Evidence for God from Science

we cannot really call the cambrian explosion an anomoly because the only evidence of it is the fossil record, which is vastly incomplete. its like assuming to know the picture of a 1000 piece puzzle with only 3 pieces.

We know the Cambrian Explosion is true-because Pre-Cambrian rocks DO have fossils in them, so unlike Darwin's explanation "they were destroyed" they weren't. So you are begging the question when you say it is incomplete. How do you know it's incomplete and pieces are missing? You first assume evolution, and then look at the fossil record, say "it doesn't fit" and conclude parts are missing.

you complain that evolutionists are biased by assuming firsthand that evolution is true. i say that this is a misunderstanding. much of what evolution is based on is not evolution science. it is based on sciences like geology and biology and other sciences which have figured things out from a non-evolutionist position. that is to say, much of the data that evolutionists use to develop theories is done by scientists who are not evolutionists; who are merely making observations of the physical world without any idea of what that data is to be used to determine.

Example?

also, christian scientists, creationists, and ID proponents more than often (and definately more than other scientists) assume that everything was created firsthand, and did not evolve. this is certainly just as tainting to the data collected by them as to those who assume that evolution was the cause.

ID proponents as well? Then why are there people who don't believe in God but attack evolution and believe in ID? Please explain this broad generalization and how you know so much that you can in fact make such broad generalizations. You don't know anything about ID, obviously.

by the way, i don't know where you get the idea that i am running out of ideas. im not making this stuff up as i go. the only reason i would repeat myself is if you didn't understand me the first time.

You're just saying the same things over and over

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

we cannot really call the cambrian explosion an anomoly because the only evidence of it is the fossil record, which is vastly incomplete. its like assuming to know the picture of a 1000 piece puzzle with only 3 pieces.

We know the Cambrian Explosion is true-because Pre-Cambrian rocks DO have fossils in them, so unlike Darwin's explanation "they were destroyed" they weren't.

Now, you're making things up. That was never used as an explanation.
I'm sure it's been explained to you many times but here it goes again.

When going into to battle will you attack without knowledge of the enemy? Is it wise to go on the offensive without intelligence?

That is what you are doing.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:So you are begging the question when you say it is incomplete. How do you know it's incomplete and pieces are missing?

We are still finding fossils to this date do you believe it is complete? There are fragments of bones and incomplete skeletons. How can it then be complete? How can you complain about the incomplete nature of some findings and then turn around and ask how it is still incomplete?

All I can say is HUH?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:You first assume evolution, and then look at the fossil record, say "it doesn't fit" and conclude parts are missing.

No scientists just go out an dig fossils for the sake of discovery. Do you think a scientist just muses to himself "Hmm I'm going to find a T. Rex bone today..." No first they determine what the most likely deposits are. Then using this information based on geological age they then make an expedition to the location. And then they begin excavation. But in most cases the fossils locations are found accidentally. There is no agenda here.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

by the way, i don't know where you get the idea that i am running out of ideas. im not making this stuff up as i go. the only reason i would repeat myself is if you didn't understand me the first time.

You're just saying the same things over and over

And you're.... not???

I know of a few charts you like to repeatedly post over and over and over again.
lol

Now, you're making things up. That was never used as an explanation.
I'm sure it's been explained to you many times but here it goes again.

When going into to battle will you attack without knowledge of the enemy? Is it wise to go on the offensive without intelligence?

That is what you are doing.

That was Darwin's excuse I believe...

We are still finding fossils to this date do you believe it is complete? There are fragments of bones and incomplete skeletons. How can it then be complete? How can you complain about the incomplete nature of some findings and then turn around and ask how it is still incomplete?

All I can say is HUH?

Zenith was saying there are huge gaps....as there must be to explain the Cambrian Explosion away.

No scientists just go out an dig fossils for the sake of discovery. Do you think a scientist just muses to himself "Hmm I'm going to find a T. Rex bone today..." No first they determine what the most likely deposits are. Then using this information based on geological age they then make an expedition to the location. And then they begin excavation. But in most cases the fossils locations are found accidentally. There is no agenda here.

I don't know what you're getting at...

And you're.... not???

I know of a few charts you like to repeatedly post over and over and over again.
lol

Maybe if you guys didn't say the same things over and over, I wouldn't have to whack them.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Now, you're making things up. That was never used as an explanation.
I'm sure it's been explained to you many times but here it goes again.

When going into to battle will you attack without knowledge of the enemy? Is it wise to go on the offensive without intelligence?

That is what you are doing.

That was Darwin's excuse I believe...

Darwin died 127 years ago! What does it matter now? His original theory still lives but the proposed mechanisms by which evolution occur have been greatly refined and revamped in the past century+.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

We are still finding fossils to this date do you believe it is complete? There are fragments of bones and incomplete skeletons. How can it then be complete? How can you complain about the incomplete nature of some findings and then turn around and ask how it is still incomplete?

