Tyrathca said:
6days said:
The quote is interesting because he is admitting fossils can be interpreted so many ways.
What's interesting is you think a random quote from a magazine article (which given when it was published I doubt you've actually ever read) is somehow meaningful and important.
A single scientist making a claim would not be very meaningful, nor important. But, when numerous scientists say similar things, it does become more meaningful. What really shows the truth of that quote ('bones can sing any tune you want them too'), is when evidence bears its out. The examples are almost endless of an evolutionist making fantastic claims about a fossil, only to be disproven later by science.
Tyrathca said:
6days said:
You might look at a fossil thinking it exhibits qualities to make it transitional. I might look at the same fossil, and think it is evidence of an Intelligent Designer creating creatures perfectly suited to a certain environment.
And which of these ways of thinking predicted the existence of fossils of extinct apes with varying degrees of human like characteristics?
Again..... bones can sing any song you want them too.
There is a long history of bold transitional claims by evolutionists trying to make apes more human like..... or, humans more ape like. I'm sure you are aware of examples but can gladly discuss some if you wish.
Tyrathca said:
If you want to talk science then you need to talk about predictions, all you care about is retrospectively re-interpreting data so it fits your preconceived world view.
And that explains why evolutionists so often have egg on their face. They start with their preconceived world view, and end up making poor predictions (Junk DNA, pseudogenes, Neandertals, poor design arguments, Darwinius masillae. ETC ETC ETC)
Tyrathca said:
So why hasn't Genesis yielded any predictions which have later been found to match reality? What new discoveries has using Genesis found us?
You must get your incorrect info from atheist web sites? You might want to study a little history, or archaeology seeing how evidence keeps proving the naysayers wrong. Perhaps study a little evidence from genetics....or look at coal seams, polystrate fossils, warped and bent strata, sudden appearance, fossil grave yards etc etc etc to see how it matchs what we expect in the Biblical creation and flood models.
Tyrathca said:
Oh that's right, all it's ever done is looked at what real scientists doing real science have found and said "we could have predicted that with Genesis too!" except fort he fact they didn't until after it was found...
You are uniformed. And, you use illogical and circular arguments found on atheist websites like 'talkorigins'.
Modern science is largely the result of a belief in the Bible as literally true history. "Real science" was, and still is possible based on the belief that our universe has been formed in a rational way making science possible. Even evolutionists admit this like Loren Eiseley "The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that
science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."
BTW... If you are interested in predictions from Biblical creationists... don't just trust atheist web sites. If you google, you can easily find predictions from Biblical scientists.
