Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists

[danielsgram]

Alec and Tim, I would just like to have experimental proof that evolution occurred. Tim since you are the scientist this should be a piece of cake for you since I’m all bluster and you have all the answers.

Donna

 

[hecd2]

Alec and Tim, I would just like to have experimental proof that evolution occurred.

Donna

You can believe whatever you like - it is of no consequence.

What, exactly, is your problem with the evidence? I repeat again - what do you find unconvincing about the transition from polydactyly (contrary to the incorrect AiG claims, polydactyly is not unexpected in a transition from ray-fins); and the co-option of the stapes, a bone that in fish forms a major part of the skull, but in land dwelling animals is co-opted to hearing?

The bottom line is that Acanthostega does not have fins - it has polydactylous feet. It, and other transitionals have, like all tetrapods - amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, crocodilians, birds, mammals and so on - the same major bone structure - humerus, radius and ulna; and femur, fibula and tibia unlike a ray finned fish - while maintaining many fish-like characteristics such as gill breathing.

What about all the other Devonian and Carboniferous tetrapods (there are *dozens *of known examples) that represent a finely graduated series in all of the key characteristics of the fish to tetrapod transition, ending up with lung breathing, an ear, pentadactyly and the loss of the intermedium. The AiG article, by contrast, is special pleading of teh worst kind - refutation by strawman.

Give us *your *opinion on the transition from polydactyly, the establishment of the tetrapod skeletal limb structure after early variation, and the co-option of the stapes from the skull to the ear.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[danielsgram]

Alec:
I am not a scientist. I read both sides of the issue and have come to the conclusion that evolution is a philosophy not a science. It isn’t observable. I have no intention of continuing my search. I have come to my conclusion. I will however check one more thing out if you or anyone else can show me a scientific experiment proving evolution. When someone gives me a list of things to check out, if I have time I’ll chose one to check into it. I have found something else on Acanthostega creationsafaris.com/crev0803.htm It deals with Acan. somewhat close to the end of the page. The subtitle is Evolution of the Darwin fish. If you put that in your search you can find it fast.

Donna

 

[danielsgram]

What, exactly, is your problem with the evidence?

Antievolution scientists and evolutionary scientists have the same evidence but they interpret that evidence differently. In order for it to be science it must pass the scientific muster. It doesn’t. Evolution is filled with hypothesis, conjecture, guessing really.

Donna

 

[PhilVaz]

Donna << That it isn’t science unless it can be shown to be true by experiment. Phil is getting his information from talk origins. He c/pd part of an article about two philosophical worldviews. >>

Donna do you accept the age of the earth? Yes or No? Are you a young-earther, an old-earther, or just a Behe “intelligent design” kind of person?

Here are some experiments attempting to change decay rates:

Several experiments have been conducted attempting to seriously change radioactive decay rates, those of Rutherford / Petavel in 1907 on 220Rn radon using a steel-encased cordite bomb – they observed no change in the activity of the sample even though the explosion generated an estimated temperature of 2,500 degrees Celsius and a pressure of 1,013 bars; and that of Madame Curie / M. Kamerlingh Onnes in 1913 who lowered the temperature of a radium compound to -252.8 degrees Celsius (the boiling point of liquid hydrogen) and observed no change in the radium activity by more than 0.05% (Emery 1972; Hopke 1974). Other experiments involved varying gravity by measuring the rates on mountain-tops, in the depths of mines, by whirling in a centrifuge, or subjecting to magnetic fields as much as 8.3 Teslas. These early experiments and subsequent ones involving extremes of temperature, pressure, chemical state, electrical and magnetic fields have uniformly failed to induce any changes in the decay rates of a wide variety of alpha and beta emitters involved in radiometric dating (Dalrymple [1991], page 87-88).

That is from Dalrymple himself, not TalkOrigins. This stuff is not on the TalkOrigins site. I typed it in myself. I do “research” too, the best I can. I have looked up the Jenny Clack book at U.S.F. recommended by Alec. Great book on the fin-to-foot transition (fish to amphib). Pictures too.

The stuff I have taken from TalkOrigins is my summary of the Doug Theobald evidence for macroevolution, and a summary of the transitional fossils from Kathleen Hunt.

Also the Robert Carroll citations I have verified myself, copying the pages at U.S.F. and provided the page numbers. Carroll (Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, and other recent books) is a recognized paleontologist and expert in the vertebrate fossils, along with M.J. Benton (The Fossil Record 2). There are also experts in the invertebrate and Cambrian fossils I have looked up (E.N.K. Clarkson, and James Valentine On the Origin of Phyla). None of them support a young earth or creationism in whatever form.

Answers In Genesis will not help you, nor will the Kolbe Center. You need to go to the experts themselves, the ones published in the peer-reviewed science literature to get the facts. Going to Answers In Genesis is like going to Dave Hunt, John MacArthur, or Loraine Boettner to learn about Catholicism.

Going to the experts I have listed is like visiting www.Vatican.va to learn about Catholic doctrine. Thank you. That’s the best analogy I can think of.

Phil P

 

[steveandersen]

Antievolution scientists and evolutionary scientists have the same evidence but they interpret that evidence differently. In order for it to be science it must pass the scientific muster. It doesn’t.

Once again please provide specific examples of muster failure or an alternative theory that explains the observations.

Evolution is filled with hypothesis, conjecture, guessing really.

Donna

If you don’t know the difference between theory, hypothesis, or SWAG then we shouldn’t be having this discussion.

 

[hecd2]

Alec:
I have no intention of continuing my search. I have come to my conclusion.

Donna

Fine. Who cares what you think?
Alec
evolutionpags.com

 

[Orogeny]

Interesting comment. Several of us here are actually scientists

So Tim. Can you show me where I can view experiments that shows Man coming from a predecessor like an ape. Land mammal to whale?

