Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Mon May 02, 2016 5:14 pm**

Hugh: I do not know what you mean by "one moment" and "the very next", but there is no evidence for any such instantaneous change. Several million years is required for evolution to produce dramatic changes, and several millions years was, for example, the length of the Cambrian explosion.

I am speaking of the Big Bang - that ALL that physically exists came from what, moments before it began, did not. And what came into existence IMMEDIATELY had elements of breathtaking power, scale, complexity in design, functionality, and necessary interactive function, and these things were driven with incredible specicifity. Not to mention JUST all the right things "happened" to come into existence, with just the right complementary and interactive design, so that if they had not, the universe we have and the life we know would not exist.

Philip: [...] and 2) evolution cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion's VERY narrow time window between simple forms and when suddenly an immense number of complex and higher functioning species burst forth. There simply wasn't enough TIME for such things to evolve - not without some Super Intelligence guiding that process.

Hugh: This is an unwarranted assumption. Evolution can happen in a remarkably small geological timespan.

Do you realize that, of the approximate 4.5 billion years the earth is theorized to be, that not until the earth was about 1.8 billion years old, before earth's first lifeforms were thought to exist. And until earth was about 3.9 billion years old, the only lifeforms were mere simple cryptogamic colonies and primitive sponges, some jellyfish. Hugh Ross notes that for nearly 2 billion years, earth life had produced very simple organisms., and yet that "in a time window narrower than 2 to 3 million years (possibly much briefer), some 40 or more phyla of complex animals appeared, including 24 or 25 of the 30 animal phyla that remain on earth today." So, the first life shows up, and never achieves more than very simple forms, and in less than 3 MILLION years, we also see "complete ecologies. Predator-prey relationships, for example, did not develop gradually. They were optimized right from the state of the Cambrian explosion" and "only five or six phyla have appeared during the past 540 million years, and about 15 have disappeared." Simply put, there was not enough time! Now, if one wants to assert GOD speeded things up into hyper-evolutionary drive - fine. But pure naturalism and time cannot explain the Cambrian.

Philip: But an Intelligent and all-powerful Designer can explain the fossil record just as well as unguided evolution - and it makes a LOT more sense. But most whom reject that God created all we know, cannot accept that the God of the Bible is that Designer.

Hugh: This rather suggests that believers in evolution must be atheists, which is completely untrue.

Of course NOT! What it suggests is that if evolution is the mechanism of life, it could have not have been an unguided one that only occurred given enough time and chance. And God has left NOTHING to chance. He did not design without purpose. He has ALWAYS known ALL outcomes. Really, from a Christian perspective, evolution, while it's ONE explanation, it is not the only one. It also necessarily asserts the Biblical accounts of Creation, the Fall of Man, the need for a Redeemer, to be all of undefined allegories, in that the symbolism could mean many things, with none of them certain or truly understandable. Why all the fairy tales, especially as any theologian will tell you that the Creation and The Fall, are the foundational stories of the WHY of the Bible?

Posted: **Mon May 02, 2016 5:24 pm**

Calling "fairy tale" is risky biz for those coming from the talking snake book as their
Fountain of Truth.

Just sayin'!

Posted: **Mon May 02, 2016 5:59 pm**

Audie wrote:Calling "fairy tale" is risky biz for those coming from the talking snake book as their
Fountain of Truth.

Just sayin'!

Give them long enough to evolve and they will eventually talk right?

Posted: **Mon May 02, 2016 6:19 pm**

Audie: Calling "fairy tale" is risky biz for those coming from the talking snake book as their
Fountain of Truth.

Just sayin'!

And if I did not believe in God, if I believed everything has always been as perfectly explainable and understandable - to where certain things were not only improbable, but also impossible, I would likely be just as cynical and skeptical. But as we have a universe where none existed, where there are considerable evidences that Jesus did what Scripture says He did, then I can't just dismiss anything in Scripture. Do I understand it perfectly? Of course not. But I believe these things happened. And I know that no fiction writers could create the wisdom of Jesus from thin air.

