Palaeontologist Phil Senter has a persuasive strategy for convincing doubters that all life on Earth has a common origin.
As an evolutionary biologist and atheist you’ve used the research techniques of creation science? What are they exactly?
Creation scientists take data from nature and try to reconcile it with a literal interpretation of the Bible, such as the creation of the world in six days. Nowadays many have real scientific training, with PhDs in geology, biology or chemistry, and their procedures often involve testing of hypotheses through observation and experimentation – the essence of science – although mainstream scientists interpret their results very differently.
Why are you using these techniques?
It’s important to demonstrate evolution in a way that cannot be countered by creation science. One way of doing this is to use creation science itself to demonstrate evolutionary principles.
Read the interview to find out how he does it.
“So far the reaction has been positive. The creationist camp’s militant reputation comes mainly from vocal but ignorant internet posters. “
Typical nonsense you would expect from a palaeontologist. Everyone ought to know by now that fossils are either remnants from the great flood or put their by God to test our faith. He could even have created the Universe this morning, complete with all our memories and written history and yet it would be exactly as it is now.
I want to see a scientist prove the universe wasn’t created 1 minute ago – apart from the fact our divine creator has placed me in front of a computer looking at this blog, nothing is inconsistent with that hypothesis.
#2 That’s X-Box theology
#2
wow, and at THIS blog…what a god you serve?!
The scientific history of evolution (the short story):
Hydrogen is a light odorless gas, which, given enough time turns into people.
The religion of science: Atheism
The believe that there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which eventually turned into people.
Makes perfect sense to some.
Creation Science is an oxymoron.
@jbenson2
Your ignorance and bias are showing. Keep it up.
The fact that the reason for the creation of the universe is not yet understood does not automatically mean it was created by a supernatural being. We just don’t understand it YET…
That’s the core of atheism for me. I don’t HAVE to “believe” in anything just because someone either living or dead says I do. I get to think for myself, and I get to have opinons about things like “where does the universe come from” which I’m happy to change based on new discoveries.
Improbable said:
Creation Science is an oxymoron.
I was not supporting Creationism. I was pointing out the Religion of Science.
You’ll never convince the Republicans that the Earth isn’t 7,000 years old because Jesus told them it is.
#6
The “science” of religion:
Evolution cannot be valid because a bunch of stories written by superstitious sheepherders two to six thousand years ago say differently. Science is only valid if it meshes with these fairy tales.
Makes perfect sense.
A pity that the paper is locked behind the Journal’s subscription. Something like this should be disseminated as widely and quickly as possible.
“The creationist camp’s militant reputation comes mainly from vocal but ignorant internet posters.”
Hi, everybody!
In the article, it appears he says ‘these creatures’ structures look similar.’ What a brilliant technique.
Hey, whatever story we need to dream up to educate the religosheeple is good with me.
Anyone commenting on this (or even just reading the comments) needs to watch the latest episode of Futurama http://futuramaepisode.org/episode-9-a-clockwork-origin/ Fabulous if you can ignore the Zoidberg side story.
#6, Your explanation of nothing just reveals your ignorance of the actual science behind the “big bang theory”.
Atheism is a word coined by theists that is as meaningful as ‘aphysicistism, ageologistism, atherapistism, or aphilatelistism.
Saying atheism is a religion is like saying being a non-physist is a science… a notion that could only come from the mental impairment of theists.
I stopped believing in a higher benevolent power after I saw the images of dead kids from a tornado. People say god has a plan, we just don’t understand it, you drop a tree on a kid thats not a plan just being a prick. Once you stop believing in fantasy stories you start to realize that you are responsible for you and the impacts you have around you. You may not be able to control the weather, but you can damn well treat people like you want to be treated, and make the world a better place with or without some higher powers approval or blessing.
[Well said! - ed.]
#18
You need to change blogs. You’re making far too much sense to ever again post anything at all around this stinking place.
[No, we need commenters like him. - ed.]
If anything this goes to show that there are many interpretations about the way we view the universe. The same mainstream scientific techniques can be used to attempt to square evolution with the Bible. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god. Science is the explanation of our universe as expressed by the preponderance of the evidence we collect. If you don’t want to believe in some sort of a prime mover fine, same goes for those who buy into the god thing. Good science needn’t be colored with a bias either way.