Vatican deals blow to Intelligent Design

[RDSaustinTX]

Originally posted by Silat

The evidence of evolution is vast and universally accepted in all reputable scientific circles as FACT.

 
You don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about Silat.
 
The empirical evidence for evolution is weak, hence the controversy. It is the only materialist theory we can wrap our little minds around, so it's attraction in scientific circles is inescapable. But to call it a universally accepted scientific "fact" betrays serious ignorance of the scientific method.
 
The word "fact" does not appear in a science dictionary.
 
Mullah

[storch]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Which tune do you hum when you stick your fingers in your ears?

do you mean do I close my eyes when I read your drivel?

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by NUKE
The universe has never been descibed by science to be inifinitely large, only infinitetly small, which is rediculess and impossible......yet is taught as science.

I do not think that the universe is infinitely large. I also do not believe that all of the matter in the universe was ever gathered into an infinitely small space.

As negative space and negative time are undefined (at least to my knowledge) infinitely small is a misnomer.

Zero being a finite number, a universe of zero spacetime would be finite.

"Infintely small" is not really a physical possibility, it is just a language device.

String theory shrinks the universe (not just the matter and energy but the empty space as well) to the planck length, a very small but finite number. (1.6 x 10E-35 m) Theory holds it is the quantum unit of length, the smallest unit which has meaning.

The universe being a finite volume yet unbounded, but so vast as to not really be comprehendable allows for "infinitely large" to be a similar language device.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Holden,

This will probably be my last response on the BB tonight, as tomorrow is obviously the busiest day of the week for me. Anyway, unfortunately what you're doing above is precisely what I was referring to in a previous post. A few species are found that resemble another species and then there are speculations that this is an "ancestor." ...Edit...

I posted two transition species, one not really human but not simian either, one not rally dinosaur but not really bird either, in response to your claim in an earlier post that

Originally posted by Seagoon
(quoting others)"Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record."

For the benefit of those who don't understand what's so funny. It's an explanation for why we still haven't found the transitional fossils. It's a breathtaking statement of unshakeable faith.[/B]

Yet transitional fossils have been found, and evidence exists that suggests evolution as the (forgive me) Origin of Species.  

No evidence exists for divine intervention, only faith.

[Tuomio]

There is nothing in my body that suggests it was intelligent design.

[moot]

no offense, but only your brain needs not to be for you to conclude that.

It makes for a good show to see people debate irrationalities.

[SOB]

Originally posted by Tuomio
There is nothing in my body that suggests it was intelligent design.

LOL

[lambo31]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I posted two transition species, one not really human but not simian either, one not rally dinosaur but not really bird either, in response to your claim in an earlier post that



Yet transitional fossils have been found, and evidence exists that suggests evolution as the (forgive me) Origin of Species.  

No evidence exists for divine intervention, only faith.

Holden, just giving you an update on the "Transitional Fossil" thing. I don't think you've heard the latest concerning them.


Lucy

According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is ‘imagination made of plaster of paris’.1 Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

Archaeoraptor

Since Dr Olsen wrote that scathing critique of NG, even more disturbing news has surfaced. An eminent paleontologist in Beijing, Xu Xing, now claims that the fossil is not even genuine. Rather, ‘Archaeoraptor liaoningensis’ was really combined from the body and head of a birdlike creature and the tail of a different dinosaur. Dr Xu said that a fossil in a private collection in China contains the mirror image of the tail of the alleged Archaeoraptor.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by lambo31
Holden, just giving you an update on the "Transitional Fossil" thing. I don't think you've heard the latest concerning them.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is ‘imagination made of plaster of paris’.1 Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lucy's fossilized skeleton however is one of the most complete ever found.  The pelvis is what suggests bipedal locomotion, and that is the big clue that makes that example special.  The theory of Lucy's skull is that the brain capacity was quite small, yet she walked on two legs.  Not quite human, but not an ape ancestor either.  

If we were to surmise that the skull model were wrong and the brain were quite large, that would not take awya from the construction of the skeleton, and that Lucy is one of the oldest (if not the oldest) bipedal examples in existance.