I know that you don't just make up a God that shows His followers and favored nation to be such screw-ups, that this heroic God would be beaten and humiliated, humbled Himself, allowed treacherous men to beat him severely and then put Him through a most agonizing death, spit upon Him, punch Him, etc. And I know that all those scared disciples, who were in hiding immediately after the Crucifixion, suddenly, to a man, became bold, passionate and fearless spreaders of the Gospel - WHY???!!! Why would they risk the very same punishment if they knew Jesus to be a deluded fraud whom got himself pointlessly killed - a madman who thought He was God???!!! Nothing makes sense of this remarkable transformation of the disciples unless they had seen the risen Christ. NOTHING explains how fiercely monotheistic Jews - whom had been fully committed to the teaching of the Jewish authorities, suddenly believed this crucified Rabbi was actually God in the flesh, and that they had SEEN Him, as thousands became Christians in a very narrow window - none of that makes sense UNLESS, they saw the Risen Christ! The Apostle Paul, formerly Saul, an up and coming "rock star," zealous for Judaism and the most intense and relentless persecutor of Christians. One of the most intellectual and learned men of His day - he detested Christians. His fame and success had everything to do with being a zealous Jew and committed persecutor of Christians. Why did He JOIN his hated opponents? What did he have to gain? He traded prestige, fame and professional respect for being despised, beaten, jailed, always at risk of death, and he changed literally overnight, because something happened to him out on that road to Damascus - which he said was an encounter with the risen Christ. What else explains this incredible transformation - of the disciples and Paul?

Posted: **Mon May 02, 2016 7:13 pm**

For those familiar with Darwinian evolution or ToE, do they say that the evidence shows evolution is unguided?

Posted: **Mon May 02, 2016 7:21 pm**

hughfarey wrote:Hi Nikki; the paucity of transitional fossils was a problem for evolution from the moment of Darwin's publication, and he recognised it as such. Then, as now, the answer was thought to lie in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. Although fossil collections often appear extensive and comprehensive, the entirely of all the collections provides a vanishingly small proportion of all the species which ever lived. What's more, as the story of the evolution of whales demonstrates, the development of a new species from another looking nothing like it can be remarkably fast in geological terms, and thousands of generations can be completely lost. Nevertheless, continued exploration has continued to unearth transitional forms, and will no doubt continue to do so.

You are correct that "some would stick around longer than others." Pressure to evolve comes from changes in the environment, which can be geologically generated or by internal stresses such as over-population or competition. As long as the environment remains fairly stable, and a community of species fits it, there is little pressure to change, but when survival becomes a struggle, then species must adapt quite quickly.

When you say that you "went looking online for transitional forms", I wonder what you actually did? If you Google "transitional forms" "whale", you will find some 20,000 sites, and the second image, from http://darwiniana.org/landtosea.htm, shows a representative selection of nine transitional forms, and those are from a book published in 1999. Since then not only have more whale fossils been excavated, but those already known have been considerably better understood. There are at least 30 transitional stages currently being studied.

It cannot be emphasised too much that understanding the details of evolution is very much an ongoing process, and books published 15 ears ago cannot be quoted as the last word on the evolutionist position. With this in mind I recommend a lecture posted less than a year ago, called 'Cetacean Evolution - a Whale of a Tale', by Jon Peters. It can be found at "https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... ion-whales.

I hope that helps.

Abelcainsbrother, I do understand that a typical creationist modus operandi is to attempt to discredit evolution, and after that fill the vacant 'explanation space' with an alternative, but that's not how science works. The evidence for competing hypotheses are compared at the same time, and the one with the best evidence accepted as the best explanation so far. In the absence of any evidence for any alternative, then the evidence for evolution, however deficient, is better than nothing, and therefore evolution is the best explanation for the development of life.

