PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evidence for Creationism?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are there any creationists out here who have actual positive evidence of Creationism?  By positive evidence, I do not mean evidence against evolution.  For the topic of this thread, evolution is a dead issue.  I only require positive, independent evidence of Creationism.

Oh BTW, I really am a member of this board but for some strange reason it won't allow me to log in.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:01 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/index.htm
If you snoop around here, you can find evidences for Creation.


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 01:40 AM on January 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Instead of dragging me to a website and telling me to snoop around there, couldyou post here the most compelling evidence you have found on that website for Creationism?

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 05:44 AM on January 9, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Pie that site contains NO evidence for creationism.

It only contains lots of evidence against evolution and old earth.

Go to the link yourself and see, the main page has a list like this:

"facts disproving the Big Bang evolutionary theory"
"why the origin of matter theories are foolishness"
"facts disproving evolutionary origins of galaxies and stars"


Laughably the section called "59 evidences that the earth is only a few thousand years old" only contains 59 evidences that it isn't billions of years old.

 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 4:48 PM on January 9, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evidences that the Earth is young would seem to favor Creation, hmm?


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 7:24 PM on January 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, evidences that favor a young Earth only favor a young Earth.

Porky Pine

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:34 PM on January 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, I take it back.  If you can provide absolute positive evidence of a young Earth, it would help you out.  Mind you, positive evidence is not supposed problems with radioactive dating.  It is actual evidence that anyone with the knowledge can duplicate that shows the Earth to be younger than previously thought.  Mind you also, if you obtain evidence of a young Earth, it is not evidence of creationism but, it is a important first step.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:51 PM on January 9, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Evidences that the Earth is young would seem to favor Creation, hmm?"

Lets get this straight. A 100,000 year old Earth IS young but it disproves Creation.

Therefore Young Earth doesn't equal Creation.
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 10:10 AM on January 10, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how does a 100,000 year old earth disprove creation? because i believe in both


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 2:14 PM on January 10, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think it's because the majority of YEC's believe the Earth is 6000 yrs old at the most though some have gone as high as 10,000 years.  You seem to be in the minority though.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 09:43 AM on January 11, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, it's been 3 days since I've asked for positive evidence for creationism and so far, no one's even attempted to provide any.  Does this mean that no one has any evidence?

Porky Pine

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:40 PM on January 11, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok my friend chill out and be a little patient. some of us have lives outside youdebate.com (like work and school)


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 8:28 PM on January 11, 2003 | IP
racoon

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry, you won't get any evidence because there isn't any.


-------
I'm too good for anything to have created me
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 06:32 AM on February 21, 2006 | IP
Linx_O

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One thing that could be looked at as "positive evidence" for creationism is DNA. We all know that software programs for our PC’s are created by intelligence. DNA is way more advanced than computer programs but it still works as an analogy.

Let me know if you think I'm wrong on this issue, but I think I'm fairly accurate.

If you guys don’t have anything to argue about up there I also believe that consciousness, Cambrian explosion, complexity of cells, the cosmological constant (actually the fine tuning of the universe) and a finite universe are pluses for creationism.



(Edited by Linx_O 2/21/2006 at 7:20 PM).
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 7:18 PM on February 21, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you guys don’t have anything to argue about up there I also believe that consciousness, Cambrian explosion, complexity of cells, the cosmological constant (actually the fine tuning of the universe) and a finite universe are pluses for creationism.


You could get any of those from a list of Creationist PRATT's just by typing in "evidence against Evolution." As the acronym suggests, they've all been refutted a thousand times. I suppose that, with the five minutes I have before bed, I'll point out the obvious ones:

1.) DNA merely strengthened the case for Evolution. It wasn't until the 1950's that people realized the initial predictions from the Theory of Evolution were correct, almost all of them directly verified by DNA.

2.) Consciousness? You can't think of a way to explain consciousness through natural forces? A Psychology 101 textbook would be a good place for you to start.

3.) Complexity of Cells:

First off, cells didn't start complicated. The eukaryotic cells you read about in your 10th Grade Biology class are in actuality, more complex than we find them in life. The nucleus-lacking prokaryotic bacteria, however, are far easier to understand.

Second, to understand how a cell evolved, all you'd need to do is read something by Ken Miller, the Catholic biologist from Brown Uni. who keeps ripping Michael Behe apart.

4.) The universe, though in volume is finite, is not limited time-wise. It's a basic law of statistical probability that given literally unlimited chances, every single possibility will eventually work out.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:17 PM on February 21, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Cambrian explosion?  How is this evidence for creationism?  Estimates of how long the Cambrian explosion lasted range from 5 million to 40 million years, which encompasses a lot of time.  And now we've found fossils of multicellular life in the Pre Cambrian.  So no, the Cambrian explosion presents no problems for the theory of evolution and no support for creationism.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:31 AM on February 22, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Void at 10:10 AM on January 10, 2003 :
"Evidences that the Earth is young would seem to favor Creation, hmm?"

Lets get this straight. A 100,000 year old Earth IS young but it disproves Creation.

Therefore Young Earth doesn't equal Creation.


Without getting to theological, some people interpret Genesis in such a way that the earth was created initially and then made/destroyed over and over.


 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 01:08 AM on February 22, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 11:17 PM on February 21, 2006 :
If you guys don’t have anything to argue about up there I also believe that consciousness, Cambrian explosion, complexity of cells, the cosmological constant (actually the fine tuning of the universe) and a finite universe are pluses for creationism.


1.) DNA merely strengthened the case for Evolution. It wasn't until the 1950's that people realized the initial predictions from the Theory of Evolution were correct, almost all of them directly verified by DNA.
As in DNA strengthened homolgy? Anything else? The sheer organized complexity of DNA made it look intelligently designed.  It being more complex than the most complex intelligently designed things we have says something, if your objective.

2.) Consciousness? You can't think of a way to explain consciousness through natural forces? A Psychology 101 textbook would be a good place for you to start.

Not what conciousness is and how it works, but how it came into existence from having a brain and humans are the only animals with true conciousness.

3.) Complexity of Cells:

First off, cells didn't start complicated. The eukaryotic cells you read about in your 10th Grade Biology class are in actuality, more complex than we find them in life. The nucleus-lacking prokaryotic bacteria, however, are far easier to understand.

Don't you need DNA/RNA to get a cell? I'm really asking. Do you agree or disagree with his statement?

Second, to understand how a cell evolved, all you'd need to do is read something by Ken Miller, the Catholic biologist from Brown Uni. who keeps ripping Michael Behe apart.

Maybe in another thread but I'm curious about people who have "debunked" Behe, he's been a menace to E for awhile. I've only read of Barry Hall, he only removed 1 part of a 5-6 component system, then added a chemical to allow time for it to fix itself, booo.

