The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

monosharp

man of faith wrote: »

Ian McCormack (Ex Atheist):
http://www.aglimpseofeternity.org/

Brian Melvin. Apparantly this is very good for atheists to watch as Brian used to be a militant ex-atheist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piHZkKFdsFc&feature=related

Nice money making idea to be honest. Might try that if the recession continues, I wonder if I add in some Alien stuff to my story can I get UFO nerds and religious nuts to give me money.

What do you think of this ?

I was a militant atheist/skeptic until one night after committing several sins (lets call them Whiskey and Fiona) I was driving home when suddenly I hit a tree. I woke up covered in blood and there was a little green (grey is better ?) man praying over me. He explained to me that on his planet everyone worships the one true god and ... well basically everyone has to give me money and buy my overpriced rubbish books or god and the aliens will be angry.

Can I prove that these man actually died?
Answer: No. It doesn't mean it didn't happen and that there is no proof available.

I don't care if they did or they didn't. I don't care if they believe what they are saying or its a scam. It makes no difference to me whatsoever.

Watch it and decide whether or not you believe them to be telling the truth.

I'm not religious, I don't follow other peoples 'experiences' or magical nonsense.

If you instantly assume that is all lies, then you are not viewing it with an open mind.

Heres a video of a mermaid caught off the coast of Russia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tfTMjYsS-U

You would be taking a completely biased view without even giving it a chance.

I agree.

Heres a video proving 100% that aliens are real and want to get jiggy with us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUDSZGbCKHQ

If you don't believe it your closed minded.

There would have to be medical records to back up what they are claiming.

Which proves they died. So what ?

If you contacted them or researched it, I'm sure you would be able to find it, as it would of undoubtedly been requested before.

Heres a message forum discussing dozens of near death experiences where people met Allah and they saved them. Therefore proving 100% that Allah and Islam is the one true god and religion.

Or are you going to be so close minded and ignore all these 100% proven truths ?

monosharp

man of faith wrote: »

You need to redirect your question to a geological expert, he carries more weight than me.

But the 99% of geological scientists who consider the flood ridiculous and the age of the Earth as 6000 years old laughable are wrong because you know much more then them right ?

I'm just an observer like you, and I certainly don't claim to be an ultra intelligent scientist.

But you claim they are all wrong.

But I do consider myself to be a competent and intelligent observer of the facts.

:rolleyes: You've proven you can't even understand the argument from your own side, you've proven you can't understand the basics of evolution.

i.e > You've proven you are not a competent or intelligent observer.

From what I can see, they have evidence that is extremely compelling such as The Grand Canyon.

Oh please do tell us, I am ever so excited to find out what geologists have been wrong about for hundreds of years.

I almost feel it is a futile discussion, as whatever I present to you, you're just gonna come back with an evolutionist biased argument as to why I've got it completely wrong or whatever.

And the Christian/muslim or any other geologists with an ounce of credibility who disagree with this childish nonsense are .... lying ?

How on earth can evolution explain this? They say the messaging system of dna is on three dimensions. Look it up if you don't believe me.

So ? We have a naturalist explanation for DNA, we can test and prove this in a lab. Or does god stick his hand into the test tubes every time scientists run an experiment ?

If you want flood evidence, here is some stuff on the grand canyons:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp

Oh look, a fairytale which 99% of geologists regard as complete nonsense.

Why are they wrong and your website right ?

Turtwig

Ehh mono, bad weekend?:)

monosharp

Malty_T wrote: »

Ehh mono, bad weekend?:)

Why do you say that Malty ?

chozometroid

I don't feel like wading through this huge thread. Can a kind atheist (monosharp? lol) point me to where a naturalist explanation for DNA was given?

Could I have a response to this article: http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp The article is a bit dated, so it should be easy for an intelligent atheist to refute.
(the following is just an excerpt)

http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp wrote:

Efforts to correlate evolution with changes in gene frequencies, however, have not been very successful. Detailed studies at the molecular level fail to demonstrate the expected correspondence between changes in gene products and the sorts of organismal changes which constitute the “stuff of evolution.” (Lewontin, 1974, p. 160). According to Rudolf Raff and Thomas Kaufman, evolution by DNA mutations “is largely uncoupled from morphological evolution;” the “most spectacular” example of this is the morphological dissimilarity of humans and chimpanzees despite a 99% similarity in their DNA. (Raff and Kaufman, 1983, pp. 67, 78).

