Evidence for God from Science

http://www.reasons.org/articles/q-a-are ... sil-record

To believe evolution per macroevolutionary scenarious is factual, one must have a lot of faith that the temporal paradox problems noted are not really significant.

I don't think the issue is evaluation really, honestly I think the problem is the whole notion of "random, purposeless, evolution" that many people have issues with.
For the flip-side of what you linked, have you read the articles on Biologos.org?

Paul, there is not a brand of evolution - be it theistic, whatever neo-darwinist hybrids, I've read them all. And, YES, God COULD have easily solved the obviously HUGE problems with UNGUIDED evolution. But the problem is, DID He? The fossil record would suggest NOT, as the various temporal paradoxes reveal supposed transitional forms (i.e., fishapods and feathered dinosaurs) that appear in the fossil record AFTER their respective (if true) evolutionary ending species. That is a HUGE problem. And, certainly, saying Adam was either purely figurative or that he was somehow an evolved creature, yet the first one with God's image instilled, totally contradicts Scripture, or at the very least, belief in that forces one to reconcile this belief by insisting most of Genesis is merely figurative and allegorical. And I think that's a very messy problem that begs many questions.

If one has such a powerful belief that evolution was God's mechanism for creation, then they have to also explain the inexplicable order and geologic time in which some purported transitional forms appear in the fossil record. They also need to explain why God would cook up a foundational fairytale to explain the origins of man beginning to sin and why he needs a Savior. Again, perhaps allegorical stories might be expected due to the Israelite's lack of scientific knowledge and the difficulty of them grasping it. But that WASN'T the focus of Adam and Eve's story - their's was a very human story of rebellion against God and His displeasure at that, and of His fore-planning and foreknowledge that this would happen. These they could have easily understood. Note that Scripture relates NO connected story (animals transitioning to man) that would plausibly be given by God to explain Adam and Eve's origins IF evolution were true. Looking at this from a merely allegorial viewpoint, the supposed allegory has an obvious disconnect that does nothing to explain man's theorized lineage back to animals. So why ANY allegory if a true story would suffice MUCH better, and would be much more understandable? Not to mention the problem in determining historical truth from allegory.

Philip wrote:Paul, there is not a brand of evolution - be it theistic, whatever neo-darwinist hybrids, I've read them all. And, YES, God COULD have easily solved the obviously HUGE problems with UNGUIDED evolution. But the problem is, DID He? The fossil record would suggest NOT, as the various temporal paradoxes reveal supposed transitional forms (i.e., fishapods and feathered dinosaurs) that appear in the fossil record AFTER their respective (if true) evolutionary ending species. That is a HUGE problem. And, certainly, saying Adam was either purely figurative or that he was somehow an evolved creature, yet the first one with God's image instilled, totally contradicts Scripture, or at the very least, belief in that forces one to reconcile this belief by insisting most of Genesis is merely figurative and allegorical. And I think that's a very messy problem that begs many questions.

If one has such a powerful belief that evolution was God's mechanism for creation, then they have to also explain the inexplicable order and geologic time in which some purported transitional forms appear in the fossil record. They also need to explain why God would cook up a foundational fairytale to explain the origins of man beginning to sin and why he needs a Savior. Again, perhaps allegorical stories might be expected due to the Israelite's lack of scientific knowledge and the difficulty of them grasping it. But that WASN'T the focus of Adam and Eve's story - their's was a very human story of rebellion against God and His displeasure at that, and of His fore-planning and foreknowledge that this would happen. These they could have easily understood. Note that Scripture relates NO connected story (animals transitioning to man) that would plausibly be given by God to explain Adam and Eve's origins IF evolution were true. Looking at this from a merely allegorial viewpoint, the supposed allegory has an obvious disconnect that does nothing to explain man's theorized lineage back to animals. So why ANY allegory if a true story would suffice MUCH better, and would be much more understandable? Not to mention the problem in determining historical truth from allegory.

That is a huge 2 part question dude, not sure which one you wanna tackle first...

Philip wrote:http://www.reasons.org/articles/q-a-are ... sil-record

To believe evolution per macroevolutionary scenarious is factual, one must have a lot of faith that the temporal paradox problems noted are not really significant.

Morphologically out-of-order fishapods between 380-365 mya is, to use your words, "a HUGE problem" for evolution. Am I characterizing your claim accurately?