4.) The universe, though in volume is finite, is not limited time-wise. It's a basic law of statistical probability that given literally unlimited chances, every single possibility will eventually work out.

There are no working, unlimited time in the past universe models, all the oscillating models are flawed and have beginings. Big Band and general relativity are accepted by nearly every elite scientist, they imply a finite begining.





 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 01:42 AM on February 22, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 12:31 AM on February 22, 2006 :
The Cambrian explosion?  How is this evidence for creationism?  Estimates of how long the Cambrian explosion lasted range from 5 million to 40 million years, which encompasses a lot of time.  And now we've found fossils of multicellular life in the Pre Cambrian.  So no, the Cambrian explosion presents no problems for the theory of evolution and no support for creationism.


On a geological scale the Cambrian is like. . . . a minute in a 24 hr day, 60s of 86400s.

Before, some soft bodied animals, worms, starfish, etc

During, between 30-40 phyla appeared in the fossil record fully formed with no intermediaries.

After the the Cambrian (taking Demon's highest estimate) around 500million years without a brand new body plan and millions of years the fossils go without change before disappearing from the fossil record.




 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 02:06 AM on February 22, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On a geological scale the Cambrian is like. . . . a minute in a 24 hr day, 60s of 86400s.

What evidence do you have that the Cambrian was too short a period for new body plans to have evolved?  

Before, some soft bodied animals, worms, starfish, etc

So the ancestors of the life that arose in the Cambrian was present in the Pre Cambrian, so they didn't arise instantaneously in the Cambrian, they have an evolutionary history that goes back to the Pre Cambrian.  Where's the problem?

During, between 30-40 phyla appeared in the fossil record fully formed with no intermediaries.

But their precursors appear in the Pre Cambrain.  What phyla appeared fully formed with no intermediates?  This is a false claim.
Of course, the Cambrian was ideal for an a rapid diverisfication of life.

After the the Cambrian (taking Demon's highest estimate) around 500million years without a brand new body plan and millions of years the fossils go without change before disappearing from the fossil record.

So what's the problem?  Paleobiologists have hypothesises for why no new body plans arose after the Cambrian period.  Increase in the number of HOX genes could greatly increase diversity, predation appears to have begun at the end of the PreCambrian/start of the Cambrian, fueling an ever evolving arms race between predators and prey, organisms were exploiting empty niches.  These factors lead to rapid diversification.  Why haven't we seen such a varied explosion of life since?  Some of these new body plans were incredibly successful and some of them weren't.  Those that weren't went extinct.  The genetic controls of the surviving organisms were too inflexible to change these basic body plans.  
So again, I ask you, where's the problem.  Even though we don't have all the details, what we do have is best explained by the theory of evolution.  
You've made a lot of vague statements that you haven't backed up and I don't see any real problems.

As to your claim "and millions of years the fossils go without change before disappearing from the fossil record.", got any examples to support it?

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:39 AM on February 22, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not what conciousness is and how it works, but how it came into existence from having a brain and humans are the only animals with true conciousness.


In that case, I'll have to ask you to expand your reading list from Psychology 101, to include the works by Dennett and Menksy.

No matter how you spin this one, it won't fly your way. Consciousness is by no by means impossible to evolve. We observe its naturalistic traits every time someone suffers brain damage, there's the genetically-influenced performance and character of every human being, and we're able to fully image the brain of a healthy person. There's nothing unnatural nor unique about the human brain either. I know you know you're incorrect in saying the human brain is the only brain that can attain "true consciousness".

This thread was made so that it wouldn't turn into the normal hole-punching in Evolution, but an opportunity for creationists to actually present evidence for their case.

Don't you need DNA/RNA to get a cell? I'm really asking. Do you agree or disagree with his statement?


Of course we do. Now you need to conduct experiments that prove under no conditions whatsoever could DNA ever, ever arise through naturalistic means.


Maybe in another thread but I'm curious about people who have "debunked" Behe, he's been a menace to E for awhile. I've only read of Barry Hall, he only removed 1 part of a 5-6 component system, then added a chemical to allow time for it to fix itself, booo.


I don't really know what you're trying to say here, or if it's just friendly chatter. Anyway, I notice you mentioned a 5-6 component system in which one piece was removed.

This brings to mind Miller's excellent refutation of the irreducibly-complex mouse trap analogy: that if you remove a single piece from a mouse trap, it won't work. Unfortunately for Behe, one of Miller's colleagues showed how with only one piece of the mouse trap, it could still work.


There are no working, unlimited time in the past universe models, all the oscillating models are flawed and have beginings. Big Band and general relativity are accepted by nearly every elite scientist, they imply a finite begining.


You've shown a couple of quotes that suggest Hawking wasn't supplying the whole picture in the citation I took from him, and you've referenced several vague books on the matter. We'll need an actual explanation this time around. It was alleged in this thread that a finite universe is evidence for creationism. Therefore, the burden is on creationism's shoulders to show:

First, that the universe, beyond all scientific doubt, is finite.

Second, that given the certain degree of time allotted, that it is not only statistically improbable, but 100% impossible for life to arise within that time span.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 2/22/2006 at 07:36 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:33 AM on February 22, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 03:39 AM on February 22, 2006 :
On a geological scale the Cambrian is like. . . . a minute in a 24 hr day, 60s of 86400s.

What evidence do you have the Cambrian was to short to produce new body plans?

Huh? I'm saying it produced around 60phyla.


The quickness of the event points more toward Creaion than Evolution. As Darwin said," Nature takes no leaps." We're talking about around 60 phyla(around 35 still living)


Before, some soft bodied animals, worms, starfish, etc

So the ancestors of the life that arose in the Cambrian was present in the Pre Cambrian, so they didn't arise instantaneously in the Cambrian, they have an evolutionary history that goes back to the Pre Cambrian.  Where's the problem?

Starfish, worms, etc, accoring to Evolution are not appropriate ancestors for, lions and tigers and bears OH MY! Especially considering the rapidity of the Cambrian. It would require 1000s(guess) of saltations (major evolutionists agree it's been disproven) which many Evolutionist do not agree with anyway because it's close to being a miracle/instantaneous.

During, all the produced phyla(these numbers vary) appeared in the fossil record fully formed with no intermediaries.

But their precursors appear in the Pre Cambrain.  What phyla appeared fully formed with no intermediates?  This is a false claim.
Of course, the Cambrian was ideal for an a rapid diverisfication of life.

Already covered this above. Which ones, all the same ones living today! This points to Creation. Ernst Mayr admits this, I like mentioning him, he's a modern day Darwin.

After the the Cambrian (taking Demon's highest estimate) around 500million years without a brand new body plan and millions of years the fossils go without change before disappearing from the fossil record.

