Experts Call Biblical Artifact a Fake!

please keep in mind that i am not defending religion...simply pointing out that the faith-evidence argument is not limited to religions...

now...i am not aware that evolution ever became a scientific law...you know, advanced from theory to law...would someone tell me when evolution became a law??...

or perhaps someone could give me the evidence of which species evolved and when the irrefutable evidence was discovered...

Science regards evolution as a true occurance. The only dissention, as I have stated, relates to questions that occur in details unrelated to the basic premise. This is not a thread about evolution, so I will not keep going off track. A2k has a few threads on the topic of evolution if you want to go over there.

gc- in science, something can be both a theory and a fact. A theory is not mere idle proposition, it is an explanation that
1 ALL EVIDENCE PRESENTLY SUPPORTS < AND

2 NO EVIDENCE PRESENTLY REFUTES

Cant say that with religion. Science will abandon evolutionary theory in a heartbeat if evidence would be found that refutes its structure. Too many scientists , most of us try to be well living and honest. are involved in fields associated with evolution . So I sure as heck dont want to be wasting my time on something that isnt robust.In my profession I waste a lot of my money and clients money test drilling based on good field evidence and geologic theory. I sure wouldnt waste more money to do exploration based upon Biblical inference. Otherwise Id be broke .

Religious thinkers have recently taken a huge sidestep in their Creationist propoganda by fully accepting the underpinnings of evolution. Theyve accepted, The Old Earth evidence. Theyve accepted , the Accuracy of Atomic Clocks, Theyve accepted the Ascendance of species and the replacement of others by extinctions (no more flood crap), They have even , sort of accepted the evidence for gradual changes in species leading to new species. Their acceptance of all the above is predicated on the "Intelligent Designer" who, deemed all things be made in this time and order. Of course the divinity of man and his acsendance from apes is still a subject for debate among them, unless the theory of "pre-Adamite Man" becomes universal in the Creationist Camps. (This is the one that speculates "If Cain slew Able, where did Mrs Caine come from?"

According to the story, Mrs. Cain would've been his sister. Genesis doesn't mention how long Adam & Eve were in the garden of Eden, and in most cases only male descendents are listed in the Bible.

There is no irrefutable evidence -- although there is a hell of a lot of circumstantial evidence that points in the direction of the general theory of evolution.

But in a technical agument, it certainly can be argued that WE DO NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN how the evolution took place -- and many of the intermediate steps are still gaps in our knowledge.

To be agnostic does not mean to hide one's head in the sand and dismiss all conjecture. Scientists studying these issues are, in a very real sense, agnostic -- because they allow new evidence to change their minds. They are not saying that "such and such" ABSOLUTELY is the truth -- even though they can say, "the evidence is pointing to that inference more and more with each finding."

Religion doesn't go through that process at all.

Sure, a scientist has to say, "If something new comes to light we are ready to replace the notion of evolution with something else," because that is only right. But, in light of what has already been found, that is almost certainly not going to happen.

edgar-you are probably right but only the future findings will show (grin)

An aside, The Creationist camp is based entirely upon refuring evidence disclosed by science. I have no knowledge of any independent research b eing conducted by Creationists or Intelligent Designers to attempt to prove their proposals.Its sort of like OJ not spending a lot of effort to find the murderer of his ex-wife

sorry to have started something and have to leave, but i was elected to babysit...

again...i am not pitting science against religion...i am merely saying that to a degree and in some areas, science operates on faith (trust) without irrefutable evidence...

and circumstantial evidence of the kind that science has produced to call evolution a fact, would simply not stand up in a court...

the theory of evolution has had what...100+ years of intense concentration, but to date, i am not aware of any irrefutable evidence that science has proved the change of one species to another....if someone could furnish me with this irrefutable evidence, i would gladly accept evolution as a scientific law...

now...what i am submitting to the board is this...if there are no facts, then to operate on the assumption of "overwhelming circumstantial evidence" is indeed faith...

DNA sure stands up in court! That's science. c.i.

Which is not correct, gc47. What you insist on calling faith is good old blood sweat and tears.

gc-you would have to invest the time to really understand the evidence. ill attempt to give you an example.
tHE WHALE.

Whales are a group of mammals that, as time has passed from the late Cretaceous to the early Eocene, are identifed by a series of teeth cusps, and bone folds in their inner ear (these are unique to all species of whales and ancestors0. Theearliest whales were land dwelling animals that, are inferred to be marsh and stream dwelling like otters. these guys lived about 50 million years ago. later versions of more water dwelling fossil animals called ambulocetus are found in the same area of the world in younger sediments of more riverine type. These guys were more like footed sea lions with meat eating tendencies. As time progressed, similar fossils converging on a water life begin to be found in marine sedimenst of the Eocene. The several converging species can be seen "changing" through time yet overlapping in many cases as extinction claimed the less adapted and the increasing number of the later , more successful species..
The fossil record of whale evolution has been discovered and documented almost completely within the last 20 years. The Creationists used to say that the whale, due to its lack of transitional fossils, was one of the cornerstones of Creationist proof. The extreme number of fossil finds in this time period now has switched the tables to the extent that whales are the best example of evolutionary changes out there. it all stems from the locale. The whales are mostly seen in the area around the present Indian Ocean, which, as the continents drifted apart, was the envoronmental element
(the Tethys Sea) that resulted in the gradual drowning of foreland coastal areas and the rise of these entire species of cetaceans who, gradually returned into the seas and then began to expand territories