I'm sorry I did not directly answer your question: "What is the difference between variation in reproduction, adaptation and life evolving?" I don't find this very clear, but I will interpret it as best I can, and hope I can answer.

A species is a group of organisms which can interbreed. It is characterised by a 'gene pool' of a number of genes, of which each individual of the species has a selection. The selection can be quite varied, but as long as the individual can breed with similar organisms, we term it a member of the species. As long as the species can intercommunicate well, these genes can be shuffled about during the process of sexual reproduction, producing offspring that can still interbreed with other members of the species. This is what I think you mean by "variation in reproduction".

Environmental pressures may result in the species gradually occupying two environmentally different habitats. These can be geographical, such as the opposite banks of a river, or behavioural, such as feeding from the sides or the bottom of a lake. As long as there is good communication between the individuals, the genes will continue to shuffle, the offspring will all still be able to interbreed, and the single species is maintained. However, if behaviour or geography tends to separate individuals into two groups which do not interbreed (even if they could), then gradually the particular gene pools of each group may result in individuals which can no longer breed with individuals of the other group. This is speciation. Along the way, the two groups may undergo intermediate stages in which individuals of the two different groups can mate, but produce increasingly less fertile offspring. The result is two separate species, each adapted better to its particular environment. This is half of what I think you mean by 'adaptation.'

The other half consists of the emergence of completely new genes. While all this interbreeding is going on, the DNA of each individual must be copied billions of times, and for various reasons it may not be copied precisely. There may be simple copying errors, or the DNA can be damaged by exposure to various forms of radiation. This occurs all the time, and most of the new material is fatal to the organism which depends on it. However, given the billions of versions of DNA being generated, occasionally a new gene is not fatal, and, if the individual with it reproduces, it becomes part of the gene pool of the species. As such, it may be useful if the time comes for adaptation to a new environment, and contribute to the difference between two species. That completes my explanation of what I think you mean by 'adaptation'.

This combination of processes, reproductive gene shuffling, adapting to new environments, and the emergence of new forms of DNA, results in species, by a continuous process of dividing into two other species, increasing in number and variety to fit the global environment as well as possible at any one time. That explains what I think you mean by 'evolution.'

I hope that helps.

You go on to say this: "They try to convince us life evolved because it can no longer breed, however no evolution happened at all and if they could not interbreed they would just die out unless man intervened and controlled the breeding like in animal breeding." I would like to reply, but sadly I cannot understand it at all. Would you care to rephrase it?

This, however, I understand: "If I asked you to describe evaporation I'm sure you could and if I asked you for a demonstration I'm sure you could demonstrate it too, but this is not the case with evolution, instead we must assume life evolves based on the evidence they have provided." You are correct that it is very difficult to demonstrate evolution in a laboratory. It is difficult to demonstrate the formation and development of galaxies too, and the reproduction of blue whales. Laboratories are not suited to the very large, the very rare or the very slow, and we have to make the best of what evidence we have. However, we must certainly not "assume life evolves based on the evidence they have provided." We must judge that evidence for ourselves, and balance it against other evidence, and make up our minds based on which seems to explain the development of life best. That is why I have been asking for evidence for an alternative to evolution, so that I can balance the two and judge for myself which to go for. In the absence of any other evidence, evolution has to win - for the present.

First I want to respond to what you was trying to explain about transitional fossils to Nicki .I would like to know how you think there are transitional fossils,other than just believing there are because you accept evolution because no fossil that has ever been found shows transition. every fossil found from whales to trilobites to wooly mammoths to Giant deer,etc show bsolutely no transition at all. They are all fully formed creatures that once lived milions and sometimes billions of years ago and none show any transition.

Now they hve been grouped togather and made into transitional fossils but it is all based on believing evolution to be true despite what the evidence shows. Sorry to seem so harsh but you don't have to be a Paleontologist to look at all of the fossils that have been found and see that they are all fully formed creatures that show no signs at all of any transitioning. This is or should be a serious problem for evolution because Darwin acknowledged the fossils showed no transition but he insisted they would be found if his theory was true. Yet scientists just overlooked this and made them into transitional fossils.