So what's the problem?  Paleobiologists have hypothesises for why no new body plans arose after the Cambrian period.  

Note the highlighted word, not a fact, but an educated guess without enough proof. This statement also admits no new body plans arose after the Cambrian. This points to Creation.

 Why haven't we seen such a varied explosion of life since?  Some of these new body plans were incredibly successful and some of them weren't.  Those that weren't went extinct.  The genetic controls of the surviving organisms were too inflexible to change these basic body plans.  

In short, they didn't evolve,because they didn't evolve. The genetic controls, yeah, the power of macroevolution decided to slow down to ruin the theory. This points to creation.

You've made a lot of vague statements that you haven't backed up and I don't see any real problems.

I don't see any problems either.

As to your claim "and millions of years the fossils go without change before disappearing from the fossil record.", got any examples to support it?

ALL of them, if no brand new body type has emerged since then (around 500mya) it makes since the fossils go unchanged for millions of years. Mayr basically says Of all the surviving phyla there was no major change in body plan. This points to Creation.





 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 04:40 AM on February 23, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm still having trouble seeing why you claim the Cambrian period is evidence for creationism.
As I stated the precursors of Cambrian life appear earlier in the Precambrian period.

Starfish, worms, etc, accoring to Evolution are not appropriate ancestors for, lions and tigers and bears OH MY! Especially considering the rapidity of the Cambrian. It would require 1000s(guess) of saltations (major evolutionists agree it's been disproven) which many Evolutionist do not agree with anyway because it's close to being a miracle/instantaneous.

And this is not true, nothing about the Cambrian appears miraculous or instantaneous.  You don't know the extent of the life found in the Precambrian.  You're claim that 1000's of major mutations had to occur and evolutionists agree it's been disproven is wrong.  

During, all the produced phyla(these numbers vary) appeared in the fossil record fully formed with no intermediaries.

Again, you're wrong here, what life appearred fully formed with no intermediates?  
Spriggina, which appears in the Vendian, looks to be the ancestor to arthoropds.  Kimberella was another Vendian organism that was bilaterally symetric and had hard body parts.
Since it was bilaterally sysmetrical it would be the ancestor of all bilaterally symetrical organisms.  And then in the Cambrian we see Pikaia, the ancestor of all chordates.  Yes, we don't have every link in the chain, but it's clear there is a progression going on and new fossils fill in that chain all the time.  So I ask again, give us an example of an organism appearing fully formed with no intermediates....
I think you're also getting confused by the fact that nearly all phyla appearred in the Cambrain.  First of all, the Bryozoa don't appear until after the Cambrian period.  And more importantly, phyla is a man made distinction.  The only valid biological term in species and life certainly continued to speciate.
So what, most of the phyla were present in the Cambrian, many of them died out before it was over, and the ones that remained continued to evolve.  I don't see the problem for evolution or how this supports creationism.

Already covered this above. Which ones, all the same ones living today! This points to Creation. Ernst Mayr admits this, I like mentioning him, he's a modern day
Darwin.


And sorry, you didn't cover it above, since all the phylas spawned in the Cambrian aren't living today.  And of the ones that are still living, they have evolved greately.  So I'll ask it again, what phyla appeared fully formed?  And please show us where Ernst Mayr 'admits' this...

After the the Cambrian (taking Demon's highest estimate) around 500million years without a brand new body plan and millions of years the fossils go without change before disappearing from the fossil record.

I don't understand, many new body plans evolved after the Cambrian, not to the level we use to define phyla, but new body plans did evolve.  And of course fossils changed, that's obvious.  

Note the highlighted word, not a fact, but an educated guess without enough proof. This statement also admits no new body plans arose after the Cambrian. This points to Creation.

Ridiculous!  New body plans did evolve after the Cambrian.  Where were the tetrapods in the Cambrian?  And of course, all the evidence fits the theory of evolution.  True, there are gaps in the fossil record and our understanding of the exact pathways, but there is no doubt that life evolved in the Cambrian from Precambrian life.  There is no evidence that points to creation.

In short, they didn't evolve,because they didn't evolve. The genetic controls, yeah, the power of macroevolution decided to slow down to ruin the theory. This points to creation.

No one claims that evolution slowed down, it's just that evolution builds on what has gone before.  The Cambrian period was an era that was highly conducive to radical adaption, landmasses were breaking up and this caused breat shallow seas to form, seas that had huge numbers of unoccupied niches, the atmosphere became much richer in oxygen.  Life evolved to fill these new niches, some groups went extinct, some survived and continued to evolve.  

As I've said, you haven't backed up any of your claims and you've certainly shown us no evidence that the Cambrian explosion was due to miraculous intervention.

ALL of them, if no brand new body type has emerged since then (around 500mya) it makes since the fossils go unchanged for millions of years. Mayr basically says Of all the surviving phyla there was no major change in body plan. This points to Creation.

But new body plans did emerge after the Cambrian and fossils did change and I'd like to see Mayr's quote on the subject.  As I mentioned above, new phyla did emerge, the bryozoa and other new body plans did evolve, just not enough for us to classify them as 'phyla'.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:20 AM on February 27, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think you really think I make up stuff. The Cambrian takes place in as low as 5 -20 mil year time frame. I'm sorry, but you're REALLY wrong this time. I can't believe you haven't read what Eist say about the Camb. Generally, respectable Eists says," The fossile record doesn't fit the theory but we believe there are gaps." That's why punc equil was formulated!

"Furthermore no fundamentally new body plans  has originated in the 500 million years since the  Cambrian"

"All the other the other Cambrian phyla survived, and what is quite unexpected, without a major revolution in basic body plan. If we look at individual phyla, the same situation is encountered. The living classes of arthropods are already found in the Cambrian with the same body plans."  - both from E. Mayr

Because I'm honest I'll say ofcourse Mayr and other Eist have speculations as to why this is but what I've described is exactly the way it is.
It really seems like everything that doesn't fit perfectly into E you autmatically disagree with.


PS Let's see if Demon38 will address the issue or make personal/irrelevant/age source attacks. ATTACK THE ISSUE!
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 2:04 PM on February 28, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Milken at 2:04 PM on February 28, 2006 :
I think you really think I make up stuff. The Cambrian takes place in as low as 5 -20 mil year time frame. I'm sorry, but you're REALLY wrong this time. I can't believe you haven't read what Eist say about the Camb. Generally, respectable Eists says," The fossile record doesn't fit the theory but we believe there are gaps." That's why punc equil was formulated!

"Furthermore no fundamentally new body plans  has originated in the 500 million years since the  Cambrian"

"All the other the other Cambrian phyla survived, and what is quite unexpected, without a major revolution in basic body plan. If we look at individual phyla, the same situation is encountered. The living classes of arthropods are already found in the Cambrian with the same body plans."  - both from E. Mayr

Because I'm honest I'll say ofcourse Mayr and other Eist have speculations as to why this is but what I've described is exactly the way it is.
It really seems like everything that doesn't fit perfectly into E you autmatically disagree with.


