The Cambrian problem

[pat34lee]

In what way was it "created" as an alternative, and why is it a philosophy and why do you think it is not a science?

Finally, real questions. Thank you.

When people think of the 18th-19th centuries, the major change worldwide
was the industrial revolution.

But it was also when humanism and naturalism gained power. It was the
age where they were going to wipe God out of the public discourse and
replace him with human knowledge in science, philosophy, psychology, etc.

Please read the following.
http://truthinhistory.org/historica...phies-and-americas-cultural-corruption-2.html
http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Kremlin/fam-val.htm

 

[ecco]

I would regard Copernicus to be within the time frame of the last few hundred years. I agree, the Greeks are to be credit with the foundation of modern thinking. However, you also have to take into consideration that whatever scientific progress the Greeks made it was undone by the Christian church and was only, thanks to the Arabs, rediscovered in the past few hundred years.

Agreed

The pagans did not had a written tradition so, again with thanks to the Romans, any possible discovery they may have had done are forever lost in time.

Perhaps not written, but stone structures and mounds with definite astronomical alignment are all over Northern Europe - Stonehenge only being the most famous.

It can be argued that Christianity set back scientific development with a thousand years at least. One can ponder about where we would had been knowledge wise today if it wasn't for what the Christian church did.

I too have often wondered about that. Probably most major diseases won't exist 500 years from now, meaning they wouldn't exist now but for the good old dark ages.

 

[ecco]

That is wrong. Evolution was created as an alternative to special creation. It
is a philosophy dressed as science.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑​

You posted some portions of the video that you think are relevant.
I asked for a synopsis:

Care to try again?

No. If you can't be bothered to read three quotes, it isn't worth my time.

Wow! You post an hour long video, with no commentary and expect us to watch.

But, when I ask for a synopsis, in your own words, it isn't worth your time!

 

[lesliedellow]

Except for that science just been around for a few hundred years. In that very same short time of human history we have had a progress unlike anything else. If religions are dealing with the truth one may wonder why this progress never happen until science made its entrance on the scene of intellectual thoughts...

That all depends what you mean by progress, doesn't it? A few years ago a scientist (an atheist) wrote a book asking whether this might be our final century.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Gravity is one way to do it. On a much smaller scale, a shock wave, such as that produced by a nuclear fission reaction is another.

Gravity is not a valid argument according to what I have heard as it would not have been strong enough until actual planets and stars had formed. Regarding the second possibility - where is the nuclear fission going to come from before there are any stars?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Also, finding the ancestors of an entire phyla in the earliest sediments is exactly what we would expect to find if evolution is true.

The creationist model also points to a sudden appearance of flora/fauna so on that basis, it's not an indicator of evolution. Creation scientists just call it the "Orchard of Life" rather than the "Tree of Life."

 

[Not_By_Chance]

when the universe was much smaller than it is now the density of hydrogen in space would have been greater

Hmm, I'd didn't realise you were that old to have knowledge (rather than speculation) about such things! A good example though of the way evolutionists present theories as if they were known facts, so top marks for that.

 

[lesliedellow]

Hmm, I'd didn't realise you were that old to have knowledge (rather than speculation) about such things! A good example though of the way evolutionists present theories as if they were known facts, so top marks for that.

At the very least, that is the pot calling the kettle black.

Also, density = mass / volume. Therefore, the smaller the universe, the greater its density. You don't need degree level maths for that.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

This is one of my problems with naturalists. NONE of the above can be proven.
The life-cycle of stars is a theory. No one has seen the different stages happen.
Nobody has seen star formation. Only lights inside nebulae.
There is no plausible scientific explanation that would attract gases together in
such mass as to form stars.

I'm afraid that this approach runs throughout the whole naturalistic story of how things came to be, because as one prominent evolutionist admitted, "we can't allow a divine foot in the door." The bottom line is, any fanciful explanation will do as long as it doesn't involve God. One example if the fact that chemistry, biology together with observation and statistics are more than enough to convince an unbiased person that to even postulate the idea that life could have started on its own is complete nonsense, but you don't hear many scientific people wondering if maybe God is the author of life after all. Why do you think that is?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

the smaller the universe, the greater its density. You don't need degree level maths for that.

How can a universe, no matter how small, be just filled with gas and yet be more dense than it is now? The Big Bang has so many fudge factors to keep it afloat that it puts the whole idea beyond the realms of reasonableness in my opinion.

 

[lesliedellow]

I'm afraid that this approach runs throughout the whole naturalistic story of how things came to be, because as one prominent evolutionist admitted, "we can't allow a divine foot in the door."

