[_ Old Earth _] Debunking Evolution:

[Barbarian]

Are you trying to say that all the evolutionary palaeontologists who use the description 'Cambrian Explosion' are up a gum tree?

I'm just showing you that it's not what you thought it was.

Why do you think they use such a loaded term?

Because the evolution of fully-scleritized bodies caused a sudden radiation of all sorts of organisms in the Cambrian. The evolution of that body was gradual, however. The "small shelly" fauna, made of up a jumble of partial armor bits, shows that too evolved gradually.

Do you really want a listing of all the species, genera, families and the higher taxa featuring in the Cambrian Explosion.

I don't think that would do you any good, seeing as we have an abundance of Precambrian metazoans.

You know as well as I do that the term Cambrian Explosion is perfectly justified.

Better. I actually know what it means.

So where are their ancestors? And where's that elusive 'common ancestor' that nobody's ever seen?

Notice the precursors to trilobites, for example. You were unwilling to name anything, so I just picked one for you. What else would you like to see?

 

[Barbarian]

Now all of that has changed. A recent study in Nature reported that some of the same soft-bodied "Cambrian" sea creatures were found in Morocco--preserved in brilliant reds and yellows because of the oxidation of pyrite that occurred on their soft tissues while they were being fossilized--in a higher layer, mixed in with "later" animals.2 This discovery erases the argument for evolution, which relies on the absence of these creatures in higher layers to support the assumption that they "diverged" into "later" life forms--and eventually into people.

Wrong, again. Here, the ICR is arguing that if you are alive, your uncle has to be dead.

Many species live on for a long time, after they give rise to new species. A recent example is polar bears. They evolved from brown bears in the last ice age. (they can often still cross-breed, so recent was the divergence)

But brown bears are still alive. The ICR is completely befuddled over that issue, as you see. The key is that the soft-bodied ancestors of the trilobites existed long before the trilobites themselves. BTW, the ICR is also stuffed with prunes about them or any identifiable Precambrian organism being considered a human ancestor. The closest we get is Pikea (first known chordate) in the early Cambrian, much later.

 

[Asyncritus]

Wrong, again. Here, the ICR is arguing that if you are alive, your uncle has to be dead.

Many species live on for a long time, after they give rise to new species. A recent example is polar bears. They evolved from brown bears in the last ice age. (they can often still cross-breed, so recent was the divergence)

If they can cross breed, then they are not distinct species.

Two organisms are recognised as distinct species if they do not cross breed in the wild. What they do in genetics labs is anybody's guess.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

Wrong, again. Here, the ICR is arguing that if you are alive, your uncle has to be dead.

Many species live on for a long time, after they give rise to new species. A recent example is polar bears. They evolved from brown bears in the last ice age. (they can often still cross-breed, so recent was the divergence)

But brown bears are still alive. The ICR is completely befuddled over that issue, as you see. The key is that the soft-bodied ancestors of the trilobites existed long before the trilobites themselves. BTW, the ICR is also stuffed with prunes about them or any identifiable Precambrian organism being considered a human ancestor. The closest we get is Pikea (first known chordate) in the early Cambrian, much later.

I'm pretty sure the ICR is not. Might I ask if you have a college degree in biology? As far as I'm concerned it's a huge amount of disrespect to argue with someone who's spent 8+ years of their life studying and you don't have anything to sponsor yourself.

Anyways I must ask what religion are you? You can't be Roman Catholic, because Evolutionary idea completely rejects the Bible. Evolution teaches that natural and random processes made everything and that humans are just "lucky" enough to have good mutations fit to survival.

Also http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

 

[Barbarian]

I'm pretty sure the ICR is not. Might I ask if you have a college degree in biology?

Yep. And a graduate degree in systems with emphasis on population genetics.

As far as I'm concerned it's a huge amount of disrespect to argue with someone who's spent 8+ years of their life studying and you don't have anything to sponsor yourself.

I've been studying biology for about 46 years.

Anyways I must ask what religion are you? You can't be Roman Catholic, because Evolutionary idea completely rejects the Bible.

Wrong again. Nothing in evolutionary theory rejects the Bible. But the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism directly rejects God's word in Genesis. There are, of course forms of OE creationism that are not contrary to the Bible.

Evolution teaches that natural and random processes made everything and that humans are just "lucky" enough to have good mutations fit to survival.