Lucy is not the only example, there are many "transitional" finds that show the human family tree, and the holes in the pattern are much smaller than they once were.

Again, we are talking of evidence which one can hold in one's hand and we can argue about that evidence.  Where is the evidence of ID?

[lambo31]

Evolutionists place great importance in walking upright and use it to define man’s ancestors, although the origin of bipedalism is shrouded in mystery:

‘Bipedalism has traditionally been regarded as the fundamental adaptation that sets hominids apart from other primates. Fossil evidence demonstrates that by 4.1 million years ago, and perhaps earlier, hominids exhibited adaptations to bipedal walking. At present, however, the fossil record offers little information about the origin of bipedalism … .’3

So it is important to know whether some fossil ape-like creature was bipedal or not.

Regardless of the status of Lucy’s knee joint, new evidence has come forth that Lucy has the morphology of a knuckle-walker,4 which is a distinctly quadrupedal specialization characteristic of some living apes and is quite different than walking upright. Richmond and Strait identify four skeletal features of the distal radius of the living knuckle-walking apes, chimpanzees and gorillas. They also identify similar morphological features on two early ‘hominids’, including Lucy:

‘A UPGMA clustering diagram … illustrates the similarity between the radii of A. anamensis and A. afarensis and those of the knuckle-walking African apes, indicating that these hominids retain the derived wrist morphology of knuckle-walkers.’5:

once again

[Booz]

AnswersInGenesis is your source of scientific information? wow

[storch]

Originally posted by Booz
AnswersInGenesis is your source of scientific information? wow

see my keyhole reference cyclopes.

[Suave]

Yay! Another science vs holy magic thread!

[BluKitty]

Originally posted by RDSaustinTX
The word "fact" does not appear in a science dictionary.

Thats what these people don't seem to understand.... science requires you keep an open mind.  Proveing something in science is very hard for a reason... heance you have Theories, "a logical connection of hypothesises based on data".

You can have a hypothesis, which is just a guess.  Intelligant design is a hypothosis, at best.  There is no data to support a theory.

Theories are pretty concreate, if you understand the meaning of the word.... but they allow for differing intepretations if contrary data is found.

Also.... you will find many more fossils of successful species as opposed to the laregly unsucsesful mutants that lead to a successful population.  Fossilzation happens by chance, and this chance increases when a large sucessuful speacies evolves.  If the 'mutants' were abundant they wouldn't mutate, or have need to.  Mutation happens quicker in small populations.

And don't confuse Hypothesis with Theory  .... it makes you look .... uneducated.

[Holden McGroin]

From your quote Lambo...

Originally posted by lambo31
'Bipedalism has traditionally been regarded as the fundamental adaptation that sets hominids apart from other primates. Fossil evidence demonstrates that by 4.1 million years ago, and perhaps earlier, hominids exhibited adaptations to bipedal walking. At present, however, the fossil record offers little information about the origin of bipedalism

So "Fossil evidence demonstrates that by 4.1 million years ago, and perhaps earlier, hominids exhibited adaptations to bipedal walking."

a 2001 articleFrom Bartleby's
Australopithecus Ramidus, from Hadar {Ethiopia}, was a small, upright-walking primate who displayed many apelike features and might have been the ancestor of later hominids. Another small primate, which Johanson and White nicknamed “Lucy,” lived during a somewhat later time than Ramidus. She was between three and a half and four feet tall and was 19 to 21 years old when she died. A gracile, lightly built hominid, she was fully bipedal, with arms slightly longer than the arms of modern humans. Johanson and White also recovered the remains of other contemporary hominids. All had ape-shaped heads, brains the size of chimpanzees, and forward-thrusting jaws. Potassium-argon dates for the Hadar fossil beds are between 3.75 and 3 million years ago. Johanson and White believe that all the Hadar specimens are members of the species Australopithecus Afarensis (“southern ape-man of the Afar”) and that they are the common ancestor of all later hominids, including the first humans.

My source, Bartleby's Encyclopedia of World History is subject to revision as new information is uncovered.

Your source, "Answers in Genisis: Upholding the Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse" may have predisposition to show that evolution theory is incorrect.  That is just a hunch however.