|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937
Veteran CEG\'er
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937 |
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
You can continue to attack "people" like me, even though you have no idea what my beliefs are, you can continue to dismiss arguments based upon the same rhetoric the NCSE does (you've done a great job so far  ), or you can keep this thread on topic and argue based upon the merits, which you continue not to do, I am still waiting.
Attack? I donâ??t think so â??? unless by attack you mean stating it just as it is. No idea what your beliefs are? Of course I do â??? youâ??ve spent six flipping pages explaining it all to us. Incidently cjbaldw, you can bloody well bet I know where your talking points come from.
I think the merits of the case are clear to any thinking person.
The religious right wants to redefine science in a way that no scientist can accept. Science under the new definition means â??Because it says so in the bible.â?
Using this new definition of â??scienceâ? they want to teach all children that a â??scientificâ? alternative to evolution in creationism. That evolution is â??just a theoryâ? sort of on par with clouds made of cotton candy theory. They want to do this harm to children in pursuit of their political goals.
Where am I wrong here? Is this not the real issue? The question is who decides what science is. The scientific community or a religious organization?
99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 20K miles, "Nice Twin" (factory stock).
99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 28K miles, "Evil Twin" (Turbo AER 3L and more in progress)
96 Red LX, Opal Grey Leather 2.5L, ATX, 22K miles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by JEDsContour:
Attack? I donâ??t think so â??? unless by attack you mean stating it just as it is. No idea what your beliefs are? Of course I do â??? youâ??ve spent six flipping pages explaining it all to us. Incidently cjbaldw, you can bloody well bet I know where your talking points come from.
Yes, attack. You have not once said one word in regard to the lack of fossil evidence though I've provided multiple points upon which you could argue your case. I spent six pages? I didn't even start posting to this thread until page 5 JEDSContour, so please stop with the exaggerations. Amazingly enough, you've still managed to post your own personal opinions without a hint of supporting evidence and have yet to even attempt to refute anything I've said. Overt or covert, that leaves attacking my personal views. Still waiting...
Quote:
I think the merits of the case are clear to any thinking person.
Not true, and quite a value judgement to boot. I think differently, I've stated my case, and have only gotten meaningless doubletalk in response from someone who does his best to appear as though he knows what he's talking about but has yet to say anything useful outside of the usual talking points provided by the NCSE.
Quote:
The religious right wants to redefine science in a way that no scientist can accept. Science under the new definition means â??Because it says so in the bible.â?
There you go again attempting to reduce this to religion versus science. Show me one place where I've in any way done so? I'm attacking the science JEDSContour, because the empirical evidence from the fossil record doesn't support The Origin of Species. Simple as that. Believe it or not, there are a growing number of intelligent people who are questioning evolution simply based upon the science, no religious goals, overt or covert, are involved. What do you have to say to that?
Quote:
Using this new definition of â??scienceâ? they want to teach all children that a â??scientificâ? alternative to evolution in creationism. That evolution is â??just a theoryâ? sort of on par with clouds made of cotton candy theory. They want to do this harm to children in pursuit of their political goals.
Your words allude to what I posted previously as potentially true. Scientific naturalists are fearful that if they lose any ground, it means that the religious creationists will inevitably take over and do harm to children in the process. I have not once mentioned creationism as my goal and in fact it is not. I want the truth, plain and simple. I hope you can also see how this underlying motivation can easily color objectivity on any level, including basic science. Double blind pharma studies have demonstrated this basic placebo effect time and time again. We will find what we're looking for no matter how objective we try to be if we're all functioning under a similar naturalist ideology, that doesn't make the results correct, it makes them incorrect, but we are often unable to see this fact until much harm has been done.
Quote:
Where am I wrong here? Is this not the real issue? The question is who decides what science is. The scientific community or a religious organization?
No, it's NOT the real issue I've been posting about. I take issue with evolutionary theory based upon the what I've posted JEDSContour, I have no evil ulterior motive to promote creationism. If you feel it necessary to reduce it to this level, which you have now repeatedly done in every single response, then quite frankly that is sad, I'd expect more from someone who is supposedly so knowledgeable about that which they believe in so much. If your best argument is not to deal with my argument on it's merits but rather to summarily dismiss my arguments and provide nothing else, well, I'm not surprised, this is what I find when I deal with most folks like yourself, but it is disappointing to say the least.  