PS Let's see if Demon38 will address the issue or make personal/irrelevant/age source attacks. ATTACK THE ISSUE!


this whole idea is based off of the extremely small (compared to the amount of organisms that have ever lived on this planet) and inaccurate fossil record that we have.

who's to say that a large amount of the fossils from that time period were destroyed in catastrophic natural processes, or that evolution actually occured as fast as what few fossils we have show us.

there is just too little information to draw the kind of conclusions you are drawing from this.  the fossil record alone is not enough evidence for a theory.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 4:14 PM on February 28, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think you really think I make up stuff.

What have I made up?  You haven't pointed to anything specific yet.  In fact, you shy away from the actual evidence...

The Cambrian takes place in as low as 5 -20 mil year time frame. I'm sorry, but you're REALLY wrong this time.

So what, 5 - 20 million years is hardly sudden and you ignore the fact that the organisms of the Cambrian didn't appear full blown with no precursors, the ancestors of Cambrian life lived in the Precambrian, as recent fossils have shown us.  So the time of 5 - 20 million years is irrelevant because it streches back even further into the Precambrian.  I noticed you were unable to comment on the the precursors I did mention, Spriggina and Kimberella, Vendian organisms that are ancestors of Cambrian organisms.  You always seem to dodge the specific examples given to you.  So no, you're wrong here, there are precursors to Cambrian life, it didn't spring up full blown, with no intermediates, in the Cambrian.

I can't believe you haven't read what Eist say about the Camb. Generally, respectable Eists says," The fossile record doesn't fit the theory but we believe there are gaps." That's why punc equil was formulated!

I can't believe you didn't give us a source for Eists, I can't find anything on him.  But on the surface his quote doesn't do anything to falsify evolutionary theory.  The fossil record from the Precambrian and the Cambrian are relatively scarce, there are major gaps, but what we have found so far fits perfectly with the theory of evolution.  And new finds continue to strengthen that support.  

"Furthermore no fundamentally new body plans  has originated in the 500 million years since the  Cambrian"

How do you define body plans?  As I said, new body plans did continue to evolve after the Cambrian, show us the tetrapods that lived in the Cambrian.   Explain what Mayr means, so what if no fundamental body plans have evolved, body plans have changed since then, they have evolved.  So give us more than a sound bite from Mayr and tell us what he means.

"All the other the other Cambrian phyla survived, and what is quite unexpected, without a major revolution in basic body plan. If we look at individual phyla, the same situation is encountered. The living classes of arthropods are already found in the Cambrian with the same body plans."  - both from E. Mayr

Again, a sound bite that tells us nothing, how does this support creationism?  So what if the living classes of arthropods are already found in the Cambrian, more primitive arthropods are found in the Precambrian.

Because I'm honest I'll say ofcourse Mayr and other Eist have speculations as to why this is but what I've described is exactly the way it is.
It really seems like everything that doesn't fit perfectly into E you autmatically disagree
with.


Not at all, you haven't shown us anything that disagrees with the theory of evolution.  You use out of context quotes by biologists that don't even support your claims.  What I disagree with are your incorrect assertions, that all present day phyla sprang full blown in the Cambrain period.  Fossil evidence has shown us that this isn't true, many phyla evolved before the Cambrian in the Precambrian.  And those new phyla had precursors in the Precambrian period.  I've presented the fossil evidence and you ignore it because it falsifies your claims.

PS Let's see if Demon38 will address the issue or make personal/irrelevant/age source attacks. ATTACK THE ISSUE!

First of all, I always address the issues, I made no personal/irrelevant/age source attacks.  I've always addressed the issues and I've falsified your claims with real evidence.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:40 PM on February 28, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from RoyLennigan at 4:14 PM on February 28, 2006 :

this whole idea is based off of the extremely small (compared to the amount of organisms that have ever lived on this planet) and inaccurate fossil record that we have.

who's to say that a large amount of the fossils from that time period were destroyed in catastrophic natural processes, or that evolution actually occured as fast as what few fossils we have show us.

there is just too little information to draw the kind of conclusions you are drawing from this.  the fossil record alone is not enough evidence for a theory.


Thank you for respecting what you read. . . . very well said(or typed). Your response is exactly what I said other Eist(assuming you are) do or say. I agree the fossile record is small compared to the possibility and the fossilization rate is low.  In a crime sometimes we have drops of blood or fingerprints, it's rare to get the hi-resolution, color video, and clear audio along with several agreeing eye witnesses. We have to work with the evidence. The thread is about evidence for Creationism,  not enough evidence for proving the entire theory.


 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 02:48 AM on March 1, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What have I made up?  You haven't pointed to anything specific yet.  In fact, you shy away from the actual evidence...

I wasn't accusing you, it was me being sarcastic saying you were accusing me.

There were small softbodied organisms before the Cambrian, I have not ignored this, it is in my previous post which you responded to! The fossil record then shows fully formed skeleton having animals that basically stayed the same until today.

To say there are major gaps in the fossil record then say to what we have fits perfectly. Doesn't that sound odd since Darwin believed in gradualism? A contradicton? The thread is about the evidence for creation.

No new body plans mean, they didn't evolve, read it, let's not lose your English speaking license, you understood exactly what he meant.

This supports ID or C because it appears as though the animals are made distinct from each other. How could you even ask how it supported C? Explain how I took the quotes out of context. If you disliked Mayr, you'll hate to this, here are Gould's statement about the fossil record in general as being inconsistent with gradualism.

1) Fossils look the same when they come in and go out of the record

2) They appear suddenly "fully formed"


*He said he presented fossil evidence and I ignored itlol. He says he falsified my claim with real evidencelol*

If you're really trying to "debate" you can't ignore everything that comes up against what you believe, try being more objective like myself. For your credibilities sake, admit it.


 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 03:18 AM on March 1, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There were small softbodied organisms before the Cambrian, I have not ignored this, it is in my previous post which you responded to! The fossil record then shows fully formed skeleton having animals that basically stayed the same until today.

Which animals that lived in the Cambrian are still alive today?!?!  Show us the organisms that stayed the same!  I've provided examples to support my claims, you make these claims and can't support them with evidence.  And there were more than soft bodied organisms before the Cambrian.   Kimberella was a Precambrian organism with bilateral symetry and ridid body parts.  

To say there are major gaps in the fossil record then say to what we have fits perfectly. Doesn't that sound odd since Darwin believed in gradualism?