All I can say is HUH?

Zenith was saying there are huge gaps....as there must be to explain the Cambrian Explosion away.

As of now all explanations are based on limited evidence and as such can only be speculation. Either way. What is clear is that the majority of modern forms appear to be based on the body plans found in the cambrian rocks, albiet in much modified form.

This is actually shown in one of the many charts you like to post over and over again. What the chart does not show it that the primitive representative of a phylum does not at all resemble the modern representatives.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

No scientists just go out an dig fossils for the sake of discovery. Do you think a scientist just muses to himself "Hmm I'm going to find a T. Rex bone today..." No first they determine what the most likely deposits are. Then using this information based on geological age they then make an expedition to the location. And then they begin excavation. But in most cases the fossils locations are found accidentally. There is no agenda here.

I don't know what you're getting at...

The point is that the people doing the excavating and experimenting are not the same ones writing books on how evolution could have occurred. The real science is in the discoveries not in the theorizing.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

And you're.... not???
I know of a few charts you like to repeatedly post over and over and over again.
lol

Maybe if you guys didn't say the same things over and over, I wouldn't have to whack them.

lol

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:We know the Cambrian Explosion is true-because Pre-Cambrian rocks DO have fossils in them, so unlike Darwin's explanation "they were destroyed" they weren't. So you are begging the question when you say it is incomplete. How do you know it's incomplete and pieces are missing? You first assume evolution, and then look at the fossil record, say "it doesn't fit" and conclude parts are missing.

im not saying whatever th precambrian explosion is didn't happen, but rather that it is assumed that it is an anomoly only because of the context it is in now. i can assume that almost all of the remains of organisms on this planet have not been fossilized due to the violent nature of rock formation on the planet. it is safe to say that fossilization is very rare. it is plausable that monumental geological activity has destroyed or prevented the fossilization of many organisms. because these geological processes do not disrupt the process all over the world (there will always be a chance that fossils are formed) we can still find fossils from that period.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

you complain that evolutionists are biased by assuming firsthand that evolution is true. i say that this is a misunderstanding. much of what evolution is based on is not evolution science. it is based on sciences like geology and biology and other sciences which have figured things out from a non-evolutionist position. that is to say, much of the data that evolutionists use to develop theories is done by scientists who are not evolutionists; who are merely making observations of the physical world without any idea of what that data is to be used to determine.

Example?

in my work in agronomy we have to use pesticides on the crops we grow. we have to change the product we use sometimes because the insects adapt to it; they 'evolve' a resistance over generations. it happens so quickly because of the rapid rate of reproduction. the scientists working on how these organisms change do not necessarily hold evolutionist beliefs; i know quite a few christians in this kind of work who do as good a job as any. all they do is take observations on different subjects to determine a rate of change in any given aspect.

every science is filled with people who have everyday lives, maybe they're christian, maybe they're agnostic, maybe they're islamic, anything it doesn't really matter. all they are doing is recording observations such that they can be used and checked for error by other scientists. and there are more than a few differing groups of scientists with different views working on a subject so that the model that best fits the physical data is commonly used. the reason evolution is so accepted scientifically is because no other model has been so vastly supported by the evidence and observations at hand. all other currently contending models and theories are based more on assumption in this respect.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

also, christian scientists, creationists, and ID proponents more than often (and definately more than other scientists) assume that everything was created firsthand, and did not evolve. this is certainly just as tainting to the data collected by them as to those who assume that evolution was the cause.

ID proponents as well? Then why are there people who don't believe in God but attack evolution and believe in ID? Please explain this broad generalization and how you know so much that you can in fact make such broad generalizations. You don't know anything about ID, obviously.

i know that ID assumes the presence of a creating entity in a similar fashion as christianity does, and that most ID 'scientists' are christian. by the very definition, Intelligent Design theory assumes that a creator is necessary for life. for someone who doesn't like assumptions so much you really throw them around a lot.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Zenith was saying there are huge gaps....as there must be to explain the Cambrian Explosion away.

i did not say there were huge gaps in the actual existence of organisms. i implied that there are huge gaps in the fossil record (which should be common knowledge), and that these gaps do not necessarily relate to gaps in the actual existence of organisms. we must take into account the violent and continuous nature of the geology of the earth. there is constant erosion from wind, water, and chemicals; there are volcanoes, earthquakes, diverging and converging faults, etc. that have been working for billions of years. fossils are not even bone any more, they are mineral deposits in what used to be bone; they are only rocks. as such, they are as easily destroyed as the rocks they are in. and most of the rock on the planet is sedimentary, which has been processed and reprocessed again and again, being continuously broken into tiny pieces and reformed.

fossils are very rare.