Nope. And as St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, God is great enough to use either necessity or contingency in divine providence.

God is a lot wiser and more powerful than YE creationists would like Him to be.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

Yep. And a graduate degree in systems with emphasis on population genetics.



I've been studying biology for about 46 years.



Wrong again. Nothing in evolutionary theory rejects the Bible. But the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism directly rejects God's word in Genesis. There are, of course forms of OE creationism that are not contrary to the Bible.



Nope. And as St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, God is great enough to use either necessity or contingency in divine providence.

God is a lot wiser and more powerful than YE creationists would like Him to be.

The Evolution theory does reject God. Tell me how "We came from common ancestors fit with" "God created humans and animals" it doesn't say "God is a bad creator so he created something to create humans for him" Darwinism also rejects the idea of a God, as my pastor has pointed out to me "Evolution+Bible=false" I'll get his essay from you on Sunday and send it here. It'll explain why Darwinism is simply dumb.

And no, I'm not wrong on that. Asked my Biology teacher that EXACT SAME question and he says that's true. You can observe that we seem to be random mutations that fit us for survival. That's why species go extinct all the time, no biologist in his right mind is going to agree that's not true.

 

[Jam]

The Evolution theory does reject God. Tell me how "We came from common ancestors fit with" "God created humans and animals" it doesn't say "God is a bad creator so he created something to create humans for him"

Uh... God had to create animals somehow, and that "somehow" isn't specified in the Bible.

Genesis 1:24 (NET): "God said, 'let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds...'"

In this case, it seems fairly clear that land creatures at least were produced through the land by God's will.

Evolution isn't suggested to be a "something" which God created to make everything else; rather, it could be the process by which God created the life we see today. Like I said, note that Genesis does not specify life was created. To talk of evolution as "something to create humans" seems to me to represent a fairly significant misunderstanding of the entire concept. Evolution is not a physical thing; it is simply a process!

Darwinism also rejects the idea of a God

Funny that, as we have several Darwinists on this forum that quite clearly do not reject the idea of a god. To blanketly claim that Darwinism necessarily rejects the idea of a god is simply false.

 

[Asyncritus]

Uh... God had to create animals somehow, and that "somehow" isn't specified in the Bible.

Genesis 1:24 (NET): "God said, 'let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds...'"

In this case, it seems fairly clear that land creatures at least were produced through the land by God's will.

Evolution isn't suggested to be a "something" which God created to make everything else; rather, it could be the process by which God created the life we see today. Like I said, note that Genesis does not specify life was created. To talk of evolution as "something to create humans" seems to me to represent a fairly significant misunderstanding of the entire concept. Evolution is not a physical thing; it is simply a process!

Funny that, as we have several Darwinists on this forum that quite clearly do not reject the idea of a god. To blanketly claim that Darwinism necessarily rejects the idea of a god is simply false.

Darwinism does.

Maybe the supporters don't, but that's just because they aren't thinking clearly, and are optimistically blindfolded.

 

[jasoncran]

without heating this thread up and insulting the roman catholic

when the barbaran does a study on what the soul is and can walk this christian and those that are way more knowlegable in the ot in it the tounge and culture that is was written in how the soul is just some greek ideal of an immortal being that doesnt die then he may convince me.

and also the "church" which st agustine is a part of gets all it has from the oral traditions and thoughts from the saints that were all jews. funny how that worked out. Paul knew greek thought but never ever postulated what a soul was from their angle. in fact he met the hellinstic jews there and brought them back to the real meaning of what the word did say.

next. God didnt make heaven our home nor intended us to be there long. he made man for the earth and the earth for the man.

 

[Barbarian]

The Evolution theory does reject God.

Common misconception. But it's very consistent with God's word. YE creationism, on the other hand, rejects God's word in Genesis. There are, of course, some forms of creationism that are not contrary to His word.

Even Darwin suggested that the first organisms were created by God.

Tell me how "We came from common ancestors fit with" "God created humans and animals"

It does, if you accept the way God did it.

it doesn't say "God is a bad creator so he created something to create humans for him" Darwinism

You've been badly misled about what the theory says. No wonder you hate it. I'd hate it too, if I thought it was like that.

And no, I'm not wrong on that. Asked my Biology teacher that EXACT SAME question and he says that's true.

Sorry. Not credible. The theory isn't like that. Hard to believe a "biology teacher" would not know what evolutionary theory is.