Simply put, if you find what has been described as some intermediate, transitional form of an animal's supposed evolutionary lineage, in the fossil record AFTER its supposed ending (so far, per macroevolution) form, then you've got to explain that - because it doesn't add up to the asserted evolutionary path and steps. And just asserting that God did it doesn't cut it! Whether or not you can reconcile such paradoxes - and I don't think you credibly can - it is a problem for any asserted macro-evolutionary scenarios. And while it is difficult to dissuade those believing God was behind the macroevolutionary mechanisms, one must explain finding key forms considered transitional at a wrong place in the fossil record. It just doesn't make sense to find them in such fossil-record points - whether God did it or whether unguided evoution produced it.

Certainly the problem for those asserting GODLESS, unguided macro-evolution took place is that no matter how much time they typically assert for these processes to have taken place, there wasn't ENOUGH time for them to be credible. How disingenious to explain away the incredible sudden change of the Cambrians by saying, "well, evolution simply sped up." Theistic types simply assert that GOD hit the FF button. But even THAT doesn't explain away the various temporal paradoxes.

Philip wrote:Paul, there is not a brand of evolution - be it theistic, whatever neo-darwinist hybrids, I've read them all. And, YES, God COULD have easily solved the obviously HUGE problems with UNGUIDED evolution. But the problem is, DID He? The fossil record would suggest NOT, as the various temporal paradoxes reveal supposed transitional forms (i.e., fishapods and feathered dinosaurs) that appear in the fossil record AFTER their respective (if true) evolutionary ending species. That is a HUGE problem. And, certainly, saying Adam was either purely figurative or that he was somehow an evolved creature, yet the first one with God's image instilled, totally contradicts Scripture, or at the very least, belief in that forces one to reconcile this belief by insisting most of Genesis is merely figurative and allegorical. And I think that's a very messy problem that begs many questions.

If one has such a powerful belief that evolution was God's mechanism for creation, then they have to also explain the inexplicable order and geologic time in which some purported transitional forms appear in the fossil record. They also need to explain why God would cook up a foundational fairytale to explain the origins of man beginning to sin and why he needs a Savior. Again, perhaps allegorical stories might be expected due to the Israelite's lack of scientific knowledge and the difficulty of them grasping it. But that WASN'T the focus of Adam and Eve's story - their's was a very human story of rebellion against God and His displeasure at that, and of His fore-planning and foreknowledge that this would happen. These they could have easily understood. Note that Scripture relates NO connected story (animals transitioning to man) that would plausibly be given by God to explain Adam and Eve's origins IF evolution were true. Looking at this from a merely allegorial viewpoint, the supposed allegory has an obvious disconnect that does nothing to explain man's theorized lineage back to animals. So why ANY allegory if a true story would suffice MUCH better, and would be much more understandable? Not to mention the problem in determining historical truth from allegory.

This is incredibly poor "science" to begin with, and it has led to disastrous logic as a result.
#1. We must understand that speciation can not and will not occur without an environmental "stressor" leading to population dwindle that begins favoring characteristics. A species doesn't just spontaneously change for no other reason than mutation... That's just simple logic, random mutations are simply propagated out by a favored form.... This period of population dwindle would be your transitional form! There is a reason we don't see a succinct mapped out (slap you in your face) timeline demonstrating a slow transition from one form to another.
#2. Populations aren't localized... This means we can see many divergences from within a species leading to dramatic speciation and also have longevity in continuance concerning the original form having it "appear" within the same time period.
We could examine the common squirrel in this scenario where populations are dispersed across a large mass of land. Now, when you localize a population of that squirrel and stress it differently, it can favor certain characteristics leading to a very drastic change in form.
If you've ever witnessed a squirrel in a tree, you begin to understand that it is highly unlikely there is a predatory threat to it in that environment... The only thing catching a squirrel in a tree is another squirrel! Where squirrels are susceptible to being caught is on the ground where a weasel is built to take it down.
So in a very simple scenario, a common squirrel is abundant in population in a certain area; so abundant in fact that food supply begins to dwindle and competition amongst these squirrels begins to heighten. This also pushes the squirrel to extend the area of foraging and places the squirrel on the ground traveling greater distances from tree to tree and away from nesting areas. In the wild, metabolic rate and energy expenditure as it relates to successful foraging is what dictates survival; and that's without the added threat of exposure to prey where energy is already compromised.
Seeing as the environment dictates what is necessary to survive, the squirrel that is going to succeed in such an environment is one that can forage a greater area with the least expenditure of energy as well as the least exposure on the ground. This is an environment that favored the more agile squirrel that could leap the furthest from tree to tree... Wouldn't you know it, when the squirrel extended it's body to it's maximum capacity leaping between these trees, the squirrels with just a tiny bit more skin in the armpit area had just enough of an edge... Those squirrels were more successful at foraging, eluding prey, mating and conserving energy which means they had more cold weather reserves having to consume less of what they did forage. Now, the babies of the babies of the babies of these squirrels that had this slightly larger armpit skin also showed the same patterns of success where squirrels born without this characteristic didn't survive. This becomes a selective property where only those who have the extra skin are breeding with others with the same characteristic.
Nature is magnificent and focally brilliant concerning necessity where it directs energy into physical characteristics to evolve a form to compliment the balance of every aspect of nature that it exists in. If this is all a reflection of a creator, would it be any less brilliant? It boggles my mind that some people are so confined by belief they are unable to bask in the immense awe, magnificence and brilliance where evolution is concerned.... tangent!
Back to the squirrel, this selective property in a dwindling population begins to refine/select/favor this trait until the squirrel is leaping further and further between trees and the flap of skin "becomes" larger and larger until the flap extends all the way up the arm and all the way down to the bottom of the leg and it's gliding hundreds of feet between trees.
Now, did every squirrel become the flying squirrel?
The squirrel it once was hundreds of years ago if untested by environment can remain almost entirely unchanged in a separate area away from where this flying squirrel evolved. They might even converge once again as the flying squirrel re-emerges in numbers as a successful species.
The same scenario can easily apply to larger animals in a greater expanse of time with much more drastic changes in form... This applies to tetrapodomorpha as it would anything else.