Who cares what Darwin thought, his ideas about evolution are 150 years out of date.  Gaps in the fossil record are due to the fact that most life does not fossilize, but what we have found fits the theory of evolution.  You're the one claiming life appearred fully formed, when the fossil record shows us just the opposite, Cambrian life had it's precursors in the Precambrian.

No new body plans mean, they didn't evolve, read it, let's not lose your English speaking license, you understood exactly what he meant.

But you're interpretation is wrong, because we see body plans evolving.  I keep asking you to show us a tetrapod in the Cambrian and you keep ignoring the request.  Tetrapods did not exist in the Cambrian, we see how they evolvedlater from fish.  4 legged terrestrial bodies did not exist in the Cambrian, they evolved later.

This supports ID or C because it appears as though the animals are made distinct from each other. How could you even ask how it supported C? Explain how I took the quotes out of context.

You haven't shown us where the quotes come from or what context they were made it.  This is a typical creationist tactic.  Tell us where you got the qoutes from and let us evaluate them.
As to the claim, the fossil record doesn't show us that organisms were made disticnt from one another, you have given us no examples to support your claim and the evolution of the Cambrian and Precambrian organisms do show that they evolved.

If you disliked Mayr, you'll hate to this, here are Gould's statement about the fossil record in general as being inconsistent with gradualism.

I don't dislike Mayr, and as to your quote, so what, you act like punctuated equilibrium isn't part of the theory of evolution, when it actually is.

If you disliked Mayr, you'll hate to this, here are Gould's statement about the fossil record in general as being inconsistent with gradualism.

So what, Gould argues against gradualism, not evolution. And as to my claim that you use the typical creationist tactic of quote mining, he is what Gould had to say about intermediate fossils from here:
Gould

"I might say at this point, if I may, that there are two rather different senses that would turn gap into record. The first one refers to an existence of all interceptable intermediate degrees. And to that extent, those are gaps, and I believe they are gaps because indeed, evolution doesn't work that way, usually. They are gaps because that is not how evolution occur. There is another sense of gaps in the record claiming, in other words, there are not transitional forms whatsoever in the fossil record. It's, in fact, patently false.  Indeed, on page 643, if you consult the chart, we do display an evolutionary trend here on the right, and evolutionary trends are very common in the fossil record. Punctuate equilibrium does not propose to deny it. By evolutionary trends, we mean the existence of intermediate forms, structurally intermediate forms between ancestors in the sense that we don't have every single set, and we find transitional forms like that very abundant in the fossil record."

Notice he says transitional forms are very abundant in the fossil record.  I still maintain you are quote mining Gould and twisting the meaning of what he is saying.  Show us where you got the quote so we can evaluate it for ourselves.  

You give us these Gould quotes:

1) Fossils look the same when they come in and go out of the record
2) They appear suddenly "fully formed"

Here is a quick explaination of these quotes and why they are out of context and completely misleading, from here:
GouldII

"“If evolution almost always occurs by rapid speciation in small, peripheral isolates—rather than by slow change in large central populations—then what should the fossil record look like? We are not likely to detect the event of speciation itself. It happens too fast, in too small a group, isolated too far from the ancestral range. We will first meet the new species as a fossil when it reinvades the ancestral range and becomes a large central population in its own right. During its recorded history in the fossil record, we should expect no major change; for we know it only as a successful, central population. It will participate in the process of organic change only when some of its peripheral isolates species to become new branches on the evolutionary bush. But it, itself, will appear ‘suddenly’ in the fossil record and become extinct later with equal speed and little perceptible change in form.” "

Do I have to explain this to you?  Gould says fossils look the same when they come and go because the major changes happen in isolated poplulations of the species on the periphery of the population, where they happen too rapidly in too small a group to be fossilized.  So when they reinvade the main population and absorb it, it only appears the new species sprang up fully formed, when in fact, they did not.  Gould is saying these speciation events certainly did occur, but too fast and in too small a population for us to get an accurate record from the fossils.  He certainly doesn't deny there are transitional fossils that are intermediate between larger groups of organisms, he says they are abundant.  So there's your explaination, from Gould himself, why fossil populations look the same when they come and go from the fossil record and why they "appear" fully formed in the fossil record.  Your ascertions are wrong, you quote mined Gould and tried to twist the meaning of what he was actually saying.

If you're really trying to "debate" you can't ignore everything that comes up against what you believe, try being more objective like myself. For your credibilities sake, admit it.

Hey, I go where the data leads, all evidence so far supports evolution and you have been unable to present any credible evidence for creationism.  You completely misinterprete Gould and Mayr and don't understand what they are saying.  You pick and choose tiny snippets of their work and completely misconstrue it.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:50 AM on March 1, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why do you keep saying "us" and "we"? I told you that Mayr and Gould are stating the facts of the fossil record. Gould's statements about the fossil record are the reasons he postulated punc equil (plenty of E don't agree punc equ, punc equil was made because the fossil record did not fit into E). I've also stated they have reasons for believing the facts are the way they are but these are the facts as they see them. Why do you think I'm a Creationist, becareful?

You keep talking about showing proof, we've both showed about the same.

 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 04:22 AM on March 2, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why do you keep saying "us" and "we"? I told you that Mayr and Gould are stating the facts of the fossil record. Gould's statements about the fossil record are the reasons he postulated punc equil (plenty of E don't agree punc equ, punc equil was made because the fossil record did not fit into E).

What biologists don't accept puncuated equilibrium?  Clearly, Gould thinks punc eek is the reason the fossil record is filled with gaps, but he also says that it is not the only way speciation occurs, organisms can speciate along more traditional paths, as he says here:
Gould

"Dennett, for example, who insists (1997, p. 64) that "for a while he [Gould] had presented punctuated equilibrium as a revolutionary 'saitationist' alternative to standard neo-Darwinism," documents his supposed best case by assuring readers (1995, p. 285) that "for a while, Gould was proposing that the first step in the establishment of any new species was a doozy—a non-Darwinian saltation." Dennett directly follows this claim with his putative proof, yet another quotation from my 1980 paper, which he renders As follows: "Speciation is not always an extension of gradual, adaptive allelic substitution to greater effect, but may represent, as Goldschmidt argued, a different style of genetic change—rapid reorganization of the genome, perhaps non-adaptive" (Gould, 1980b, p. 119).
regard Dennett's case as pitiful, but the urban legend can offer no better. First of all, this quotation doesn't even refer to punctuated equilibrium, but comes from a section of my 1980 paper on the microevolutionary mechanics of speciation. Secondly, Dennett obviously misreads my statement in a backwards manner. I am trying to carve out a small theoretical space for a style of microevolutionary rapidity at low relative frequency—as clearly stated in my phrase "not always an extension of gradual…" But Dennett states that I am proposing this mechanism as a general replacement for gradual microevolutionary change in all cases of speciation—"the first step in the establishment of any new species" in his words. But my chosen phrase—"not always"—clearly means "most of the time," and cannot be read as "never." In short, I made a plea for pluralism, and Dennett charges me with usurpation. Then, when I try to explain, I am accused of beating a retreat to save face. When placed in such a double bind, one can only smile and remember Schiller's famous dictum: Mit Dummheit kimpfen die Gdtter selbst vergebens."