Some biologists have proposed that the remaining 1% consists of “regulatory genes” which have such profound effects on development that a few mutations in them could account for dramatic differences. For example, mutations in homeotic genes can transform a fly’s antenna into a leg, or produce two pairs of wings where there would normally be only one, or cause eyes to develop on a fly’s leg. Furthermore, genes similar to the homeotic genes of flies have been found in most other types of animals, including mammals. Based on the profound developmental effects and almost universal occurrence of such genes, biologist Eric Davidson and his colleagues recently wrote that “novel morphological forms in animal evolution result from changes in genetically encoded programs of developmental regulation.” (Davidson et al., 1995, p. 1319)

According to this view, homologous features are programmed by similar genes. Assuming that genes with similar sequences are unlikely to originate independently through random mutations, sequence similarity would indicate common ancestry. Features produced by similar sequences could then be inferred to be phylogenetically homologous. The very universality of homeotic genes, however, raises a serious problem for this view. Although mice have a gene very similar to the one that can transform a fly’s antenna into a leg (Antennapedia), mice do not have antennae, and their corresponding gene affects the hindbrain; and although mice and flies share a similar gene which affects eye development (eyeless), the fly’s multifaceted eye is profoundly different from a mouse’s camera-like eye. In both cases (Antennapedia and eyeless), similar homeotic genes affect the development of structures which are non-homologous by either the classical morphological definition or the post-Darwinian phylogenetic definition. If similar genes can “determine” such radically different structures, then those genes aren’t really determining structure at all. Instead, they appear to be functioning as binary switches between alternate developmental fates, with the information for the resulting structures residing elsewhere. (Wells, 1996)

Turtwig

monosharp wrote: »

Why do you say that Malty ?

Just the tone I seem to be getting from your post .

So give it about 100 years and we'll be smarter then god. Nice.

Oh please save me.

I don't care if they did or they didn't. I don't care if they believe what they are saying or its a scam. It makes no difference to me whatsoever.

I'm not religious, I don't follow other peoples 'experiences' or magical nonsense.

Oh please do tell us, I am ever so excited to find out what geologists have been wrong about for hundreds of years.

Oh look, a fairytale which 99% of geologists regard as complete nonsense.

Edit : Ahh Chozo, not you too

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

I don't feel like wading through this huge thread. Can a kind atheist (monosharp? lol) point me to where a naturalist explanation for DNA was given?

I haven't been on this thread for that long so I won't link a post but link external sites.

Wiki is pretty accurate and gives a good explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

Or is this unsatisfactory ?

Efforts to correlate evolution with changes in gene frequencies, however, have not been very successful. Detailed studies at the molecular level fail to demonstrate the expected correspondence between changes in gene products and the sorts of organismal changes which constitute the “stuff of evolution.” (Lewontin, 1974, p. 160). According to Rudolf Raff and Thomas Kaufman, evolution by DNA mutations “is largely uncoupled from morphological evolution;” the “most spectacular” example of this is the morphological dissimilarity of humans and chimpanzees despite a 99% similarity in their DNA. (Raff and Kaufman, 1983, pp. 67, 78).

Whats the problem here ? we are very similar to chimpanzees.

And by the way your papers 99% is wrong, depending of course on what you consider important genetic information.

Chimpanzees DNA is approximately 94% - 96% the same as homo sapiens when you take into account all of the genetic information.

There is many aspects to DNA. For just one example, all DNA contains what biologists term 'junk DNA' which as far as we know serves no purpose. Some of this just DNA has been deleted in organisms without any ill effects of changes to the organisms so scientists don't know what its function is/was, if any.

Many different organisms have genomes much much larger then humans, does this mean they are more evolved/better ? :pac:

Heres a good layman's article which goes into explaining the numbers.

Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens share about 99.5% of their DNA, do you have an issue with that ? Or are you one of those people who think neanderthal fossils were just old people with a bad case of arthritis and some kind of genetic disorder ?

According to this view, homologous features are programmed by similar genes. Assuming that genes with similar sequences are unlikely to originate independently through random mutations, sequence similarity would indicate common ancestry.

uh huh

I think your trying to point out that we don't know everything about DNA, of course we don't. We never said we did, we know relatively little about it.

Does that mean we should insert a deity into the parts we don't know ?

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Could I have a response to this article: http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp The article is a bit dated, so it should be easy for an intelligent atheist to refute.
(the following is just an excerpt)

Well's article can be summed by

Homology may or may not be due to inheritance from a common ancestor, but it is definitely not due to similarity of genes or similarity of developmental pathways.

Which is basically just not true. He then takes that conclusion to say that evolution has not demonstrated that life is "undesigned" and then jumps to the conclusion that we should be looking for non-natural explanations for homology

It is quite unscientific nonsense, similar to the ID argument of irreducible complexity (ie we can't figure out how they evolved therefore it couldn't have)

chozometroid

monosharp wrote: »

I haven't been on this thread for that long so I won't link a post but link external sites.

Wiki is pretty accurate and gives a good explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

Or is this unsatisfactory ?



Whats the problem here ? we are very similar to chimpanzees.

And by the way your papers 99% is wrong, depending of course on what you consider important genetic information.

Chimpanzees DNA is approximately 94% - 96% the same as homo sapiens when you take into account all of the genetic information.

There is many aspects to DNA. For just one example, all DNA contains what biologists term 'junk DNA' which as far as we know serves no purpose. Some of this just DNA has been deleted in organisms without any ill effects of changes to the organisms so scientists don't know what its function is/was, if any.

Many different organisms have genomes much much larger then humans, does this mean they are more evolved/better ? :pac:

Heres a good layman's article which goes into explaining the numbers.

Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens share about 99.5% of their DNA, do you have an issue with that ? Or are you one of those people who think neanderthal fossils were just old people with a bad case of arthritis and some kind of genetic disorder ?



uh huh

I think your trying to point out that we don't know everything about DNA, of course we don't. We never said we did, we know relatively little about it.

Does that mean we should insert a deity into the parts we don't know ?

You give a link to a wiki article and then just give a bunch of rhetorical questions?

I guess the point is that you don't know anything. Thanks for confirming that. You have been trained well.
Now go have a cookie and cheer up. :pac:

Sam Vimes

monosharp wrote: »

Many different organisms have genomes much much larger then humans, does this mean they are more evolved/better ? :pac:

If that were the case then the most evolved organism would be the fern plant because it has the most chromosomes

Morbert

chozometroid wrote: »

I don't feel like wading through this huge thread. Can a kind atheist (monosharp? lol) point me to where a naturalist explanation for DNA was given?

Could I have a response to this article: http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp The article is a bit dated, so it should be easy for an intelligent atheist to refute.
(the following is just an excerpt)

Heh, that article cites papers from scientists like Rudolf Raff, and they were not happy about that.

Raff wrote:

Wells attacks what he sees as major developmental icons. He avers that the concept of homology is in dire crisis because a comprehensive definition of homology cannot be based either on sameness of genes or development. Wells notes correctly that there is not a necessary connection between homologous genes and homologous structures, nor must homologous structures arise from similar developmental processes. Wells and Nelson (1997) took a detailed look at this issue in a paper. There I found my own work on direct and indirect development presented as one of the examples of the failure of development to connect with homology. I was surprised to note that what I thought was an exciting research problem of how developmental pathways evolve was being taken as evidence against evolution.

Wells is constructing a straw man of evolutionary developmental biology and homology.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4424.full

monosharp

Malty_T wrote: »

Just the tone I seem to be getting from your post .

After the last few conversations I've finally realised what scientists are talking about when they explain their reasoning for not wanting to debate with creationists.

1. They will never admit they are wrong even when proven to be so. They will simply change their argument to take into account the new information or they will just downright ignore it.

e.g. Ray 'Banana man' Comfort used a banana to try to prove god 'designed' it for human consumption.