You said :

You are correct that "some would stick around longer than others." Pressure to evolve comes from changes in the environment, which can be geologically generated or by internal stresses such as over-population or competition. As long as the environment remains fairly stable, and a community of species fits it, there is little pressure to change, but when survival becomes a struggle, then species must adapt quite quickly.

Yet Francis Crick who won a Nobel prize for his work in genetics in his "Central Dogma" stated that although genetic information can travel outwards from the DNA in the cell nucleus in order to direct the formation of proteins,information from the body cannot travel back into the nuclei of germ cells and modify the DNA pattern. In other words the environment cannot effect the DNA of any life.

You said :

Abelcainsbrother, I do understand that a typical creationist modus operandi is to attempt to discredit evolution, and after that fill the vacant 'explanation space' with an alternative, but that's not how science works. The evidence for competing hypotheses are compared at the same time, and the one with the best evidence accepted as the best explanation so far. In the absence of any evidence for any alternative, then the evidence for evolution, however deficient, is better than nothing, and therefore evolution is the best explanation for the development of life.

Then I'm not sure I could change your mind because you're asking for the impossible and that is for me to ove turn thw whole theory of evolution based on a non-scientific theory that is based on a biblival interpretation. I do not believe this is possible however if both were taught side by side once all of the evidence is laid out and it is shown how the evidence in and on this earth confirms indeed a former world "A Lost World" did indeed exist that perished and it is explained that this is what the evidence in and on the earth tells us and it does not in anyway tell us life evolves the theory of evolution will not be believed by so many people even if science ignores it and still hangs on to the theory of evolution. It matters who believes it and who does'nt.

You said :

This combination of processes, reproductive gene shuffling, adapting to new environments, and the emergence of new forms of DNA, results in species, by a continuous process of dividing into two other species, increasing in number and variety to fit the global environment as well as possible at any one time. That explains what I think you mean by 'evolution.'

There has never been a time yet when any scientists has demonstrated the emergence of new forms of DNA or one kind of life evolving over time into nother totally diffeent kind of creature. as a matter of fact the evidence in evolution science demonstrates and shows us that even when life is able to adapt to hostile envoronments kinds still produce after their kind just like the bible tells us. Whether it is viruses,bacteria,finches,salamanders,dogs,cats,humans,etc these each kind produce after their kind with no evolution ever.
Now it is true that if you look at say old cattle and compare it to todays cattle that todays cattle looks slightly different but the bottom line is it is still cattle and has not evolved.

If you want evidence for the Gap Theory? Just remove from your mind everything you've heard about evolution science and then take the time to examine the evidence in and on this earth and if you know about evolution? You should already have a good understanding of what the evidence shows but instead of looking at it from a theory of evolution view point look at it from a former world view point and I think you will honestly realize it better proves that a former world different than this world once existed on this earth. Even if you don't even know how the bible teaches it yet. To me the evidence in and on this earth confirms that a former world different from this world did indeed exist and the evidence in and on the earth does not tell us life evolves,it is just looked at from that perspective though.

If a former world, a lost world did exist why would we not want to know it?

Posted: **Mon May 02, 2016 7:35 pm**

Can we please keep this on topic, about if God can create through evolution?

We have enough threads trying to convert people to the church of Gap.

I want to learn more about the topic.

Posted: **Mon May 02, 2016 8:32 pm**

RickD wrote:For those familiar with Darwinian evolution or ToE, do they say that the evidence shows evolution is unguided?

Aren't you familiar with such Rick?
Such a simple question to answer.

This topic actually came up last night between me and my wife in the car on way home from her relatives.
Evidence shows "guidance" but who or what does that "guidance" is where the real issue is.

Darwin showed something that appeared to be designed (i.e., Selective Breeding), could actually just have the appearance of design (Natural Selection).