So your argument is nothing more than an inability to grasp simple concepts of logic where evolution is concerned.... Nothing more!

Revolutionary wrote: #1. We must understand that speciation can not and will not occur without an environmental "stressor" leading to population dwindle that begins favoring characteristics. A species doesn't just spontaneously change for no other reason than mutation... That's just simple logic, random mutations are simply propagated out by a favored form.... This period of population dwindle would be your transitional form! There is a reason we don't see a succinct mapped out (slap you in your face) timeline demonstrating a slow transition from one form to another.

I think this is the best rebuttle to Philip's point. Although I don't think that it's very potent.

Revolutionary wrote: If you've ever witnessed a squirrel in a tree,

Nice story, but that's just an extreme example of speciation. Like a black squirrel vs a brown, or what ever. That's far from a transitional form. We would expect to see much larger populations of intermediates along the way. Your example doesn't negate the time paradox either. It only goes to show that one species population can continue to evolve in a different location than another population. I hardly doubt that's denied by our OP.

Revolutionary wrote: If this is all a reflection of a creator, would it be any less brilliant? It boggles my mind that some people are so confined by belief they are unable to bask in the immense awe, magnificence and brilliance where evolution is concerned.... tangent!

Funny, before I read this I was think it was pretty magnificent that God would create so personally with brilliance, and that I'm boggled some people are so confined to belief in evolution that they can't accept a descrete creative process. I can understand why an atheist couldn't accept this, but why not a Christian. Is the science so compelling that evolution MUST have been how God created? There are non-theists who aren't so convinced, I'm surprised there would be many theists who would accept evolutionary science so willingly. They must be very impressed with the evidence.

I'm surprised there would be many theists who would accept evolutionary science so willingly. They must be very impressed with the evidence.

And a further criticism is that there is a very different explanation (Progressive Creationism) that explains the very same evidences, yet involves neither micro-evolution nor young-earth creationism.

ryanbouma wrote: Nice story, but that's just an extreme example of speciation. Like a black squirrel vs a brown, or what ever. That's far from a transitional form. We would expect to see much larger populations of intermediates along the way. Your example doesn't negate the time paradox either. It only goes to show that one species population can continue to evolve in a different location than another population. I hardly doubt that's denied by our OP.

It's actually a rudimentary example, dumbed down if you will.... It's something that can be observed here and now which relates to hundreds of years rather than hundreds of thousands of years.
The story continues where the flying squirrel can have another characteristic change while a different divergence has another.... Now suppose this flying squirrel begins to see a different predatory threat where hawks begin plucking them from the sky, this additional stressor begins to favor a flat tail that is able to maneuver what was previously just a simple glide, less bone density where it can achieve lift, larger hands with wider finger bases to steer and create lift, or a hairless flap of skin to reduce drag.
You can easily see fingers fall back within the flap where the flap of skin begins to resemble a bat wing where it begins flapping motions..... This goes on and on and on independently within each divergence where eventually they look so drastically different that you could barely tell they both came from the same common ancestor.
What you are failing to grasp is that each "transitional" period you will see an expected population dwindle, transitional as a term is also relative to the expanse of time and the amount of evidence that gives us the timeline. Propagation rates as well as the determining factor all play a role and define the timeline.... Just claiming we should have vast amounts of information doesn't make it so, you obviously don't know the environment necessary in order to produce a fossil and how little evidence we actually have from species when populations were immense.