When it was pointed out to him that the modern banana is the result of human cultivation over the past 5000 years and a wild banana is very diffeent did he admit he was wrong ? Of course not, he changed his argument to 'Wasn't god great to give us the knowledge to allow us to cultivate the banana for our consumption'.

2. They refuse to accept facts because of their interpretation of a religious book.

No matter what evidence we show them, no matter how compelling, no matter how irrefutable it is they will never accept it because of their 'beliefs'. Many creationists have admitted as much, that if all the evidence in the universe pointed to an old earth/evolution/no flood that they still would choose not to accept it.

3. When you refute their nonsense they turn to the Bible.

I don't need to explain this.

4. Most of them don't even understand what they are arguing against.

They don't understand evolution but they know its wrong. How can you argue with such intelligent logic ?

In an uncivilized world these people would have starved to death praying to the sky to drop some corn into their hands.

As has been proven time and time again we have been giving them far too much credit. The real clincher for me was man of faiths argument for irreducible complexity where he suggested Ken Miller couldn't physically 'cut' out parts of the bacterial flagellum to see if the flagellum could still function.

He didn't even understand Behe's argument or basic biology or common sense, how can he possibly debate it ?

Its like a neurosurgeon debating brain surgery with a witchdoctor, completely pointless.

chozometroid

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Originally Posted by monosharp
Many different organisms have genomes much much larger then humans, does this mean they are more evolved/better ?

If that were the case then the most evolved organism would be the fern plant because it has the most chromosomes

I hope you two have fun with that straw man.

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

You give a link to a wiki article and then just give a bunch of rhetorical questions?

You asked for an explanation of DNA, I gave it. Whats the problem ?

I guess the point is that you don't know anything. Thanks for confirming that. You have been trained well.
Now go have a cookie and cheer up. :pac:

Would you prefer my answer was 'god did it' ? Short and sweet and you don't have to read or think much, sounds good eh ? :pac:

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

I hope you two have fun with that straw man.

Its the creationists here who were citing the size of DNA as a reason to believe in a designer not us.

Thank you though, it is a creationist strawman and has been refuted as nonsense.

Sam Vimes

monosharp wrote: »

2. They refuse to accept facts because of their interpretation of a religious book.

No matter what evidence we show them, no matter how compelling, no matter how irrefutable it is they will never accept it because of their 'beliefs'. Many creationists have admitted as much, that if all the evidence in the universe pointed to an old earth/evolution/no flood that they still would choose not to accept it.

The problem as I see it is we're debating emotion with facts. Creationists have been raised to believe that without the bible there is no reason to be moral and that they will burn for eternity if they don't believe in it. They think evolution must extend to social Darwinism. They don't really care if evolution is true or not, they choose to ignore it because they've been convinced that the whole of society will collapse if it is. We'd probably be better off convincing them that accepting evolution does not mean morality is flushed down the toilet and we should lose all hope and neither does not believing in the judeo christian god for that matter

Turtwig

monosharp wrote: »

After the last few conversations I've finally realised what scientists are talking about when they explain their reasoning for not wanting to debate with creationists.
...<Basically Creationist arguments are idiotic and rubbish!>

You only realised that just now??:eek:
It's not them though that we're communicating with, we're here to show others that haven't made up their mind how ridiculous the creationists assessments are. And more importantly to learn stuff, let's face it, if it weren't for the creationists would you have paid as much attention to evolution?
The creationists spin lies like no tomorrow, the only trouble is many people believe that to be truth. We've got to keep trying and hope we'll get true to a few. JC seems to be a lost cause, but I'm not giving up just yet:)

Yes, I could have better things to be doing, but it's the thought of science being distorted by dogma that keeps me going here..:)
Creationists arguments are shallow and they can easily sound reasonable to the lay person, meaning we've no choice but to confront these liars!

monosharp

Malty_T wrote: »

Yes, I could have better things to be doing, but it's the thought of science being distorted by dogma that keeps me going here..:)
Creationists arguments are shallow so they can easily sound reasonable to the lay person, meaning we've no choice but to confront these liars!

