Evidence for God from Science

Even more difficult.

See the link.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/newfoun ... -1.2747320

If I understand it right then the signs of complex life are pushed back even earlier making the Cambrian explosion even more explosif. I can't see how evolution can account for this.

One of the scientists say "its amazing because it's completely different from everything we'd seen before..."

The link isn't working right for me. It acts like it is a real URL, but it takes me to an error page. Broken link or technical issues?

Hmm, works for me but I did post from my phone.

Google 'Newfoundland fossil' and any of the latest news describes a fossil with the 'earliest known muscle'.

The scientists don't seem to have any issues with that:
"So there's a really big story to tell in Newfoundland about the origins of animals, and it's a top destination for scientists to come to view this important evolutionary transition in Earth's history."

Well that's not really a surprise Paul, because they are assuming it must be evolution. But from my perspective I think the abrupt explosion of life points towards day age creationism stronger today more than it did yesterday. I doubt this discovery will change the minds of scientists.

Evolutionary transition, is that what they are calling the Cambrian Explosion (read: devastating blow to neo-Darwinism) these days

ryanbouma wrote:Well that's not really a surprise Paul, because they are assuming it must be evolution. But from my perspective I think the abrupt explosion of life points towards day age creationism stronger today more than it did yesterday. I doubt this discovery will change the minds of scientists.

Are you suggesting that the creation "days" of Genesis are speaking about the Cambrian event?

Hey Paul, I'm writing from my phone, so sorry to default to RTB, but their model of the creation days is roughly how I view it. The C explosion was likely the start of one of the days (periods).

ryanbouma wrote:Hey Paul, I'm writing from my phone, so sorry to default to RTB, but their model of the creation days is roughly how I view it. The C explosion was likely the start of one of the days (periods).

Ah yes, ONE of the creation days, yes , that MAY be the case.

so sorry to default to RTB, but their model of the creation days is roughly how I view it. The C explosion was likely the start of one of the days (periods).

I also tend to look more towards the RTB model - certainly as opposed to YEC or evolution/theistic evolution. But the problem with RTB is that Hugh Ross takes it way too far with seeing science in so many verses that are not about the "science" of Creation. The reason is he is not trained in theology or Hebrew, the Bible languages. As well, I believe he has painted himself into a corner by wrongfully asserting science meanings where none was meant. I think he's probably realized this, at least to some extent, but he has built an entire ministry around books with these assertions. There are limits to scientific analysis - and this is true no matter where one is on the age issue.