Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion.

In other words Christians constantly ignore the mountains of evidence against their belief in the existence of their god.It's not that simple. I lie awake at night considering it. Sometimes I seriously consider dropping the whole thing.But somewhere under it all...Martyn Joseph does an interesting version of Joan Osborne's "One of Us", where he ends with "So much bigotry, so much hatred, so much anger, so much... but what if, despite all the bullshit, what if God was one of us".It's not about science; it's not about objective evidence.And of course, because evolution is about science, it has nothing to do with the existence of God, or the truth of Christianity.[This message has been edited by Karl, 10-22-2002]

Don't split hairs. You know what I mean.

And now you've edited your post, I know what you mean. Ignore my last.I'm not inclined to think there is masses of objective evidence for Christianity being true, especially of the scientifically verifiable kind - I said that in my post.Approaching religion from a scientific viewpoint is like trying to change a plug with a hammer - wrong tool. That's the mistake the fundamentalists make, and it's the mistake that a lot of atheists make. Our "scientific method" is only the product of the last few hundred years, and it's bloody good at what it does. But religion is not part of its remit, I think we'd all agree.Trying to assess faith scientifically is like trying to devise scientific methodologies to establish whether Hamlet was really mad or merely pretending to be.If religion in general - and Christianity in particular - were merely assent to a set of propositions, then the scientific method might be applicable. It isn't mere assent, however - indeed, I hold that assent to Christian doctrines is a minor element in Faith - and so the scientific method isn't applicable. Don't get me wrong - I struggle with this as a scientist - I really want objective scientific evidence that my faith is true, but reality just doesn't deal the goods. Better to accept that God (OK, OK, if He exists ) wants it that way for some reason, and move on.If you want to inhabit a universe composed only of that which is subject to scientific analysis, then feel free. But existence is bigger than that.Non of this matters a fig to evolution, which is science, is subject to the scientific method and passes science's strictures with flying colours.

Do you have any credible, verifible, or unbiased evidence which shows that the universe is more than it actually appears to be? You mean scientific? Do I have any scientific evidence that there is more to the universe that that with which science concerns itself? Erm, no. Of course not. For the same reasons that I have no historical evidence for things that are nothing to do with history.What I do have is my own and other peoples' experience of the presence of God. I can't prove it's anything other than sentiment, make-believe and wishful thinking. Nor can I prove it isn't. It is what it is. You can make it a starting point for spiritual exploration, or not.Quetzal - quite right. It is a very interesting area of study, albeit one that it is hard to test hypotheses in, a bit like language origin.

You mean scientific? Do I have any scientific evidence that there is more to the universe that that with which science concerns itself? Erm, no. Of course not. For the same reasons that I have no historical evidence for things that are nothing to do with history.Science "concerns" itself with everything which exists in the natural world (Universe) since that is all there is.Unsupported assertion.What I do have is my own and other peoples' experience of the presence of God.In other words nothing real. A slight chemical imbalance produces the exact same results.Nothing real if that which science can concern it with is all there is. But that may not be so.I can't prove it's anything other than sentiment, make-believe and wishful thinking. Nor can I prove it isn't. It is what it is. You can make it a starting point for spiritual exploration, or not.Sounds more like that so-called New Age nonsense so many scam artists are making money off of. I don't recall suggesting you send money anywhere. Jesus said a lot of things, but He never said people should make money out of Him. But like I said, it's your call. I cannot argue you into believing, and I don't see why you would be so concerned to argue me into atheism. Why not just leave it at that?

It isn't a predictable science. Evolution doesn't have a model from which you can make accurate predictions or even observations (you'd need to live a long time?). Anyway, you have misconceptions about Galileo and the church.Wrong.1. Evolutionary theory predicts that intermediates should exist between fish and amphibians. It predicts that these should be found in strata dating from the period prior to the emergence of fully terrestrial tetrapods.Such rocks were sought and found. Intermediate fossils - Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Panderichthys et al. were found.2. Evolutionary theory predicts that whales had terrestrial ancestors. These should sbow a sequence from terrestrial to fully obligate aquatic animals. Digging in the right place in the last few years has produced Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus et al. Morphologically, these animals appear to be ungulates. Biochemical and genetic analysis confirms whales are most closely related to ungulates. Prediction, hypothesis, experiment, observation. Which part of this do you have a problem with.Need I go on. Time this "doesn't make predictions" business was put to bed for good.