I'll repeat very clearly so there is no mistake.... There can be no physical change in a species without selective properties and there are no selective properties from a population that remains constant.

Supposedly, birds evolved from dinosaurs. So you've got the very bird-like Deinonychus appearing at approximately 120 million years ago. But then Archaeopteryx, a supposed transitional form between dinosaurs and birds, is dated at 155 million years old - a full 35 million years OLDER than the much more bird-like Deinonychus. That is a HUGE gap of time - it's nearly half of the diversification time of the entire Cambrian transition. One can pretend such an enormous gap is easily scientifically explained, but not credibly so. It's a HUGE problem for those believing in macro-evolution.

Philip wrote:Supposedly, birds evolved from dinosaurs. So you've got the very bird-like Deinonychus appearing at approximately 120 million years ago. But then Archaeopteryx, a supposed transitional form between dinosaurs and birds, is dated at 155 million years old - a full 35 million years OLDER than the much more bird-like Deinonychus. That is a HUGE gap of time - it's nearly half of the diversification time of the entire Cambrian transition. One can pretend such an enormous gap is easily scientifically explained, but not credibly so. It's a HUGE problem for those believing in macro-evolution.

Why, because propagation rates and stressors all play a role on the rate by which one evolves relative to another?

Here is an environmental factor to contemplate.... Pangea split from plate tectonics in the early jurassic period 200 million years ago which was such a gradual event that divergence of species between these continents were changed through necessity where heat/cold/rain/weather patterns were concerned. Even though it is a much more gradual process, the difference between the extremes will definitely show.... But it's not just the singular, there are so many other variances that dictate rate beyond what could easily remain gradual... Food, predator, water, where the food is located tree/water/land/sky and whether it's plant, insect or animal... These are where we can see drastic changes where a previous divergence can remain unchanged for millions of years before it begins to evolve, if at all.
The crocodile is a prime example that has remained relatively unchanged for 200 million years where they currently reside... That doesn't mean that 100 million years ago they were abundant in an area that changed in environment or even prey where it was no longer able to support it in it's current form, so when it has to venture out of the water and become more adapt at running on land, possibly even leaping in the air to catch prey.... Then we say it didn't evolve because unlike the evolved form, we have one that is unchanged for an additional 50 million?
By your logic, if we find a fossil of a divergence that evolved to a smaller form, bipedal that now used it's front legs to catch prey or even eventually flight predating the fossil but we have an earlier divergence that has remained relatively unchanged for 200 million years that it proves that the crocodile didn't evolve parallel under different influences?
In the world of science, logic and basic understanding where the principles of evolution are concerned, finding evidence such as the one you are trying to argue against is not only possible, it's highly probable.

Philip wrote:Supposedly, birds evolved from dinosaurs. So you've got the very bird-like Deinonychus appearing at approximately 120 million years ago. But then Archaeopteryx, a supposed transitional form between dinosaurs and birds, is dated at 155 million years old - a full 35 million years OLDER than the much more bird-like Deinonychus. That is a HUGE gap of time - it's nearly half of the diversification time of the entire Cambrian transition. One can pretend such an enormous gap is easily scientifically explained, but not credibly so. It's a HUGE problem for those believing in macro-evolution.

"My history teacher told me that black people in America originally came here from Africa. But I know for a fact there are black people in Africa. Therefor, my history teacher lied to me."

Its easily explained when you realized 'transitional' in purely a modern perspective looking back. Multiple species can evolve from one species, then several of the species can go extinct millions of years later. We can use them to trace the adaptations backwards looking for a common ancestor. They represent the way the lineage has changed over time.

Philip wrote:Simply put, if you find what has been described as some intermediate, transitional form of an animal's supposed evolutionary lineage, in the fossil record AFTER its supposed ending (so far, per macroevolution) form, then you've got to explain that - because it doesn't add up to the asserted evolutionary path and steps.

I'm trying to understand the specific evidence of your fishapod temporal paradox. You're saying that morphologically out-of-order fishapods between 380-365 mya is, to use your words, a HUGE problem for evolution. Am I characterizing your claim accurately for fishapods?