The whale, thehorse, cichlid fish, and humans , show really great fossil records that , to me, provide very poweful evidence about the gradual change that many species, exposed to environmental pressures, have undergone morphological changes as they adapted to the new environments. Older species , ada[pted to previous conditions gradually became extinct.
Extinction is also one of the more puzzling mechanisma to Creation believers. What could be its purpose/ if not to represent the dreck of species who didnt adapt as well. As Dave Raup has said, there are fifty million species alive today, out of a probable fifty BILLION that ever lived. The survival rate is therefore less than 1 thousandth of a percent. Odds are pretty small but , as the numbers of species of a genera increase, the chances for survival and evolving increase.

Now , most of the Creation followers fail to recognize the significance of data that show intermediate species fossils, this is , after all, a completehit to the foundations of their beliefs. However, not accepting does not make it less powerful evidence, since the creationists have no similar research results and they have no counter explanations

The majority of these whale findings have been under the support of a series of research institutions in India, under the direction of a paleontologist related to the Indian prime minister , with family name of Bajpai.
I can dig up some links when I get to my office on Monday. If youre interested. All that Ive put up here is quick (and maybe theres some error and missing important fossils)

DNA sure stands up in court! That's science

has DNA proved that species indeed have changed from one species to another??...

once again...i am not proposing creationism or religion...what i am saying is similar to michael polanyi...science does operate to a degree on faith...

so far, no one here has demonstrated that the theory of evolution is indeed a scientific law via the scientific method...my premise is (and polanyi's) that trust/faith is a factor in science...

an example--> quantum physics has taught us that often times we find what we are looking for...in other words, there isn't any such thing as total objectivism in studying something...we arrange the experiments and the environment based on what has been taught to us...we trust those who have gone before us to the point that we unconsciously do the following:
1. do not consider alternatives
2. discard aberrations
3. make the experiment conform

there is a serious degree of intolerance among scientists, and a strong pecking order...not to mention a system that is inflexible and unimaginative...gosh darn, sounds a lot like a church... :wink:

Hey GC 47-why dont you address my point. are you afraid? whew, sounds like someone doesnt want to invest the time. Its easier to deny facts than to understand them. Thats ok but noone has called evolution a law. Youre trying to escalate YOUR misunderstanding.
PSST quantum mechanics is also a theory. hmmm.

As far as intolerance, the CHURCH has got this stance mostly to itself.the sciences Im familiar with are composed of humans who make mistakes and ,usually the mistakes are caught and exposed by other members of the scientific community. i like it when Creationism hit squad of the religious right was carving toes into hadrosaur footprints in the steram bed of the Paluxy River in S Texas. Then they went around with photos that showed HUMAN FOOTPRINTS that were coexixtant with dinosaurs. in other words men were living in the Cretaceous. A micropaleontologist from u Texas at Austin came over and inspected the footprints and said that they were recent carvings done to decieve.Boy did Duane Gish shut his mouth. See, the scientists were comfortable enough to go and inspect , because either way we learn something (IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A REALLY BIG TIME DISCOVERY IF THE FOOTPRINTS WERE REAL)

Most scientists are intolerant. they are intolerant of people who wont attempt to inspect data and argue from a point of knowledge.
YOUR STATEMENT ---------------------------------------------------------
an example--> quantum physics has taught us that often times we find what we are looking for...in other words, there isn't any such thing as total objectivism in studying something...we arrange the experiments and the environment based on what has been taught to us...we trust those who have gone before us to the point that we unconsciously do the following:
1. do not consider alternatives
2. discard aberrations
3. make the experiment conform
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
whats this we crap? are you guilty of something?
ThIS is a huuge generalization by which you are trying to cast a global accusation. SILLY , however lets say such practices do occur
anytime they occur(although infrequently)they are quickly found out by other scientists. We are rapacious and we feed on the mistakes of others. aND we feed on the arrogant smugness of religious pomposity.
for example, a scientist tries to find the answer to a problem and studies a single point of data for a long time. Then its exposed to a peer review process . The religious know-it -alls, start with an answer(GOD DID IT, my mind is made up) then they try to cast doubt on the scientist while being totally deaf to real data.
I find it amusing that you say what a scientist does, yet the religious approach is NOT TO DO ANY EXPERIMENTING OR SEEK NEW DISCOVERIES AT ALL. Thats some track record.There is an Institute for Creation Science, which despite its name, aint much of an institute and does nO research. Its a religious Christian Fundamental Lobby thats trying to teach Creationism as real science in our schools. (over my cold dead ass)

As far as intolerance, many scientists have been ridiculed,villified and even totured by the good religious seekers of truth. If what you say is correct, then scientists have a couple of centuries of stoning to match



BY the bye, DNA does and can show populational differences and mechanisms are obvious showing that one species has morfed to another.