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 34
New CEG\'er
|
|
New CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 34 |
Originally posted by t-red2000se:
Originally posted by sundaydriver33:
There is room for all beliefs including anarchy & atheism and they are all beautiful.
Only in California. 
If God has created everything then there is a purpose and beauty in everything. Look at the recent events in the Gulf. See the human tradgedy or the human spirit triumph or see both and know you can't have one without the other.
Couldn't Evolution have been part of God's plan all along?
Save intelligent design for CCD and keep all religion out of public schools.
Science only makes the mysteries of life more intriging and in my eyes affirms that there exists a higher conciousness (call it God).
Check out this article on chimps evloution. They address the lack of fossil remains.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050829/full/050829-10.html
'95 Mystique 2.5L Man with MSDS y-Pipe, AEM SRS intake and an excellent tune-up from LOW BUDGET RACING
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937 |
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Yes, attack. You have not once said one word in regard to the lack of fossil evidence though I've provided multiple points upon which you could argue your case....
Not true, and quite a value judgement to boot. I think differently, I've stated my case, and have only gotten meaningless doubletalk in response from someone who does his best to appear as though he knows what he's talking about but has yet to say anything useful outside of the usual talking points provided by the NCSE....
Scientific naturalists are fearful that if they lose any ground, it means that the religious creationists will inevitably take over and do harm to children in the process. I have not once mentioned creationism as my goal and in fact it is not. I want the truth, plain and simple. I hope you can also see how this underlying motivation can easily color objectivity on any level, including basic science....
No, it's NOT the real issue I've been posting about. I take issue with evolutionary theory based upon the what I've posted JEDSContour, I have no evil ulterior motive to promote creationism.
Cjbaldw, it is frankly just painful to argue about â??yourâ? points. Just so people reading this know, the arguments espoused by cjbaldw came directly from the religious site â??Answers in Genesis.â? Damn near verbatim for the most part. Of course these anti-evolution arguments have been repeated multiple times by religious right organizations so it is hard to say exactly where he read them. The intent of these arguments is NOT to encourage an honest debate about evolution â??? the intent is simply to confuse the layperson.
OK cjbaldw, I know itâ??s a waste of time. I know it is but letâ??s examine one of your arguments anyway:
Quote:
The single greatest problem which the fossil record poses for Darwinism is the Cambrian explosion of around 600 million years ago (using the carbon dating other people in this thread have mentioned). Nearly all the animal phyla appear in the rocks of this period, without a trace of the evolutionary ancestors that Darwinists require. Richard Dawkins, renowned evolutionary biologist, puts it, "It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." In Darwin's time there was no evidence for the existence of pre-Cambrian life, and he conceded in The Origin of Species no less that "The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." If his theory was true, Darwin wrote, the pre-Cambrian world must have "swarmed with living creatures".
I actually took this from â??Answers in Genesisâ? but since itâ??s nearly identical to your post, what the hell.
So this is the single greatest problem for the theory of evolution? Well Whoop dee doo.
OK children what is the Cambrian Explosion?
Answer:
The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago. The interesting thing about the Cambrian explosion is that larger things with hard parts that actually look like animals begin to appear, particularly the first trilobites. The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some scientists say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.
Was the Cambrian explosion the start of complex life on earth? Well, no it wasnâ??t, there is extensive evidence of multi-cellular life dating from about 560 to 590 million years ago. There is fossil evidence of single cell life dating as far back as 1 billion years and chemical evidence of single cell life dating back almost four billion years. Life has been here a long long time.
Did all modern phyla suddenly appear in the Cambrian explosion? No they did not. Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Million years ago. Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian. Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. Almost none of the animal groups that we think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.
Why are there no transitional fossils in the Cambrian fossil record? Well actually there are. As an example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms.
So what happened? Why did squishy multi cell lumps suddenly start sprouting legs and sense organs? Why is the diversification so suddenly evident?