It is funny in a way, how the assumption of a True Design (or a true telos) has been turned on its head where people just assume Apparent Design unless proved otherwise. I see that this assumption changed with Darwinian evolution especially as we more fully entered into the Secular Age.

That is, in the past, a true telos (an ultimate objective or aim) in the natural world was seen and assumed. You know, going back to Aristotle and the like. For example, a telos to humanity could be seen as offspring, male and female coming together having a family and offspring.

Such telos, since Darwin and Natural Selection, has more and more come to be seen as just being in appearance; things in the natural world just appear to have an ultimate objective or aim. You know, we even have survival of the fittest being that aim which is heavily invested in Natural Selection. It's not that there is some guiding intelligence ensuring the fittest survive, rather it's just how nature plays out -- the fittest for an environment will survive and outlast competing species.

For Darwin, this better explained why in nature life seemed so cruel. For example, the black widow spider and female praying mantis devouring the male. A good God surely would not create such a horrible design, telos if you will, to be found in nature amongst some species.

Natural Selection was actually like Darwin's theodicy, that is, a solution to the appearance of pain and suffering (evil) in the natural world. It became like a way out for Darwin as to why things appeared to have been designed, and yet, also the cruelty often displayed in nature.

So how did the assumption of True Design vs Apparent Design get turned on their head in our Secular Age?

Well, in the past, the telos was assumed to be truly guided or installed by an intelligence. Whether one believed in intelligent agents, or the one true God of Israel, or just a philosophically conceived God after Aristotle's Unmoved Mover reasoning.

Today, it is just assumed any telos is psuedo-design, having the appearance of design or guidance. Such that, in order to embrace what we intuitively see as design in nature we must now see the designer in action. You'd have noticed that even in the most evolutionary-based documentaries, they often fail to get through without using the word "design" of this or that animal being beautiful or complex -- clearly a telos is just so intuitive and clear to us!

Nonetheless, today we must always assume the "Appearance of Design" rather than "True Design" in nature. To not do so, especially in "scientific" circles, is to be seen as a "Creationist" freak and it's just not rationally sound in our enlightened modern era. It's healthy to be skeptical of True Design we intuit, but you're a crackpot if you're skeptical of merely the Appearance of Design.

It's clear to me that both are positions that should have rational justifications -- there is no neutral position and I think it is clearly reasonable to go with what you intuit. For me that is to assume a real true design and telos exists. This means all natural processes are truly guided and by that I mean intelligently so. I don't believe it hurts to assume a moderate position of such, and certainly I see progress in science has often been slowed because things were assumed to have no telos (ie., vestigal organs and "junk" or "non-coding" DNA).

Posted: **Mon May 02, 2016 8:56 pm**

RickD wrote:Can we please keep this on topic, about if God can create through evolution?

We have enough threads trying to convert people to the church of Gap.

I want to learn more about the topic.

Sorry but I thought I was staying on topic.I'm just trying to give reasons and examples of ways we can know God did not create through evolution and how I think the Gap Theory interpetation better represents what the evidence tells us. I was responding to hughfarey but I do apologize if I got us off topic.It was not my intention. But instead of just giving reasons why I don't believe God created through evolution it can be better to offer another possible theory.But I was first trying to convince him to reject the theory of evolution and not to believe God created through evolution.

Posted: **Mon May 02, 2016 9:16 pm**

Audie wrote:
Evolution is an established fact. Even creationists realize that, tho they timidly will only
allow for "micro" evolution.

If you mean the THEORY of evolution, presting a theory as a fact is bonkers. Who does that?

Such impressions as people get, from a shallow and disinterested viewpoint has nothing whatever to do with the validity of the science.

What's the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution? Isn't evolution what's described by the theory? Or do you mean evolution as simply change?

I appreciate the rest of what you said - that there must be many undiscovered fossils and there must have been many creatures that weren't fossilised. Could be true.

