonable to reject the implication that at some point, my model will break, even though all the observations (and successful predictions thus far) point towards the prediction being accurate?

Well, I guess it depends on your definition of reasonability

There is absolutely no guarantee that the prediction will hold true, but in the absence of data which gives us a clear reason to doubt it, then we should accept it as our current "best guess"....our currend prediction....the implications of our current model.

Now, if at some point, someone makes a series of observations where X lies between (say) 1000000 and 2000000, but where Y fairly-constantly lies around 1000000, then we've discovered that our model is almost certainly wrong. At that point (assuming we can verify observations are valid and honest) it is not just reasonable to reject our previous prediction, it is all-but-required.

When people discuss something like evolution, its all too easy to forget that we're talking about a field which has been the life study of literally untold numbers of people, and the model we see today has been built up, improved and honed, time after time, and is constantly being improved. We've arrived at the point where we can say with relative surity that if its not the equivalent of X=Y, its the equivalent of something between X=.99999999Y and X=1.00000001Y. Its still just a model and it can still be shown to be wrong....but there's a massive amount of data which fits the model, and a massive amount of predictions which the model has made which habe subsequently shown to be accurate.

i understand, you may disagree with such a stance, but could it be demed a reasonable stance?

Scientifically, no it couldn't...for reasons I hope should be clear from teh above.

I would, however, only state that I disagree such a stance is reasonable from a scientific perspective.

If someone wants to say that its all well and good to talk about X and Y, but in the real world things aren't always what they appear to be, I'll agree 100%. Things aren't always what they appear to be. Science is predicting what the appearance is....not claiming to explain what the reality underlying that appearance is.

Getting back, though, to something I said earlier...once we decide that its reasonable to choose one of the other infinity of possibilities on non-scientific grounds, we should (I believe) be obliged to accept that it is equally reasonable to accept any of the other infinity of possibilities on non-scientific grounds.

It is not A or B....it is A or anything-that-is-not-A. If its not the straight-line of best fit, then why does one of the of curves which fit the data have precedence over the remaining infinity of curve?

JimiTime

^^ Cheers for that bonkey. You alluded to the fact that the current evolution model has shown to be accurate in its predicting. In relation to the evolution of man, from one cell -fish etc, what has it accurately predicted, and how has this been shown?