Science operates upon the basis of methodological naturalism, because it is the job of a scientist to look for natural explanations. That does not mean that a theistic scientist is unable to contemplate the possibility of the miraculous, but whilst he is wearing his lab coat he will assume that there is a natural explanation there to be found.

The bottom line is, any fanciful explanation will do as long as it doesn't involve God.

Absolute rubbish. To be accepted a theory must be both verified by experiment, and, in principle, be capable of falsification.

One example if the fact that chemistry, biology together with observation and statistics are more than enough to convince an unbiased person that to even postulate the idea that life could have started on its own is complete nonsense, but you don't hear many scientific people wondering if maybe God is the author of life after all. Why do you think that is?

Would you care to explain why Francis Collins, Francisco Ayala, Ken Miller, Sam Berry, Martin Novack, Simon Conway Morris, Dennis Alexander, or any other Christian biologist should be biased against the possibility of the miraculous? They are just not in the business of assuming it, which is apparently what you would like them to do.

 

[lesliedellow]

How can a universe, no matter how small, be just filled with gas and yet be more dense than it is now? The Big Bang has so many fudge factors to keep it afloat that it puts the whole idea beyond the realms of reasonableness in my opinion.

Well, for heaven's sake, I wouldn't have thought that dividing two numbers was beyond the capabilities of even a creationist.

 

[Astrophile]

Since space is not nearly empty or a perfect vacuum, we have no idea what affects the speed of light between us and the stars we see.

And this is the person who insists that interstellar clouds are not dense enough to contract and to form stars.

 

[ecco]

... because as one prominent evolutionist admitted, "we can't allow a divine foot in the door." The bottom line is, any fanciful explanation will do as long as it doesn't involve God. ... Why do you think that is?

Because if we "allow a divine foot in the door" we would have to decide whose divine foot we should allow.
How about this one...

In the beginning there was nothing - no earth, no living beings. There were only darkness, water, and Cyclone, the wind. There were no humans, but only the Hactcin, the Jicarilla supernatural beings. The Hactcin made the earth, the underworld beneath it, and the sky above it. The earth they made as a woman who faces upward, and the sky they made as a man who faces downward. The Hactcin lived in the underworld, where there was no light. There were mountains and plants in the underworld, and each had its own Hactcin. There were as yet no animals or humans, and everything in the underworld existed in a dream-like state and was spiritual and holy.
​

Should science try to discover if the earth was ever an upward facing woman?

How about this one...

Last Thursdayism is the idea that the universe was created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. Under Last Thursdayism, memories, books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and literally everything was all formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state that causes them to appear to be older.​

It is impossible for you and all the scientists in the world to disprove LastThursdayism.


You just want your god's divine foot to be allowed in the door. Why do you think that is?

 

[ecco]

How can a universe, no matter how small, be just filled with gas and yet be more dense than it is now?

This gets my vote for best question of the thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmm, I'd didn't realise you were that old to have knowledge (rather than speculation) about such things! A good example though of the way evolutionists present theories as if they were known facts, so top marks for that.

No one had to be there. Why do creationists never realize that when certain events happen that physical records are left of those events? Oh wait, if creationists understood science they would not be creationists.

Please NBC, being snarky and wrong does not help your side at all. You should be trying to learn why your side lost the argument over 100 years ago.

 

[Loudmouth]

The creationist model also points to a sudden appearance of flora/fauna so on that basis, it's not an indicator of evolution. Creation scientists just call it the "Orchard of Life" rather than the "Tree of Life."

Then why are you using the "Tree of Life" to describe the Cambrian? You are saying that the most ancestral forms of entire phyla are found in the Cambrian. That isn't an orchard. That is a tree. There are no mammals in the Cambrian, no reptiles, no birds, no bony fish. We only see the most basic forms of vertebrates which form the ancestral root of the entire vertebrate phylum. How is that an orchard?

Also, you haven't produced a shred of evidence that these fossils had no ancestors. You haven't supported your claim that they appear suddenly.

 

[lesliedellow]

Then why are you using the "Tree of Life" to describe the Cambrian? You are saying that the most ancestral forms of entire phyla are found in the Cambrian. That isn't an orchard. That is a tree. There are no mammals in the Cambrian, no reptiles, no birds, no bony fish. We only see the most basic forms of vertebrates which form the ancestral root of the entire vertebrate phylum. How is that an orchard?

Also, you haven't produced a shred of evidence that these fossils had no ancestors. You haven't supported your claim that they appear suddenly.

That's because "creation science" is hogwash.

 

[AV1611VET]

Light cannot cross billions of light years in only 6,000 years.

Can sound?

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.