A consistent pattern in hominid fossils is that evolutionists are constantly trying to fit them into their timeline, and are regularly discovering hominids that “must be” the oldest living humans. However, they often turn out to be just apes (see, for example, the Toumai skull), and creationists like Marvin Lubenow argue well that these are mostly extinct apes, and not really related to humans at all.
Case in point – the famous “lucy” discovered by the Leakeys is probably an ape, but just recently, “lucy’s child” has been discovered (see discussion on Nature’s website). All the data is not in, but this well preserved specimen (unlike the fragmentary Lucy) may very well dethrone yet another “ancient human fossil.” So much faith in evolution, and so much speculation and incomplete and contradictory evidence.
Once again, in your religious zeal, you betray your deep lack of understanding of the scientific method. Of course recent theories can be de-throned, or speculations about evidence can be abandoned. Precisely! Scientists construct theories to explain the evidence the discover and the experiments they conduct. If something comes up that doesn’t fit their theory, they change the theory – inductive reasoning. You religionists, however, START with a theory (ie, the creator God’s existence), and then try to cram any evidence that comes up into that construct (or, more likely, discard or condemn any contrary evidence as “heretical”). You cannot disprove something which is not subject to experiment and verification (ie, God).
Once again, in your religious zeal, you betray your deep lack of understanding of the scientific method.
Here is a good interview with Richard Dawkins. The interviewer does a good job, in my opinion, of asking objectively critical questions. Of particular interest to me was that he stumped Dawkins with the question, "How can Christian scientists reconcile their religion with science?" Judge for yourselves…
Interview with Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion
Louis, you make the same claim that IDers make about Darwinists – they start with a theory and then cram everything into it or discard it, ignore it or condemn it as unscientific.
Cineaste, the question you points to is telling in itself. The fact that the interviewer felt that Christianity is not compatable with science gives every indication of their bias.
The fact that the interviewer felt that Christianity is not compatable with science gives every indication of their bias.
You are speaking from ignorance here Aaron. It is obvious you didn't watch the interview.
Granted I did not watch the video and I may indeed be wrong, but that question is loaded regardless of how fair the interview is. It assumes there is a conflict.
He nailed Dawkins with it who was reduced to sputtering.
Great interview link to Dawkins – the questions were fantiastic. I want to post on it.
It may be that some "Darwinists" take a dogmatic and unreasonable view of things. It seems that the history of science is littered with such irrationalists. However, that doesn't change the fact that so-called "creationist" theory (or, in its gentler – and dishonest – guise, ID) still depends for its first principle something which cannot be proven – or disproven, for that matter. I'm open to proof that evolutionary theory is wrong, but so far I've seen nothing convincing. Despite its problems, it remains the most likely explanation for things.
Also, I don't see why science and religion have to be at odds. Only when each infringes on the other's area that the problems arise. Some forms of xianism insist that its holy book be seen as a science text – fundamentalists, I presume. I, personally, don't think science negates spiritual belief, only certain forms. Our so-called "spiritual" lives are a separate matter for investigation.