In truth the cambrian explosion does represent a sudden explosion of fossils(relatively speaking) It appears that prior to this most life forms on the planet lacked any hard parts, which of course fossilize more easily.

The questions opened up by this are as follows.

Does this represent adaptive radiation?
If not what caused the sudden acceleration of evolution?

And if so what caused a probable homologous ecosystem to become compartmentalized. Like islands on an island chain?

Several scientific theories are as follows.
Major predation begins here. Predation leads to local populations being forced to adapt. Predators once decimating local populations will moce. Both predator and prey adapt as a natural arms race takes place. Predators move from one type of prey to the next effecting every type of organism.

Major techtonic activity. Movement of continental masses changes the environment of long existing populations, causing isolation and forcing adaptation. Thus accelerating the forces of evolution.

Oxygen levels in the oceans finally have arisin to the level necessary for larger life forms. Anaerobic microbes die off as oxygen poisons the oceans. Microorganisms responsible for the formation of silicates and carbonates no longer need to compete with anaerobic microbes which once dominated the oceans.

The development of various hox genes, which help to organize a colony of cells. With the development of a central method of organization life was now free to try various forms. Eventually the selective pressures of predation and competition will lead to most of these forms to fail.

It could be a combination of these and other posibilities. We will never really know.

At this point any of the following answers are equally valid.
Life came to earth on a comet.
Life came to earth on an asteroid.
God created life.
Life formed spontaneously.

There is an evolutionist site that mentions the above hypothesis but also points out where most evolutionists disagree with the asteroid/meteorite theory. It is found at: http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/c ... _chem.html

While debating an atheist, he told me that I should go to an evolutionist site for education rather than a creationist site. Of course I had done this many times before but I thought I would entertain him, and so the first site I went to (the one mentioned above), I noticed that there were more questions than answers. What's more, I was actually impressed that they admitted that there are no absolute answers to many of the questions of the origens of life.

Here are just a few statements found at: http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/c ... 1_bio.html

1. Early Cell " What were the first living cells like? Scientists don't know for sure, for we lack good data from the first 2 billion years of Earth's history—a period known as the Archaean."

2. Introduction: "It's difficult to be precise about events we cannot observe directly."

3. Qualities of Life "We are moving across the threshold connecting matter and life. And although life itself is closer to us in space and time—indeed, we are life—that doesn't necessarily mean that we understand it any better than matter. The reason is that living systems are so much more complex than any inanimate objects; a potted plant is more complicated than the most splendid galaxy. Much as some missing links hamper our current knowledge of distant stars and galaxies, gaps also plague our understanding of the history of life right here on Earth."
and

4. "Appreciating contemporary life is one thing, but understanding how it might have arisen from nonliving matter billons of years ago is quite another. Can we be sure that the basic ingredients for life were present, or would have naturally emerged, on primordial Earth? Furthermore, is it likely that those nonliving building blocks could have fashioned a simple living cell given the harsh conditions on our planet billions of years ago?"

My response was that it all brings us back to the same page and the same questions. "How did we get here?" "How did life begin?"

"Darwin died 127 years ago! What does it matter now? His original theory still lives but the proposed mechanisms by which evolution occur have been greatly refined and revamped in the past century"

Sorry BGood, this is a false statement. The proposed mechanisms have not been refined, in fact, they have been dramatically expanded because the proposed ones have failed the test. The current theories of evolution vary dramatically from Evo-Devo to the dying Neo-Darwinian (though dominant) to Field theories which drive evolutionary forces to punctuated equilibrium. Many theorists like Lynn Margulis, have even postulated that there is some mysterious force which is purely natural, but behind evolution.

Also, in China and non-Western Countries, they mostly believe that God created life, willed it, dreamed it or started it and walked away. They beleive that Western science is nothing more than white man arrogant attempt to dominate the world. These are the future scientists that will also help dismantle evolutionary theory as wel know it-and it is already in swift progress. Paul Chien, a leading biologist in the world and specialist on the CAmbrian, has stated that in the West, you cannot question the govt, in the East you cannot question Darwin.

Sorry, but most paleontologists will state explicitly that the fossil record is very nearly complete from a macro perspective. Sure, there are holes to fill, but they are minor holes-the big picture is there for us to see. Also, there are 3 pre-Cambrian Phyla, but there seems to have been a catastrophic event which may have wiped out all life on the planet-just like it looks like life were created 4 or 5 times between 3.83 and 3.4 billion years ago-so there is no real conclusion as to whether these phyla contributed to the gene pool of the Cambrian Phyla. Ofcourse, if you believe in atheistic evolution, you will draw a non-empirical inference.

All theories of evolution, and creationist theories are theories of evolution-just with God as the the one who intervenes on varying levels of complicity, are based upon Shaping Principles. I also want to say, that there are a lot of creationists that believe that we cannot detect God's work in creation, because he has remained hidden (Polinghorne, Miller).

Dan