Well there are many good reasons:
â?¢ The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.
â?¢ Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian. Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.
â?¢ The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian. A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into.
â?¢ Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify.
â?¢ Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian.
â?¢ Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation.
â?¢ Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian.
All of these factors encouraged rapid evolution.
How rapid was the evolution? Cambrian life was very much unlike almost everything alive today. Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian. Besides, major radiations of life forms have occurred at other times, too. One of the most extensive diversifications of life occurred in the Ordovician, for example.
How any of this is a challenge to evolution, much less the major challenge is beyond me. I think that creationists just like to say â??Cambrian Explosion crisisâ? because it makes them sound knowledgeable.
Studying the Cambrian is basically an exciting and rewarding activity for evolutionary biologists with much left to discover about this fascinating time. Not a crisis for the theory of evolution though.
99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 20K miles, "Nice Twin" (factory stock).
99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 28K miles, "Evil Twin" (Turbo AER 3L and more in progress)
96 Red LX, Opal Grey Leather 2.5L, ATX, 22K miles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by JEDsContour:
Cjbaldw, it is frankly just painful to argue about â??yourâ? points. Just so people reading this know, the arguments espoused by cjbaldw came directly from the religious site â??Answers in Genesis.â? Damn near verbatim for the most part. Of course these anti-evolution arguments have been repeated multiple times by religious right organizations so it is hard to say exactly where he read them. The intent of these arguments is NOT to encourage an honest debate about evolution â??? the intent is simply to confuse the layperson.
Actually, you are incorrect, and thanks for making erroneous assumptions yet again. My arguments come from a combination of my own research, the most recent of which was to read "Darwin on Trial" 2nd edition published by Phillip Johnson. To be specific, Johnson is NOT a creationist, though he is oftentimes associated with intelligent design by the religious community for their own purposes. If you read his materials, he consistently takes no personal position on the science/religion argument. As far as the "Answers in Genesis" religious site, never been there.
My intent is NOT to confuse, it is to bring up the legitimate fact that there is little empirical evidence on multiple levels to substantiate evolutionary theory, and I brought up one example via the Cambrian explosion and surrounding periods of time.
Since you posted the material, I'll use it:
Quote:
Why are there no transitional fossils in the Cambrian fossil record? Well actually there are. As an example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms <-- note this is assumed - there is no empirical evidence to support this intermediate relationship.
So what happened? Why did squishy multi cell lumps suddenly start sprouting legs and sense organs? Why is the diversification so suddenly evident?
Well there are many good reasons:
â?¢ The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.
â?¢ Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian. Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.
â?¢ The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian. A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into.
â?¢ Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify.
â?¢ Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian.
â?¢ Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation.
â?¢ Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian.
All of these factors encouraged rapid evolution.
Note that every single one of these bullet points is basically a wild guess. You might consider it an educated wild guess, but that is FAR from empirical scientific evidence. It is pure assumption specifically geared toward supporting evolutionary theory.
Quote:
How any of this is a challenge to evolution, much less the major challenge is beyond me. I think that creationists just like to say â??Cambrian Explosion crisisâ? because it makes them sound knowledgeable.
The issue is not evolution versus creation. The issue is design versus accident if you're going to look at it in these terms. We are to believe that mindless, purposeless variation and selection ultimately resulted in the myriad forms of complex life that exist today.
The theory of evolution requires two basic elements: variation and selection. Darwin was greatly baffled as to how variation could arise, and his theory was rejected in many scientific quarters until a much greater understanding of genetics, and ultimately of the chemical basis of genetics, was achieved. There still is no satisfactory detailed mechanism for producing large enough, non-lethal variation of the DNA to produce a new species in a single jump, and it remains an act of faith on the part of evolutionists that there is some way for it to have happened bit by bit. Again, there is no empirical evidence for evolutionary theory in this respect.
Quote:
Studying the Cambrian is basically an exciting and rewarding activity for evolutionary biologists with much left to discover about this fascinating time. Not a crisis for the theory of evolution though.