So Gould, like almost all biologists, thinks that evolution can and does move at different rates.
And of course, puncuated equilibrium is part of the theory of evolution.

The name of this thread is "Evidence for Creationism".  You claim that Ernst Mayr and Stephan Gould say that the fossil record supports creationism, this is entirely untrue.
You post parts of quotes from Gould that seem to say this but are taken out of context.  Gould doesn't say the fossil record supports creationism.  He says that we should see gaps in the fossil record between species, that they would SEEM to appear full blown and come and go SEEMINGLY unchanged due to punk eek.  As to what Gould says about the fossil record fitting the theory of evolution, I think he is quite clear on the subject, from here:
GouldII

"The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are sparse, to be sure, and for two sets of good reasons — geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium, and transition within small populations of limited geographic extent). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life’s physical genealogy. "

In other words, Gould thinks there are more than enough intermediate fossils in the fossil record to accept evolution as fact.

And from here, another quote by Gould:
GouldIII

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it i infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--  whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms.  Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level,  but they are abundant between larger groups."

So Gould says transitional forms are lacking at the species level for reasons already discussed, but ar abundant between larger groups.  When I presented you with this quote before, your reaction was:

"Abundant in larger groups(aren't many compared to species) doesn't say much but honestly I could care less."

You essentially ignore Gould's explaination of why there are fewer transitional fossils at the species level, ignore Gould when he says there are abundant transitional fossils in larger groups, yet still try to quote mine Gould into supporting creationism.  This is a typical creationist tactic.

I've also stated they have reasons for believing the facts are the way they are but these are the facts as they see them.

But you ignore the implications of those reasons and still try to infer that Gould and Mayr see the fossil record as supporting creationism when clearly they do not.  According to Gould, the fossil record fully supports the theory of evolution.

Why do you think I'm a Creationist, becareful?

Because you use so many of their tactics...

You keep talking about showing proof, we've both showed about the same.

What are you talking about, you haven't shown us any proof yet.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:25 AM on March 2, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38 says:

The name of this thread is "Evidence for Creationism".  You claim that Ernst Mayr and Stephan Gould say that the fossil record supports creationism, this is entirely untrue.
You post parts of quotes from Gould that seem to say this but are taken out of context.  Gould doesn't say the fossil record supports creationism.

Milken:
Why are you saying US and WE? How many is that?

I NEVER said Gould and Mayr said it supported Cism, this is a complete misquote (I hope = ) ). I said they admitted certain characteristics about the fossil record, which just so happens to support C. I also stated they had their own reasons. You can say it fits into Evolution even though punc equil was created because the fossil record did not fit Evolution. It still fits into C, thus it's evidence.
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 04:21 AM on March 3, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I said they admitted certain characteristics about the fossil record, which just so happens to support C.

Yes, they admitted that transitionals between species are lacking and they explained why.
But Gould also says:

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life’s physical genealogy. "

Creationism says there are no transitional fossils, since organisms were created full blown and intact and did not evolve.  Read what Gould says.  Since there are "several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences", the fossil record supports evolution and does NOT support creationism.

You can say it fits into Evolution even though punc equil was created because the fossil record did not fit Evolution.

Another glaring mistake on your part and another creationist strawman, punk eek was NOT created because the fossil record did not fit evolution.  From here:
PunkEek

"Creationists commonly advance punctuated equilibrium as concession on the part of the paleontological community that evolution is not borne out by the fossil record, largely due to the way in which S. J. Gould presented it. More specifically, they say that PE tries to explain away an alleged lack of transitional fossils. Gould recognized his error in presentation and later lamented the misrepresentation of punctuated equilibrium on the part of the creationists. In 1981, he said,

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record contains no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but are abundant between larger groups. The evolution from reptiles to mammals...is well documented."
Punctuated equilibrium solely attempts to explain the rate and pattern of evolutionary change as inferred from the fossil record. Attempts to attribute to this postulate more than it explains are without substantiation."

So puncuated equilibrium was not created to explain away any difficencies in the fossil record, as you claim.  It explains the evolutionary patterns found in the fossil record, patterns that fully support the theory of evoution and fafsifiy creationism.

It still fits into C, thus it's evidence.

Since there ARE sequences that can only be explained by evoution, the fossil record does not support creationism, you have been unable to present any evidence that it does, save for your own misunderstanding of puncuated equilibrium and quote mines from biologists who totally disagree with you.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 09:40 AM on March 3, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're making up issues a little. I never said Gould stated there were no transitionals, read please. I also quoted Mayr. Eldridge also concedes the frustration of young paleo because what they find did not fit gradualism. What about the stasis. I wasn't just how Gould "presented it", it's taking exactly what he said was true, regardless of his explaination for it. It's not a misquote.
 Punc Eek links speciation of animals on the ouside of a population with rapid macroevolution. Also show me some quotes where Dawkins and Futuyma retract statements like , "It's has though they were just planted there without evolutionary history", they're few examples. I may be wrong, please help.
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 2:20 PM on March 3, 2006 | IP
zyzygy

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Milken, here's what Dawkins himself says about the matter:
"I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: “It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.” Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader’s appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore “gaps” in the fossil record."

So a "rhetorical overture" becomes creationist evidence.

And his complete article is here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,592-1619264,00.html
It is a good article - well worth reading.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 04:23 AM on March 4, 2006 | IP
zyzygy

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And Milken, I'm not sure which quote of Futuyma you want him to recant, but here's a quote from him that I imagine will do the job:

"The contemporary “intelligent design” movement is simply a repetition of the predarwinian argument, and of course it cannot be taken seriously as a scientific explanation of the properties of living things."

The complete article by him is here:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/futuyma.html

Again, it's well worth reading.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 12:36 PM on March 4, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're making up issues a little. I never said Gould stated there were no transitionals, read please. I also quoted Mayr.

I'm making up nothing.  You tried to say that the fossil record supports creationism.  You said Gould's punk eek also supported creationism:

I said they admitted certain characteristics about the fossil record, which just so happens to support C.

You were wrong, based on your misunderstanding of what punctuated equilibrium is.  No matter how you look at it, the fossil record does not support creationism, it supports the theory of evolution.

I also quoted Mayr.

You have given us no quotes from Mayr about the fossil record supporting creationism.  You've only claimed he has made statements against it.  Your one quote from this thread deals with the Cambrian period.

Eldridge also concedes the frustration of young paleo because what they find did not fit gradualism.