You can observe that we seem to be random mutations that fit us for survival. That's why species go extinct all the time, no biologist in his right mind is going to agree that's not true.

That's wrong too. It's natural selection that makes organisms more fit. You know what they say; "people are down on things they aren't up on." And it seems you've been listening to a lot of those people.

Want to learn what it's really about?

 

[Barbarian]

when the barbaran does a study on what the soul is and can walk this christian and those that are way more knowlegable in the ot in it the tounge and culture that is was written in how the soul is just some greek ideal of an immortal being that doesnt die then he may convince me.

Well, the supernatural doesn't have anything to do with science, but what do you think the soul is?

next. God didnt make heaven our home nor intended us to be there long. he made man for the earth and the earth for the man.

The first century Christians thought that meant "just a few years." And they learned otherwise. God is not on a schedule as we think of it.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

Common misconception. But it's very consistent with God's word. YE creationism, on the other hand, rejects God's word in Genesis. There are, of course, some forms of creationism that are not contrary to His word.
My Bible tells me that God created, the Heavens and the Earth and HE MADE animals and humans in a mere 6 days. Evolution COMPLETELY rejects that it says that Evolution takes millions of years and that single celled organisms in the ocean formed into more complex organisms. But I'm not surprised, you also believe in purgatory and infants going to Hell which isn't in ANY manuscript on the known planet.
Even Darwin suggested that the first organisms were created by God.
No he did not, I've read his book. He was a heavy agnostic/atheist and would make no such claim.


It does, if you accept the way God did it.
You need to prove he "made" us by an Evolution process.


You've been badly misled about what the theory says. No wonder you hate it. I'd hate it too, if I thought it was like that.
I'm pretty sure I haven't, I know lot's of biologists who agree with me. Your the only one I've heard who has asserted that this is false.


Sorry. Not credible. The theory isn't like that. Hard to believe a "biology teacher" would not know what evolutionary theory is.
I'm pretty sure he does know it, he may be a Creationist but I'm pretty sure he knows what he is against.


That's wrong too. It's natural selection that makes organisms more fit. You know what they say; "people are down on things they aren't up on." And it seems you've been listening to a lot of those people.
Mutations fit with natural selection.
Want to learn what it's really about?
I'm listening.

See bold for replies.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Common misconception. But it's very consistent with God's word. YE creationism, on the other hand, rejects God's word in Genesis. There are, of course, some forms of creationism that are not contrary to His word.

My Bible tells me that God created, the Heavens and the Earth and HE MADE animals and humans in a mere 6 days.

Even 1500 years ago, Christians knew the the "days" of Genesis were not literal ones. Morning and evenings with no sun to have them, for example, make that very clear.

Evolution COMPLETELY rejects that it says that Evolution takes millions of years and that single celled organisms in the ocean formed into more complex organisms. But I'm not surprised, you also believe in purgatory and infants going to Hell

No, you've been misled about that, too. Christians do not believe unbaptized babies go to Hell.

which isn't in ANY manuscript on the known planet.

So, you don't believe in the Trinity? It's not anywhere in Scripture, either.

Barbarian observes:
Even Darwin suggested that the first organisms were created by God.

No he did not, I've read his book.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Darwin's last sentence from The Origin of Species 1872

He was a heavy agnostic/atheist and would make no such claim.

Surprise.

Barbarian observes:
It does, if you accept the way God did it.

You need to prove he "made" us by an Evolution process.

The evidence for common descent:
1. Genetics. The nested hierarchy of living things (first noted by Linnaeus, and found only in cases of common descent) is supported not merely by anatomy but also by genetics, which shows relationships. And we know it works, because it can be used to identify family relationships, and group affinities in human populations.

2. Transitional organisms. Numerous transitional organisms connect major groups according to Linnaeus's hierarchy. Even more important, there are no transitionals where there shouldn't be any according to the nested hierarchy of descent.

3. Observed speciations.
Even most creationists have now conceded that new species evolve. And no one can show an limit to variation.

Barbarian observes:
You've been badly misled about what the theory says. No wonder you hate it. I'd hate it too, if I thought it was like that.

I'm pretty sure I haven't, I know lot's of biologists who agree with me.

Name some of them.

Your the only one I've heard who has asserted that this is false.