Considering many of the single and multicellular complex phyla came into existence during the Cambrian explosion (though not entirely as is mentioned), and from the laundry list you provided above as only one example of the current state of guesswork on the part of evolutionary theory, I'd say it's much more than a rewarding activity, it is critically important to evolutionary theory since it deals with the origins of life.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937 |
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
My arguments come from a combination of my own research, the most recent of which was to read "Darwin on Trial" 2nd edition published by Phillip Johnson. To be specific, Johnson is NOT a creationist, though he is oftentimes associated with intelligent design by the religious community for their own purposes.
Considering many of the single and multicellular complex phyla came into existence during the Cambrian explosion (though not entirely as is mentioned), and from the laundry list you provided above as only one example of the current state of guesswork on the part of evolutionary theory, I'd say it's much more than a rewarding activity, it is critically important to evolutionary theory since it deals with the origins of life.
Well you sound like a creationist and you espouse many of the classic creationist arguments and viewpoints. You really should sign on to the â??Answers in Genesisâ? website â??? you'd probably like it. Cool scientific pictures of dinosaurs squashing cavemen...that sort of thing
The Cambrian explosion was not the origin of life, not by a very long shot â??? billions of years actually.
The Cambrian explosion was the origin of creatures with hard parts and legs. A truly fascinating chapter in the evolution of life.
99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 20K miles, "Nice Twin" (factory stock).
99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 28K miles, "Evil Twin" (Turbo AER 3L and more in progress)
96 Red LX, Opal Grey Leather 2.5L, ATX, 22K miles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 492
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 492 |
Originally posted by Corbett:
Originally posted by jthursby:
THE HOLY BIBLE The greatest fictional writing of our time!
 Are you trying to start an argument with this comment? Just because you choose not to believe it does not make it fictional.
Actually it was to see what kind of response it invoked. Just as I figured. When there is no answer based on fact the "religious right" goes into attack mode. Lets not start a crusade or something over it ok?
Jim
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats".--H.L. Mencken
Bumper sticker,
OXYMORON #65 - Liberal Thinker
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by JEDsContour:
Well you sound like a creationist and you espouse many of the classic creationist arguments and viewpoints. You really should sign on to the â??Answers in Genesisâ? website â??? you'd probably like it. Cool scientific pictures of dinosaurs squashing cavemen...that sort of thing
The Cambrian explosion was not the origin of life, not by a very long shot â??? billions of years actually.
The Cambrian explosion was the origin of creatures with hard parts and legs. A truly fascinating chapter in the evolution of life.
Interesting. I will certainly take a look at that website when I get a few spare hours (that's probably how long it'll take me to read everything I would guess ) I agree and also stated that the Cambrian explosion was not the origin of life, bacteria and algae existed as far back as four billion years ago according to the fossil record, I think we can both agree that amazingly complex animal life did pop up during the Cambrian explosion, and it is this amazing increase in the complexity of life in such a short span with no real empirical fossil record evidence to record transitions that peaks my interest. I agree it is a truly fascinating topic to study overall, let's both keep an open mind about it going forward, hopefully we'll see some awesome debates over the span of our lifetimes as we make new discoveries.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710 |
Originally posted by jthursby:
Originally posted by Corbett:
Originally posted by jthursby:
THE HOLY BIBLE The greatest fictional writing of our time!
Are you trying to start an argument with this comment? Just because you choose not to believe it does not make it fictional.
Actually it was to see what kind of response it invoked. Just as I figured. When there is no answer based on fact the "religious right" goes into attack mode. Lets not start a crusade or something over it ok?
Jim
Crusade? No. Asking you what you mean by that? Yes. What are you talking about? No answer based on fact?
- Tim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678 |
Originally posted by Woodencross:
For example, look at how close our Earth is to the sun!! If it were even the smallest increment closer, we would FRY! And if it were even the smallest increment further away, we would FREEZE! Obviously, the creator knew what he was doing SCIENTIFICALLY when he DESIGNED AND CREATED THE WORLD!!
Look how close Mercury and Venus are to the the sun. Too close. No life. Utterly useless. Proof that there was no intelligent designer.
Look how far Mars, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are from the sun. Too far and also utterly useless. Further proof that there was no intelligent designer.
|
|
|
|
|