Gradualism, not evolution.  Puncuated Equilibrium is a form of gradualism, but it isn't a smooth transition.  This is what is reflected in the fossil record, not creationism and there still is no evidence for creationism in the fossil record.

What about the stasis.

What about it, successful species can remain relatively unchanged for long periods of time.  This isn't evidence against evolution.  And it's relative statsis.  You don't seem to understand the concept of stasis as defined by Gould And Eldredge.

I wasn't just how Gould "presented it", it's taking exactly what he said was true, regardless of his explaination for it. It's not a misquote.

But your problem comes from your misunderstanding of punctuated equilibrium!  
You keep ignoring key points, yes, there are not many fossil transitions at a species level, because the actual changes take place on the periphery of a large population and they take place quickly.  But they do evolve, not in a traditional gradualist manner, but in the jerky nature of puntucated equilibrium.  This is not evidence for creationism, but it is evidence for the theory of evolution.  So the problem is exactly how Gould presented it and how you misinterpreted it.  Here's what Gould has to say:  Gould

"Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.
I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record—geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)—reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. It represents much less than 1 per cent of the average life-span for a fossil invertebrate species—more than ten million years. Large, widespread, and well established species, on the other hand, are not expected to change very much. We believe that the inertia of large populations explains the stasis of most fossil species over millions of years.
We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

You are part of that group, that, through design or stupidity, misrepresent Gould and Eldredge's work.

Also show me some quotes where Dawkins and Futuyma retract statements like , "It's has though they were just planted there without evolutionary history", they're few
examples.


You give us an out of context quote, and you don't show us where it came from.  give us your source and I'll comment on it...

As to general quotes about the theory of evolution from Dawkins, from here:
Dawkins

"Biologists, on the other hand, can confidently claim the equivalent "cinematic" sequence of fossils for a very large number of evolutionary transitions. Not all, but very many, including our own descent from the bipedal ape Australopithecus. And - far more telling - not a single authentic fossil has ever been found in the "wrong" place in the evolutionary sequence. Such an anachronistic fossil, if one were ever unearthed, would blow evolution out of the water.
As the great biologist J B S Haldane growled, when asked what might disprove evolution: "Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian." Evolution, like all good theories, makes itself vulnerable to disproof. Needless to say, it has always come through with flying colours."

Seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me....
You still don't understand punctuated equilibrium and you're still using twisted, out of context quote mines from real biologists.  And so far, you have presented absolutely NO evidence that supports creationism.





 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:06 PM on March 5, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Please read carefully my friend, please. . .

I'm making up nothing.  You tried to say that the fossil record supports creationism.  You said Gould's punk eek also supported creationism:

The issue you're making up is trying to say I said Gould reports there are NO transitionals. Then you waste your time finding an irrelevant post about something I never said. Please show me where I've stated this

You were wrong, based on your misunderstanding of what punctuated equilibrium is.  No matter how you look at it, the fossil record does not support creationism, it supports the theory of evolution.

No, I understand it is faster form of gradualism, quick bursts followed by long stasis.


You have given us no quotes from Mayr about the fossil record supporting creationism.  You've only claimed he has made statements against it.  Your one quote from this thread deals with the Cambrian period.


The Mayr quote applies to the fossil record. He says all the body plans found that are living are basically the same today. Gould's s two statements earlier, I get bring Dawkins into it but you couldn't handle it. The basic observable facts of the fossil record fit into an ID/C framework, exactly, no changes or new theories elsewhere.


Gradualism, not evolution.  Puncuated Equilibrium is a form of gradualism, but it isn't a smooth transition.  This is what is reflected in the fossil record, not creationism and there still is no evidence for creationism in the fossil record.


Eld said always saw young paleo getting frustrated because they never seemed to find all the transitionals proposed by the ToE. He says Ev can't go on like this always happening somewhere else (where we're not looking).
    So they formed PuncEq, under puncEq it's okay not to find all the transitionals because they would not be inadequete fossil record because the change was very quick.
    This doesn't account for the body plans of living animals basically being the same as the ones found in the Cambrian (540mil years ago).
Maybe it supports E in some way, but it exactly what you'd expect from a ID/C mindset.



We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record—geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)—reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record.


These are the two facts I mentioned as do other Eist. These two facts are what ID/C predict from the original framwork and the actual findings support it as well.


We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species.  


The widespread (pervasive) trends he's talking about are the ones mentioned above. Punc Equil says we don't have the fossils because the change is quick and happens on the outside of main populations. ID/C says the current fossil record is too yield, long periods of stasis and animals appearing suddenly.


You are part of that group, that, through design or stupidity, misrepresent Gould and Eldredge's work.


I never claimed ANY of these scientists supported C/ID. I never claimed Gould says there are no transitionals. You inerpretation of PuncEq is the same one I use.

I am saddened by your hurtful comments.*, tears falling*, well not really.

 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 11:50 PM on March 19, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This doesn't account for the body plans of living animals basically being the same as the ones found in the Cambrian (540mil years ago).


You’ve got to be joking. There’s very little life today that resembles anything from the Cambrian.

These are the two facts I mentioned as do other Eist. These two facts are what ID/C predict from the original framwork and the actual findings support it as well.


I’m not following. ID has made no formal predictions to date.

ID/C says the current fossil record is too yield, long periods of stasis and animals appearing suddenly.


No, “C” puts it rather bluntly: everything appeared in the same week.




-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:20 AM on March 20, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:20 AM on March 20, 2006 :
This doesn't account for the body plans of living animals basically being the same as the ones found in the Cambrian (540mil years ago).


You’ve got to be joking. There’s very little life today that resembles anything from the Cambrian.

These are the two facts I mentioned as do other Eist. These two facts are what ID/C predict from the original framwork and the actual findings support it as well.


I’m not following. ID has made no formal predictions to date.

ID/C says the current fossil record is too yield, long periods of stasis and animals appearing suddenly.


No, “C” puts it rather bluntly: everything appeared in the same week.



No, many of the forms are extincty now , but of the ones living, they haven't changed much.

Yes, and now you're aware of the predictions.

No, you're referring to a young earth creationist, they have objections with dating methods. An old earch creationsit actually believes the earth is 4.5billion years old. I'm not sure if ID deals with the issue, or old earth is assumed.
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 01:31 AM on March 20, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The issue you're making up is trying to say I said Gould reports there are NO transitionals. Then you waste your time finding an irrelevant post about something I never said. Please show me where I've stated this

Fine, then let's clear things up, Gould says the fossil record supports evolution, not creationism.  When he talks about fossils appearring fully formed, as he said in the quote you posted, he is talking about the species level, not higher taxa.  He then explains why that happens, it is due to evolution.  