Farmerman

You said you know of no independent research being done by Creationists. Here is an example of some of their research.

Visit this site: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html

This is a site that debunks the creationist's arguments. Creationists fabricate, lie and purposely give false information on scientific findings. This is the type of research being conducted by Creationists. This is their science.

For example, look at the Malachite Man. Dr. Don Patton, a creationist, claims to have found ten human skeletons in Dakota Sandstone, a Late Cretaceous formation rich in dinosaur fossils. His discovery is a proven fraud and a lie. Yet creationist sites such as the ones below still uses his "discovery" as one of their proofs that humans and dinosaurs lived side by side.

http://www.nwcreation.net/dragons.html

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-fossils.htm

Creationist research consists of tearing down any science that supports evolution.

Here is a site on creationist claims and scientific rebuttal of those claims.

http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/list.html


For gc47

From Paul Ehrlich in Human Natures: Genes, Cultures and the Human Prospect, p. 74.

"Scientific hypotheses are, in one way or another, tested against nature -- the "real world" that all scientists conventionally agree is "out there."1 Only when hypotheses are sufficiently tested and bind together information from relatively diverse areas that previously had not been connected do they properly become theories. But that is the opposite of the popular understanding of the term; it's scientific meaning is much closer to that of the word fact in common parlance.2 Theories embody the highest level of certainty for comprehensive ideas in science. Thus, when someone claims that evolution is "only a theory," it's roughly equivalent to saying that the proposition that the Earth circles the sun rather than vice versa is "only a theory." Evolution is, in fact, a very useful theory.

1 If the extreme version of solipsism (the notion that only the self and the contents of one's own consciousness exist -- or can be known) were taken as correct, one could not do science.

2 A scientific theory can be defined as a coherent framework for an entire field, one ordinarily so well supported by empirical data that scientists act as if it were "proven." Once established, theories are treated as "true" (I use quotation marks because truth itself is not a scientific concept; all scientific ideas are subject to revision) as long as they are useful -- generally until and unless some scientist demonstrates them to be wrong. Any position that is based on authority and is not subject to revision cannot be accurately described as scientific."



From Stephen J. Gould Excerpted from Discover Magazine (May, 1981).

"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" - part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory.

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth. In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." [underscore added]

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution. "

You guys are doing such a good job I am having a great time reading along. I don't have as much education in this as farmerman - nice to have you around.

xingu, Good to see you back on A2K. I hope you stick around this time. c.i.

gc, You're wrong about DNA not proving evolution. Did you know that scientists are able to trace all cultures from Africa? Maybe you don't. c.i.

Edgar---thanks , excellent links xingu . Im familiar with the talk origins site but not the others youve posted and Gould is (was)always a non bending lightning rod for taking the hits from Duane Gish and his "posse" He has , what youve presented, the definative discussion on the meaning of theory in science .
I have to add that Malachite Man to my list of frauds. Thats a new one to me.Im trying to keep a list of frauds perped by poor or dishonest science and the creationists , (creationist fraud is waay ahead)
We must remeber that the Piltdown Man was posed by a "scientist" and was later exposed by a scientist who was also a minister. Also the well known racist paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborne is to be "congratulated' for misidentifying the tooth of a dead pig as the proof of a Western hemisphere proto man, called Hesperonopithecus davidcookii (I think the species is correct). It turned out, after 4 years of careful study, Osborne was all wet. Scvientists looked bad and Osborne looked sloppy. However, The Creationists jumped on this as proof that scientists couldnt be trusted. Trouble is, there was a ton of good work going on at the same time that was finding new fossils all over the place and scientists were quietly putting the stories together (course there were some temporary stops to all the excavations in the Gobi, what with WWII and the Red Brigades and the "Great Leaps". There were also some artists whove painted some cave paintings in One of the French dolomite caves, It depicts a dinosaur, and was touted by Creation scientists as proof that man and dinosaur lived like Alley Oop(together)
I get a special chuckle out of some of the stories of, poor science bad faith, error, and deception in the good old days of fieldexcavations.
However, science has moved light years ahead while the Creationists have sort of wallowed in their original late 19 th century stance of Anti-modernism. Only till the publication of Behes book "Darwins Black Box" have they taken a totally new tack with a congealing of an Intelligent Deswign posture..

Cicerone

I don't have much time to spend on forums, unfortunately. I enjoy them and find the very informative but I have too many other things I'm involved in. I'm one of those people that don't specialize in anything and tries to do everything. Too many things interest me and there's to little time to do them.

Sometimes I hate sleep. It's a waste of my time.

It looks like you guys have been here for some time. I just discovered it by accident.

I've put all the links here and from another discussion on my favorites, including the talk origins. Never know when a creationist will have me on the spot.