I suggest you look at Acanthostega gunnari, with especial attention to:

quote:

---

Acanthostega is interpreted as a primarily if not entirely aquatic animal, based on the form of the limb joints and digits, the extensive tail fin, notochordal vertebrae, lack of zygapophyses, short ribs with poorly differentiated sacral rib, postbranchial lamina, well-ossified hyobranchial apparatus, fish-like dentition retaining large vomerine fangs, lateral line organs embedded in bone, small naris, large stapes, and possibly functional spiracle. It also retains a number of primitive features independent of its aquatic life, such as the notochordal braincase, form of the fenestra vestibulae, persistent embryonic braincase fissures, fish-like occiput, anocleithrum, form of the scapulocoracoid-cleithral complex, relative lengths of radius and ulna, retention of dermal fin rays and supraneural spines. The large number of digits fits the hypothesis that early in limb evolution, digit number was not fixed. All of these characters suggest that not only was Acanthostega aquatic, but that it was primitively so, and not derived from a more terrestrial forebear. Its structure supports the idea that limbs with digits evolved for use in water, only later to be used on land, rather than the more conventional view that it was among sarcopterygian fishes that excursions over land first began (Clack 1997, Clack and Coates 1995, Coates and Clack 1995).

---

Yes, an amphibian. But what a fish like one - tail fin, lateral line system etc.Pakicetus is known from its skull, not just a few teeth and cheekbones. This page Cetaceans shows also Rhodocetus, another primitive whale, which has an almost identical skull - and a far more complete skeleton.These fossils are from the middle Eocene - the earliest epoch of the Cainozoic era. Which undisputed whales do you think come from an earlier period than this? Basilosaurus is late Eocene; distinctions between the two modern whale lineages date from the Oligocene.Finally, regarding Ambulocetus' "missing bones", you've been had, mate. No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie030.htmlOn to your point about fossils. Evolution is a contingent process and should not, could not, be expected to make specific predictions about what will happen to a particular population in the future of the "dogs will get bigger feet" type. A scientist observing fish in the Silurian would not be able to predict dinosaurs. However, it does make predictions about what fossils should be found if you dig in the right place. It does make predictions that metabolic pathways should be evolvable. Both these types of predictions are borne out again and again.It is not a mere matter of interpretation. The prediction was first - we should find these fossils. Then we found them, much to the chagrin of Duane Gish who presumably had to stop hawking his silly "half whale half cow" presentation slide.

Unfortunately for AiG, Thewisson has published on Ambulocetus since 1994 - the refs are at the end of the web page I directed you to before. Time AiG took down their article and misleading disclaimer, methinks. The bluster about ungulates and mesonychids is just a smokescreen - an attempt to blow up a fairly minor question of whether mesonychids are actually ancestral to whales, or whether both derive from a more primitive ungulate ancestor. The latter is indicated by the biochemical analysis.Dating of archocetes - I see this has been done before on this forum. Ebabinksi said:

quote:

---

The fact that all of the above critters are clustered together in geologic time with similarly shaped skulls and intermediary earbones unlike modern day whales, and that they were all mammals adapted in varying degrees to a water habitat, and that they all preceded modern cetaceans, speaks louder than the author's reliance on dating haggles to make a case for creationism. Reminds me of the old joke about two men looking up at a tall skyscraper and arguing vehemently over whether it was exactly one hundred stories tall or one-hundred-and-one stories tall by each of their careful reckonings. Then a third man comes over, in this case the author of the above article, and argues that their disagreements prove that his hypothesis -- that the building is really only a SINGLE storey tall -- makes more sense.)

---

To depend on the idea that Ambulocetus could not exist after Protocetus had come on the scene (and it so happen that these are the fossils we have found) is as daft as arguing that reptiles cannot have evolved from amphibians because amphibians exist today.Back to Acanthostega - we seem to have moved onto "is it a transtional", rather than the point it illustrated, about predictions in evolution. It fits the prediction perfectly - it was found in exactly the strata that evolutionary theory predicted it should be found. Indeed, the manner of its discovery - "where the predicted transitional should be found" is evidence in itself of the animal's transitional nature. I note that you have addressed few of the primitive characteristics my reference listed, preferring the ones that are found in extant amphibia.Your source is also wrong about the origin of limbs. Rather than being a complete mystery, it is suggested that Acanthostega's immediate ancestors evolved limbs as more advantageous for picking their way through dense aquatic vegetation.[This message has been edited by Karl, 10-24-2002]

Blitz - it's proposed that Acanthostega didn't swim much - it hung around in the weeds ambushing smaller animals that did.