The Mayr quote applies to the fossil record. He says all the body plans found that are living are basically the same today.

He's talking about body plans on the phylum level, very basic body plans.  So we belong to the phylum chordata, animals with bilateral symetry and hollow nerve cord.  So looking at that basic a level, body plans haven't changed.  But at other levels they most certainly have evolved.  And you must remember that phyla is an artificial classification we created, it has no meaning in nature.  So what if all phyla formed by the Cambrian and new phyla have emerged since, it does nothing to falsify evolution or support creationism because despite the fact that very basic body plans arose and exist today, life has continued to evolve and the fossil record reflects that fact.

Gould's s two statements earlier, I get bring Dawkins into it but you couldn't handle it.

Gould's 2 statements did nothing to support your point, and I've handled everything you've posted so far, so bring Dawkins in, by all means!  Here's Dawkins postion:
Dawkins

"The weight of the evidence has become so heavy that opposition to the fact of evolution is laughable to all who are acquainted with even a fraction of the published data. Evolution is a fact: as much a fact as plate tectonics or the heliocentric solar system."

Sure, bring in Dawkins, a scientist who says that evolution is a fact based on the enormity of the evidence...

The basic observable facts of the fossil record fit into an ID/C framework, exactly, no changes or new theories elsewhere.

Completely wrong.  ID is falsified by transitional fossils, and all your sources state quite clearly that there are a great number of transitional fossils.

Eld said always saw young paleo getting frustrated because they never seemed to find all the transitionals proposed by the ToE. He says Ev can't go on like this always happening somewhere else (where we're not looking).
   So they formed PuncEq, under puncEq it's okay not to find all the transitionals because they would not be inadequete fossil record because the change was very quick.
   This doesn't account for the body plans of living animals basically being the same as the ones found in the Cambrian (540mil years ago).
Maybe it supports E in some way, but it exactly what you'd expect from a ID/C
mindset.


Eldredge was talking about fossils of species level transitionals, and I explained to you why Eldredge and Gould said we shouldn't expect to find them.  But they do say transitionals are abundant at higher levels.  That any transitional fossils exist clearly falsifies ID/C, it's as simple as that.  The lines of transitional fossils, like the therapsids, for horse evolution, for whale evolution, clearly show evolution in action and falsify creationism.  So the fossil record, according to eldredge and Gould clearly supports the theory of evolution.

These are the two facts I mentioned as do other Eist. These two facts are what ID/C predict from the original framwork and the actual findings support it as well.

Except this is only at a species level, and Gould and Eldredge explained why we see this.  In higher orders we see lines of clearly evolving organisms in the fossil record, as I said above, like the therapsids.  These lines of transitional fossils disprove creationism.

The widespread (pervasive) trends he's talking about are the ones mentioned above. Punc Equil says we don't have the fossils because the change is quick and happens on the outside of main populations. ID/C says the current fossil record is too yield, long periods of stasis and animals appearing suddenly.

But you don't seem to realize, no matter how many times I tell you, this only applies to transitional fossils at the species level.  Looking at the transitional fossils at higher levels shows us that organisms didn't appear suddenly and without precursors.  Gould says this time and time again, yet you don't seem to grasp it.

I never claimed ANY of these scientists supported C/ID. I never claimed Gould says there are no transitionals. You inerpretation of PuncEq is the same one I use.

But you're trying to use Gould's comments to support your case and when you view those comments in perspective, they do NOT support ID/C.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:32 AM on March 20, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, many of the forms are extincty now , but of the ones living, they haven't changed much.


I realize that the both of us have made a lot of generalizations in our arguments, and I don’t expect to find formal examples in every case. But I’d like some examples for the above statement.

Yes, and now you're aware of the predictions.


ID has made no formal predictions to date, once again. When you find one source that provides a particular prediction, all I have to do is find another source that says differently.

No, you're referring to a young earth creationist, they have objections with dating methods. An old earch creationsit actually believes the earth is 4.5billion years old. I'm not sure if ID deals with the issue, or old earth is assumed.


This is partly my point from the above response. There are differing viewpoints on ID. Its own predictions don’t line up. Even Behe and Dembski have different ideas of what ID constitutes.





-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 09:51 AM on March 20, 2006 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Heres some creationproof. If you trace the geneology of jesus back to adam, the first man, then you see that the earth is only about 6000 years old.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:17 AM on August 9, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Heres some creationproof. If you trace the geneology of jesus back to adam, the first man, then you see that the earth is only about 6000 years old.

Jesus and Adam are only fairy tales, they didn't really exist.  And how do you explain the HUGE amount of evidence that supports a 4.54 billion year old earth?  The earth can't possibly be only 6000 years old.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:48 AM on August 10, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Radio Carbon dating which has been used to find out how old fossils and earth are, has been proven not very affective or acurate. They once used it to see how old a living clam was and the results where 10 000 years. and the clam was still alive. And Jesus ws a man who really historicly existed 2000 years ago. Do your reasearch on him.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:24 AM on August 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Radio Carbon dating which has been used to find out how old fossils and earth are, has been proven not very affective or acurate.

This is not true, radiodating is very accurate and effective.  It has been verified using other daing methods and they always agree.  You're just parrotting creationist lies now.

They once used it to see how old a living clam was and the results where 10 000
years.


Everyone knows this story is bogus, you can't use carbon dating on aquatic organisms.

And Jesus ws a man who really historicly existed 2000 years ago. Do your reasearch on him.

Outside of the bible there is no first hand evidence that Jesus actually existed.  Do your own research.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:53 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok. here it is.
Question: "Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ?"

Answer: Typically when this question is asked, the person asking qualifies the question with "outside of the Bible." We do not grant this idea that the Bible cannot be considered a source of evidence for the existence of Jesus. The New Testament contains hundreds of references to Jesus Christ. There are those who date the writing of the Gospels in the second century A.D., 100+ years after Jesus' death. Even if this were the case (which we strongly dispute), in terms of ancient evidences, writings less than 200 years after events took place are considered very reliable evidences. Further, the vast majority of scholars (Christian and non-Christian) will grant that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them) were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years after Jesus' death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D.

It is also important to recognize that in 70 A.D., the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground! We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eye-witnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.

Considering the fact that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant backwater area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious "Christians " ("named after Christus" which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44 ).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats. . . . He was [the] Christ . . . he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." One version reads, "At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover, and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of his followers.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed - worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).

In conclusion, there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and Biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the 12 apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:15 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No where in your post do you provide any first hand evidence for Jesus.  Yes, he might have been an actual person, but there is NO evidence that he was the son of god.

You didn't mention Adam, so I guess  you concede Adam and Eve are just a fairy tale.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:03 AM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

maybe....


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:09 AM on August 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

maybe....

The most honest and intelligent post you've made!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:56 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.