Posted: **Mon May 02, 2016 10:40 pm**

"How can God create through evolution?", to answer this question, I think it's correct to more foundationally ask how evolution or anything in existence can continue to exist without God's sustaining such in existence.

I wrote elsewhere:

Kurieuo wrote:God as the logically necessary being, means God is the source of all existence.
As the source of all existence, anything that exists does so because God as the source sustains such into existence.
That would go for every single atom in the universe bouncing around as well as creatures and the greater universe.
Therefore, the only kind of randomity that could be had is through what I'd term an "apparent randomity".
...
In our world, God sets in place a stable world (instead of world full of chaos) which is held together by natural laws He sustains. Given God would be the source of all existence, on a foundational level EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS is running on God. God keeps the fabric of our world and how it runs continually existing. So we experience everything running on laws in a rather stable and even predictable manner because it is running on God.

Now although results based upon physical laws and the like are predictable, some results might appear to be quite random. In actuality what appears to be a random roll of the dice, the dice and rolling is actually sustained by God in existence every which way. God allows natural laws to play out as though a dice is being rolled, but all the while God is actually turning the dice to land on the numbers they do. They land on the numbers they do according to the "randomiser rules" created which God continually upholds (i.e., natural laws) and keeps in play. Nothing in the world happens without God's sustaining such. Therefore nothing is truly random.

Aquinas presented two ways in which something is dependent.

One is causal order dependency, for example, the Kalam cosmological argument is "if the universe began to exist then it must have a cause for it's existence". Such is an argument based upon causal dependency (i.e., God existing before the universe which sciences supports is finite and therefore must have a prior cause for its existence). The evolutionary process with new species arising via mutations is very much dependent upon an unbroken causal dependency also.

The other is an essential order dependency. An example I'll present with writing may or may not be a good example, but it's one I'm fond of. That is, for writing to exist some writing substance (i.e., ink) needs to exist upon some foundation (i.e., paper). Now we know from experience that hand writing requires a writer who progressively writes upon paper. Therefore we can say the paper causally exists prior to the writing. With the printing press however, paper and ink are combined at one and the same time, the ink being stamped on the paper OR paper being pressed upon the ink (whichever way you wish to look at it). Yet, for the written form to exist, it is essential that there be a foundation for the ink itself. Thus, we might say that the paper while not causally prior to the written ink form, it is essentially prior -- for the paper forms the foundation upon which the ink in written form is placed.

Now once we realise this, the proper focus isn't whether something came into existence via the process of evolution, but rather what is that foundation (paper) upon which the process of evolution (writing) happens. The process of natural biological laws, chemistry and the like ALL carry on as they do because they are all running upon something more foundational.

From a theological perspective, God possesses aseity (exists in and of Himself) and so is the foundation of all existence upon which everything else exists and moves. God is therefore the eternal sustainer of matter, all natural laws, of all particles in the world and whether or not they twitch this way or that. So given all that, it isn't really possible for God to create a world and then walk away to let it run on its own, because if God truly "walked" away from the world it would cease to exist. God is that necessary foundation of all that exists.

Turning to the original question that asks, "How God can create through evolution?," this question doesn't really make sense. For evolution doesn't stand on its own, running like some mechanical clock a watchmaker creates, winds up and then lets tick away. No, if the very foundation or essence of something is dependent upon the watchmaker for its existence, then the moment the watchmaker withdraws the clock would stop and even vanish.

To build off the watchmaker analogy, God isn't just letting even time itself run on its own. Every new moment in time, the present moment of now-ness that you are experiencing, is being created by God. Time isn't just left running, but as we experience the present moment that is here and now, God is creating it fiat ex nihilo (out of nothing). God is the clock upon which time itself exists and runs. God is the sustainer of all, and by that God is creating everything that exists, holding it all in existence, always and in every moment. His faithfulness in holding it all together for us to experience in an orderly and stable fashion, is what we call God's sustaining of our world.