Donna

No experiments other than genetic studies. But it is irrelevant. You wouldn’t accept anything I refered you to anyway.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Alec and Tim, I would just like to have experimental proof that evolution occurred. Tim since you are the scientist this should be a piece of cake for you since I’m all bluster and you have all the answers.

Donna

You won’t accept any evidence that points to evolution. You have ignored everything you have been given. You admit you aren’t a scientist and unfortunately much of the evidence requires a basic understanding of science. You don’t care about that because you have convinced yourself that you are smart enough to see the flaws in the fact and theory of evolution that us athiests don’t.

It is, actually, a piece of cake to demonstrate the lines of evidence to one who is willing to listen, even if they aren’t a scientist. Sadly, you don’t appear to fit into that category.

Peace

Tim

 

[steveandersen]

… You don’t care about that because you have convinced yourself that you are smart enough to see the flaws in the fact and theory of evolution that us athiests don’t. …

Tim,

Most of us Catholics are smart enough to see it too.

 

[wildleafblower]

You [Donna] admit you aren’t a scientist and unfortunately much of the evidence requires a basic understanding of science. Peace Tim

Tim, she may not have a high school dipolma. The basic concepts of science is taught in high school.

 

[Verita]

Alec:
I have no intention of continuing my search. I have come to my conclusion. Donna

How very unscientific.

 

[Orogeny]

Tim,

Most of us Catholics are smart enough to see it too.

Yep, that includes me as well. I was using the definition of “athiest” as one who accepts science since there are some on these forums that use the term that way.

Peace

Tim

 

[wildleafblower]

How very unscientific.

I can’t resist pulling a PhilVaz

Good one Verita, your comment reminded me of New Yorker cartoonist Roz Chast’s book Unscientific Americans!

Thank you. May your holiday bring you cheer and much joy.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Can you show me where I can view experiments that shows Man coming from a predecessor like an ape.

Donna

I hate to burst your bubble, but we didn’t come from apes, **we are **apes.

 

[wildleafblower]

If you danielsgram (Donna)] get your science from AiG (a non-scientific fundamentalist website), no wonder you are confused.
Alec
evolutionpages.com

It’s not the only non-scientific fundamentalist website. Look at this one I just happened to stumble upon that’s filled to the brim with rubbish. Be sure to read the bio. What a shocker . . .Institute for Creation Research in El Cahon, CA.

csulb.edu/~jmastrop/

Maybe you have room on your website for a killer chili cook-off. Oven broil 'em

Oh, all is not lost, I have to buy eggs for homemade chili rellenos. yum

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Alec and Tim, I would just like to have experimental proof that evolution occurred. Tim since you are the scientist this should be a piece of cake for you since I’m all bluster and you have all the answers.

Donna

You’ve said “experimental proof”.

Now you may or not know that i (the square root of minus one) raised to the power of itself is about 0.208. If you don’t beleive me I can prove it to you, but you may lack the intellectual capacity to appreciate the proof, and it certainly won’t be an experimental proof. I can prove that 2+2 = 4 experimentally e.g. drop two followed by two more marbles into several jars, and then get a sample of people to empty the jars and count the marbles. A mathematican wouldn’t like this approach at all. I can’t think of a similar demonstration of i to the i.

So why hedge the theory of evolution around by putting constraints on the sort of proof you will accept? Atheists do this all the time. They won’t accept miracles unless they occur in repeatable, controlled conditions, when of course one cannot control an omnipotent being. Or the stupider ones put an impossibly high bar on accepting anything in the Bible as historical.

There are multiple lines of evidence that lead us to accept evolution. We understand how DNA make RNA makes protein, we understnad how small differences in proteins can lead to small or sometimes big differences in organisms, and we understand how cosmic rays or other agents can damage DNA, causing occasional small mutations. Faced with this sort of evidence, the time when scepticism about Darwin was tenable has long passed.

 

[wildleafblower]

He’s [Professor Giertych ]a creationist who has bizarre and utterly cranky beliefs such as his grotesque belief in contemporaneous humans and dinosaurs that utterly discredit him. He has been thoroughly thrashed in the pages of Nature by the scientific community. See the thread:
‘Polish Catholic Creationist spanked in Nature’. . .
Alec
evolutionpages.com

Professor Giertych is on the Advisory Council for The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation, Defending Genesis from a Traditional Catholic Perspective (1) and so is Joseph Mastropaolo, whose website I just presented in my last message. (2)

1. kolbecenter.org/
2. csulb.edu/~jmastrop/

I give all the credit to the Holy Spirit of God for leading me to this valuable information. Thanks JESUS. luv you oodles:heart:

 

[steveandersen]

Fine. Who cares what you think?
Alec
evolutionpags.com

Actually Alec, I care what she thinks.

If we are to successfully conduct Catholic apologetics in a technically savvy world it is essential to eliminate this notion that evolution and Christianity are somehow mutually exclusive.

 

[wildleafblower]

Whenever something is in its theoretical state it isn’t proven scientifically. I could probably give several examples if I were a scientist. That’s a my theory unproven by investigation (experimentation, meaning actually learning science). Astronomy got it wrong lately something about the “planet” Pluto.

Donna

Donna there is an upcoming broadcast The Plight of Pluto Airing week of December 30, 2006 on The Institution Research for Creation radio. Did you listen to the broadcast prior to its airing? (1)

I located the link to the above mentioned information from Biology Eliminates Evolution by Joseph Mastropaolo.(2) :tsktsk:

Do you mind me asking you if you know Karl Priest? He teaches K-9 in West Virginia. (3)

1. icr.org/radio/
2. csulb.edu/~jmastrop/data1.html
3. csulb.edu/~jmastrop/data9.html