Its the thought of a world controlled by these people that actually frightens me. Just look what happened to the islamic countries when the fundamentalists took over. Learning and knowledge basically died overnight.

Can you imagine what kind of world it would be if the worlds superpower was controlled by this kind of thinking ? Human development would effectively go into reverse.

Turtwig

monosharp wrote: »

Its the thought of a world controlled by these people that actually frightens me. Just look what happened to the islamic countries when the fundamentalists took over. Learning and knowledge basically died overnight.

Can you imagine what kind of world it would be if the worlds superpower was controlled by this kind of thinking ? Human development would effectively go into reverse.

,

No doubt that's why your here then. That thought,the age of unenlightement, as its known terrifies me, but as Rob said to me another thread, there also a good lot of people like yourself that will vehemently oppose them - sit back have a cup of coffee and rejoice that you're not one of them.

If the world was controlled by IDiots IDer's then they'd probably have to start systematically mind wiping people and killing them because there is simply far too much evidence to ignore no matter how imaginatively one can misinterpret it.

chozometroid

It seems to me that atheists have faith in that they believe science will actually reach some sort of unspecified truth at some point. I see no reason to believe this. You will always gain further information, but it's no reason to believe you will ever have things right. You obviously started from a point of knowing nothing, and at some point, knew the wrong thing. Then it changed, and you knew something to a greater, yet not necessarily more true, extent. I guess this is good enough for you, knowing you are wrong, but gradually getting better at being wrong. It seems just a blunt truth that we will always be wrong in our conclusions about reality. We are just too limited and are obviously not at a limit where we can say we have all the senses(5) that there can be and know of all dimensions.

Atheists are like blind people coming up with a way to explain the visual quality of symmetry and color balance in pictures. They become more advanced and knowledgeable about the subject through theoretical observation, yet actually never come close to the truth.

That said, I see atheists being responsible people as far as trying to be fair and impartial about what is true. Skepticism regarding any random claim is definitely not a bad thing. The problem is the hostility towards the idea of God, especially if God is real, and we as humans have the right to live spiritual lives and accept God as authority, which may not be respected by atheists.
Atheists may have the best chance at creating a world where everyone has equal rights, society is ran fairly and efficiently, and the search for knowledge is the number one priority. This world would inevitably reduce humanity to a society of organic robots whose sole purpose is to further the race as a whole and find ways to evolve into higher creatures, all at the loss of the individual. One must question what the point is, in the first place. Whoever is in power in this world is going to have the freedom to do as they please and steer the human race as they see fit, all in the name of Science.
Religous world leaders may do no better, controlling the masses and feeding them the information they see fit, but this is just the fault of man. In the atheist utopia, this would be done and it would be accepted as the best way to do things. Everything that may hinder scientific advancement will be eliminated. Societies where everyone is controlled and given a specific role would certainly become reality, because let's face it, it would be best for humanity. The individual shouldn't matter much to the naturalist. Emotion and individual expression are meaningless, and are actually more trouble than they are worth. Naturalists ftw.

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

It seems to me that atheists have faith in that they believe science will actually reach some sort of unspecified truth at some point. I see no reason to believe this. You will always gain further information, but it's no reason to believe you will ever have things right. You obviously started from a point of knowing nothing, and at some point, knew the wrong thing. Then it changed, and you knew something to a greater, yet not necessarily more true, extent. I guess this is good enough for you, knowing you are wrong, but gradually getting better at being wrong. It seems just a blunt truth that we will always be wrong in our conclusions about reality. We are just too limited and are obviously not at a limit where we can say we have all the senses(5) that there can be and know of all dimensions.

Atheists are like blind people coming up with a way to explain the visual quality of symmetry and color balance in pictures. They become more advanced and knowledgeable about the subject through theoretical observation, yet actually never come close to the truth.