So, the question can't really be how God can create through evolution. Rather given God's existence and pervasiveness in everything that exists, the question is more whether God uniformly sustains all natural laws and processes to purposefully shape and bring new life into existence that didn't exist in a previous instance God sustained? If the answer to that is "yes", then the moment God does bring about new life such is actually being created along with everything else previously in existence fiat ex nihilo (out of nothing).

This is an important theological point because it places a different spin on Theistic Evolution which is often seen anti-Scriptural on account of it removing God's direct involvement from creation. The charge often made against TE is that the Bible presents God as directly involved in the creation process. BUT, if you follow my reasoning in my previous three paragraphs, God sustaining all that exists via giving existence to everything in every new moment in such a way that the world appears to "naturally" carry on and can be faithfully experienced, then this charge against Theistic Evolution becomes mute provided there is a correct ontological understanding with an essential order dependency founded upon God.

Posted: **Tue May 03, 2016 1:03 am**

Philip: You mentioned the "instant and awesome functionality of things that one moment did not exist, but in the very next did" in the context of evolution, which the Big Bang has nothing to do with. I agree that the spontaneous appearance of anything from nothing, which many scientists consider a rational possibility, and no scientist has found a generally accepted alternative to, is indeed a philosophical rather than a scientific problem.

Yes, I am fully aware of the timescale of evolution, including the 'sudden' appearance of multiple life-forms during the Cambrian explosion. However, I do not agree that the normal processes of evolution are inadequate to explain it. The Cambrian explosion had a lot to do with the evolution of more durable skeletal materials, which not only enabled a huge variety of forms to develop, but also left more fossils. Hugh Ross's timespan of 2 to 3 million years is unjustified by the fossil record.

You say: "If one wants to assert GOD speeded things up into hyper-evolutionary drive - fine. But pure naturalism and time cannot explain the Cambrian." I see these two statements as directly contradictory. 'Pure naturalism and time' are the ways God uses to unfold his creation.

Much of the rest of your comment attempts to distinguish between 'guided' and 'unguided' progression, which is a false dichotomy, in my opinion. If God is responsible for the present, then He can have achieved it in whatever way he chose. I think he chose evolution, and can present endless amounts of evidence to show why I think so. The only evidence for any kind of spontaneous creation is biblical.

Abelcainsbrother: I have already explained about transitional fossils, but you do not appear to have read my post. Your claim that "no fossil that has ever been found [that] shows transition" is simply wrong, as is "every fossil found from whales to trilobites to wooly mammoths to giant deer,etc. shows absolutely no transition at all." Exactly the contrary, almost all extinct animals show very well exactly how they fit into the gradual development of living things to complexity, interrelationship and the occupation of environmental niches. Of course all organisms are "fully formed" creatures, but that does not mean that they do not show transition.

This is not true either: "Now they have been grouped together and made into transitional fossils but it is all based on believing evolution to be true despite what the evidence shows." Belief in evolution comes from the evidence, not the other way round. If you have a better explanation for the evidence, or any evidence at all to support an alternative hypothesis for the development of life, then please present it, as I have already asked several times.

"Darwin acknowledged the fossils showed no transition but he insisted they would be found if his theory was true." He did, and they were.

"Yet scientists just overlooked this and made them into transitional fossils." No. Scientists found new fossils which showed better transitional forms.

"Yet Francis Crick who won a Nobel prize for his work in genetics in his "Central Dogma" stated that although genetic information can travel outwards from the DNA in the cell nucleus in order to direct the formation of proteins, information from the body cannot travel back into the nuclei of germ cells and modify the DNA pattern. In other words the environment cannot effect the DNA of any life." This has been found increasingly untrue, but is a minor part of the alteration of DNA, which seems to be mostly changed by radiation of various kinds rather than environmental factors. DNA is also modified by copying errors.