Here's a place to start learning about it. You've got a lot of work to do.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html

Barbarian observes:
Sorry. Not credible. The theory isn't like that. Hard to believe a "biology teacher" would not know what evolutionary theory is.

I'm pretty sure he does know it, he may be a Creationist but I'm pretty sure he knows what he is against.

Not if he believes stories like that.

Barbarian observes:
That's wrong too. It's natural selection that makes organisms more fit. You know what they say; "people are down on things they aren't up on." And it seems you've been listening to a lot of those people.

Mutations fit with natural selection.

Most don't. Do you understand why?

Barbarian observes:
Want to learn what it's really about?

I'm listening.

First, there are four points to Darwinian theory:

1. More are born than can live.
2. Every organism is slightly different than its parents.
3. Some of these differences make a difference in survival.
4. Those with differences that make it more likely for them to live long enough to reproduce will tend to leave more offspring, and these differences accumulate over time to explain the diversity of life.

The Modern Synthesis includes the findings of the geneticists, and the modern theory includes random mutation with natural selection.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

Barbarian observes:
Common misconception. But it's very consistent with God's word. YE creationism, on the other hand, rejects God's word in Genesis. There are, of course, some forms of creationism that are not contrary to His word.
Like the ICR said, "Lot's of Christians are slipping and compromising on the word of the Bible." the assertion that the Earth is old would not work with the Bible. If you believe this then you believe that God made humans over a billion years ago.


Even 1500 years ago, Christians knew the the "days" of Genesis were not literal ones. Morning and evenings with no sun to have them, for example, make that very clear.
I'll admit, that YE Creationism is relatively new.


No, you've been misled about that, too. Christians do not believe unbaptized babies go to Hell.
Catholics do.


So, you don't believe in the Trinity? It's not anywhere in Scripture, either.
I didn't say I didn't believe the Trinity. The Trinity is in scripture.
Barbarian observes:
Even Darwin suggested that the first organisms were created by God.



There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Darwin's last sentence from The Origin of Species 1872
"The Creator" can be anyone you want it to be. He's recognizing someone but not God, and for all we know it could be the Evolution process itself.


Surprise.

Barbarian observes:
It does, if you accept the way God did it.



The evidence for common descent:
1. Genetics. The nested hierarchy of living things (first noted by Linnaeus, and found only in cases of common descent) is supported not merely by anatomy but also by genetics, which shows relationships. And we know it works, because it can be used to identify family relationships, and group affinities in human populations.

2. Transitional organisms. Numerous transitional organisms connect major groups according to Linnaeus's hierarchy. Even more important, there are no transitionals where there shouldn't be any according to the nested hierarchy of descent.

3. Observed speciations.
Even most creationists have now conceded that new species evolve. And no one can show an limit to variation.
Bible says God made us not Evolution.
Barbarian observes:
You've been badly misled about what the theory says. No wonder you hate it. I'd hate it too, if I thought it was like that.



Name some of them.
James Donninger, Ann Linton, John Hey, Donald Ewert, and John Walton. Need I name more?


Here's a place to start learning about it. You've got a lot of work to do.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html

Barbarian observes:
Sorry. Not credible. The theory isn't like that. Hard to believe a "biology teacher" would not know what evolutionary theory is.



Not if he believes stories like that.

Barbarian observes:
That's wrong too. It's natural selection that makes organisms more fit. You know what they say; "people are down on things they aren't up on." And it seems you've been listening to a lot of those people.
Mutations can help you or they can't. It's a shot in the dark.


Most don't. Do you understand why?

Barbarian observes:
Want to learn what it's really about?



First, there are four points to Darwinian theory:

1. More are born than can live.
2. Every organism is slightly different than its parents.
3. Some of these differences make a difference in survival.
4. Those with differences that make it more likely for them to live long enough to reproduce will tend to leave more offspring, and these differences accumulate over time to explain the diversity of life.

The Modern Synthesis includes the findings of the geneticists, and the modern theory includes random mutation with natural selection.

See bold for answers.

 

[Free]

Anything specifically regarding RCC beliefs ceases now, as per the TOS. Thanks.

 

[jasoncran]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21207-watery-secret-of-the-dinosaur-death-pose.html

i find this interesting. hmm the dinousaurs may have died in water. hmm i guess the the bible is wrong on the global flood.

 

[Barbarian]

Except for the ones found buried in ancient sand dunes. But it's not surprising that most unscavenged bodies were washed down streams and deposited in water.