That said, I see atheists being responsible people as far as trying to be fair and impartial about what is true. Skepticism regarding any random claim is definitely not a bad thing. The problem is the hostility towards the idea of God, especially if God is real, and we as humans have the right to live spiritual lives and accept God as authority, which may not be respected by atheists.
Atheists may have the best chance at creating a world where everyone has equal rights, society is ran fairly and efficiently, and the search for knowledge is the number one priority. This world would inevitably reduce humanity to a society of organic robots whose sole purpose is to further the race as a whole and find ways to evolve into higher creatures, all at the loss of the individual. One must question what the point is, in the first place. Whoever is in power in this world is going to have the freedom to do as they please and steer the human race as they see fit, all in the name of Science.
Religous world leaders may do no better, controlling the masses and feeding them the information they see fit, but this is just the fault of man. In the atheist utopia, this would be done and it would be accepted as the best way to do things. Everything that may hinder scientific advancement will be eliminated. Societies where everyone is controlled and given a specific role would certainly become reality, because let's face it, it would be best for humanity. The individual shouldn't matter much to the naturalist. Emotion and individual expression are meaningless, and are actually more trouble than they are worth. Naturalists ftw.

Care to post that over in A&A?:pac:

wolfsbane

monosharp wrote: »

And what about the millions of other types of bacteria which have no effect bad or good on the human body ? How do they fit into good or bad ?

And there has been no argument, there has been childish nonsense.

Who said they were meant to have any effect on the human body? They could be good or bad or good&bad with respect to cows or bees or manatees.

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

Care to post that over in A&A?:pac:

Seconded. It can't get the response it deserves under the rules of this forum

wolfsbane

Malty_T said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by man of faith
Surely the complex messaging system of our own dna should be enough proof to say that there is phenomenal intelligence involved in our origins.
Perhaps if the DNA were perfect it would be a sign as of a phenomenal intelligence. However, considering that it's responsible for cancer, other diseases and that 98% of it is regarded as junk to this current generation. (Awaiting evolution it seems) I'd wouldn't place my house on it being a sign of intelligence.

Perhaps the 98% junk is in the ignorant mind of the scientist. A perfectly designed but later corrupted complex messaging system would also account for what we see here.

Quote:
How on earth can evolution explain this?
Btw, Creationists generally explain this by something called micro evolution.

Creationists attribute complexity to God's design. Variation within the design is 'micro evolution'.

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

A perfectly designed but later corrupted complex messaging system would also account for what we see here.

Ahh yes the wonderful 'fall' that creationists always seem to fall back on.
Damn you Eve!

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

No, the "sequence" like everything in science is tested. The fossil record is an observed phenomena, and evolutionary theories are tested against this observed phenomena to see if their prediction matched observation. They do. No one looks at the fossil record and goes "umm, I wonder does this go here, and umm, maybe this goes there" :rolleyes:

You make the mistake of believing that proper science is as higgledy piggledy and guess work as Creationism is.

But interesting that you say that you object to things being in the mind of the beholder, since the idea that something must be designed is something that does lie solely in the mind of the beholder, and something that so far no one has been able to figure out how to test, unlike the sequences of the fossil record.

So you are just showing your hypocrisy and close mindedness, once again.


No it is testable theory. If it was honest conjecture it wouldn't be science.

I note your faith in the impeccability of scientists - at least, those in line with establishment views.

From what I have seen in their internecine spats, that is not as solid as you make out. And when it comes to their impartiality with regard to science that would tend to support creationism or even ID, then your faith is entirely misplaced. Not only egos are at stake, but consciences and careers.

Back to the snapshots - here's part of an article that captures my main criticism:
Ardipithecus kadabba
A few months after Orrorin tugenensis was announced, another early hominid candidate, from Middle Awash, Ethiopia, called Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, dated to between 5.2 and 5.8 Ma, was described in the journal Nature.25 The name of this specimen was, in 2004, elevated from subspecies status to a separate species, Ardipithecus kadabba, based on the recovery of additional fossil teeth.26 In kadabba (as in Orrorin) the fossil finds consisted of some postcranial bones, teeth, and jaw fragments, and so it is not known what the head of these creatures looked like.

The kadabba specimen is interpreted as a biped based on the characteristics of a single toe bone (a proximal foot phalanx), in particular the dorsal orientation of the proximal joint surface.27 The argument is that the toe bone’s joint surface is tilted upwards in a human-like manner, whereas in chimpanzees it tilts downwards, and so it is supposedly evidence that kadabba ‘toed off’ in a human-like manner when walking.28 However, as pointed out by Begun,

‘the same joint configuration occurs in the definitely non-bipedal late Miocene hominid Sivapithecus , and the length and curvature of this bone closely resembles those of a chimpanzee or bonobo’.29
Amazingly, the toe bone is dated several hundred thousand years younger than the rest of the fossils, and was found in a locality 16 km away from the rest, making even famous hominid hunter Donald Johanson dubious about categorizing the toe bone with the rest of the fossils.30

From the few (eleven) fossil scraps, belonging to at least five different individuals, from five different locations,25 it seems amazing that they can all be designated as belonging to the same subspecies, and later, on the basis of finding some additional teeth,26 that the fossils can be assigned to a new species. According to Balter and Gibbons, ‘The Orrorin and Ardipithecus teams assert that each other’s fossils could represent an ancestor of chimps or other apes, rather than one of our early human ancestors or cousins.’31 Perhaps both teams are partially right, as there is little doubt that both hominids were mere apes.

Full article:
Fossil evidence for alleged apemen—Part 2: non-Homo hominids
http://creation.com/fossil-evidence-for-alleged-apemenpart-2-non-homo-hominids

Turtwig

Wolfy,

I cannot debunk that, maybe someone else will bother? Does that make creationism true though?

Anyways, the honest answer is I probably could debunk it but I simply coudn't be arse into researching such a minor detail about fossils that doesn't even offer proof for creationism. In future, though, could you please link to non creation biased sources so emm we can compare what the creationist claims to what has actually been found.:)

wolfsbane

lugha wrote: »

Regrettably, when I read some of your posts, my first reaction if often to wonder if I misinterpret what you are saying and I suspect that may again be the case here. Anyway, my understanding of what you are saying is, to paraphrase, “yes many religions do claim to be the one true faith and if you were to ask a follower of any of these they would all insist that all other religions are wrong, mine is the real deal. But it is all of these that are wrong, mine is the real deal". I am sure you can appreciate that this is not an entirely satisfactory answer.
As for your pudding eating verification suggestion, yes that would be telling, if there was a spiritual fulfillment to be found in followers of Christianity that was demonstrably absent in other faiths. I am not aware of any evidence of this. Indeed growing up in a Catholic community which included some Muslims, I was always struck by the fact that their faith seemed more important to the Muslims. So where is this pudding of which you speak?

Yes, there is no absolute sign of true religion that can be detected by a mere observer. Relatively powerful indications are provided by radically improved conduct and personal deportment and 'inner' strength. But merely psychological mechanisms provide a degree of that too.

It is those who actively seek after God - even without being initially sure He exists or is willing to be found - that find the verification. The pudding is the reality of God, and you only know for sure if you taste and see.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

From what I have seen in their internecine spats, that is not as solid as you make out. And when it comes to their impartiality with regard to science that would tend to support creationism or even ID, then your faith is entirely misplaced. Not only egos are at stake, but consciences and careers.

I wonder how that applies to the conservative, church going, Bush appointed Republican judge who declared intelligent design not to be science when all of its claims were spectacularly debunked in the Dover trial. When everyone is against you, sometimes it's because everyone in the world is engaged in a conspiracy to pretend that what they're supporting has withstood 150 years of intense scientific scrutiny and is as well supported as the theory of gravity because their egos won't allow them to see "the truth" but sometimes it's because you're wrong and the reason you can't convince anyone is because you keep getting proved wrong over and over

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

Wolfy,

I cannot debunk that, maybe someone else will bother? Does that make creationism true though?

Anyways, the honest answer is I probably could debunk it but I simply coudn't be arse into researching such a minor detail about fossils that doesn't even offer proof for creationism. In future, though, could you please link to non creation biased sources so emm we can compare what the creationist claims to what has actually been found.:)

No, it does not make creationism true. It just establishes that all the hype about solid proof of evolution from the fossil record is, er, less than factual.

The article carried refs. to the non-creationist papers quoted.