"Then I'm not sure I could change your mind because you're asking for the impossible and that is for me to overturn the whole theory of evolution based on a non-scientific theory that is based on a biblical interpretation." That's fine, as I said above. There is nothing wrong about believing in non-scientific theories. What is wrong is to pretend that non-scientific theories are, in fact scientific. That would be dishonest. Where we seem to differ here is not in science, but in philosophy. And that's OK too.

"If both were taught side by side once all of the evidence is laid out and it is shown how the evidence in and on this earth confirms indeed a former world "A Lost World" did indeed exist that perished and it is explained that this is what the evidence in and on the earth tells us and it does not in anyway tell us life evolves the theory of evolution will not be believed by so many people even if science ignores it and still hangs on to the theory of evolution. It matters who believes it and who does'nt". Unfortunately for the Gap Theory, almost everybody who has indeed laid out all the evidence side by side has not been persuaded that it provides an adequate explanation.

You said : "There has never been a time yet when any scientists has demonstrated the emergence of new forms of DNA or one kind of life evolving over time into another totally different kind of creature." This is what you said before, and I responded. Why make the same statement again?

You said: "Now it is true that if you look at say old cattle and compare them to today's cattle, todays cattle look slightly different but the bottom line is it is still cattle and has not evolved." This is only trivially true. Modern 'cattle' come in a variety of forms, some of which cannot reproduce with others. The original species has divided into different species. Others, such as the yak, are transitional forms.

You said: "Take the time to examine the evidence in and on this earth and if you know about evolution? You should already have a good understanding of what the evidence shows but instead of looking at it from a theory of evolution view point look at it from a former world view point and I think you will honestly realize it better proves that a former world different than this world once existed on this earth." Well, no, I don't. All the evidence I see persuades me that God's plan is unfolding by entirely evolutionary means.

"To me the evidence in and on this earth confirms that a former world different from this world did indeed exist and the evidence in and on the earth does not tell us life evolves,it is just looked at from that perspective though." That's OK. We must agree to differ.

Kurieuo: Absolutely. I agree with every word.

Posted: **Tue May 03, 2016 2:36 am**

In the Origin of species Charles Darwin admitted that his theory requires infinitely numerous organisms and that innumerable transitional forms must have existed and Darwin asks Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Darwin even admits that Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain;and this,perhaps,is the most obvious and serious objection to my theory. Then Darwin goes on and predicts that the transitionals would somehow be found in the future,as more strata is explored.He even was so bold to say that people should rightly reject his theory if the fossils did not appear as the result of further geological investigation.

Yet when we look at fossils and any of them we see no transition and no intermediate forms,no evidence of gradual change only great leaps from one form to the next.Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection and many species appear without warning and persist in fixed form and disappear,leaving no descendants. But evolution is believed by faith and so it must go on despite the lack of evidence and so then they came up with "puncuated equilibriam" and according to this theory,evolution supposedly accurs in explosive but inexplicable adrupt leaps from one complex form to another totally different one and then followed by an exctinction event,usually,in order to keep the evolution myth going.

Yet if you listen to evolutionists and professors that teach it you're taught that numerous transitional fossils have been found since then and they have even re-arranged the fossils to make it seem like they have,but they have'nt and the problem still persists today. They preach evolution is true and people believe it,despite the lack of evidence.

This is not how science should be done and it is bad science.

Posted: **Tue May 03, 2016 4:05 am**

RickD wrote:For those familiar with Darwinian evolution or ToE, do they say that the evidence shows evolution is unguided?

I think there is indirect evidence that it is unguided.

I will think about this for a bit.

Posted: **Tue May 03, 2016 5:02 am**

Audie wrote:
RickD wrote:For those familiar with Darwinian evolution or ToE, do they say that the evidence shows evolution is unguided?
I think there is indirect evidence that it is unguided.

I will think about this for a bit.

That's the impression I'm getting from a little reading of links by those who say they hold to Darwinian evolution or ToE.

Did Darwin teach it is unguided?

Evidence for God from Science

How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution: