Creationists' theory in detail

Fundies are always wrong. Science explains the Cambrian Explosion

We're not wrong. We use God's word. Science explains the Cambrian Explosion and thus backs up the Bible once more. That's simple logic. That's plain, unvarnished truth. You are wrong again as you have been since the beginning of your atheistic view. It follows that we are all judged at Final Judgement.
You don’t use the words of the gods, did you know that men (mostly unknown), wrote the Bibles? None of the gods had any writing or editing credits in any of the Bibles.

The Cambrian Explosion doesn’t back up any of the various bibles.

Have you seen a timeline for the Cambrian explosion? It was, you know, a long time ago. More than 6,000 yeas.
 
I was commenting on your emotional outburst.

Not I. Let's not be an April Fool :abgg2q.jpg:.

I prayed for the brave and courageous medical people on the front lines and for a way to help them. OTOH, you became jealous and angry because God would help these people and instead accused him to be the bad guy. Trust me, God will help. That said, inadvertently you gave credit to Satan as the bad guy, your lord and master of evolution. Evolution is pagan materialism. He tricks you especially when you become angry and emotional.

So....your gods made the virus, were responsible for the deaths from that virus and you claim the gods are now helping those trying to save lives from the virus your gods created?

Very strange.
 
Then you are on a wild goose chase, because the gaps in the fossil record diminish every day and are easily explained by the fact that most creatures do not end up fossilized. So your pile of "evidence" is ever diminishing. On the other hand, the evidence for evolution grows every single day. So you see where this is going.

:aug08_031:Atheists are wrong again. The atheist scientists cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion. They are done in so many ways with the fossil evidence.
Fundies are always wrong. Science explains the Cambrian Explosion

With what observational proof Hollie?

We do not agree with creationists on some of their beliefs so I don't know if you would but us in the fundie species classification. From our literature:

Excerpt:

"The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29."

From our more recent "Origin of Life" brochure after noting scientists acknowledgement of the "Cambrian Explosion" explains here:


The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”33

Reference 33:
33. Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.

I note your “quote” here:Natural History, October 1959, p. 467., is a publication of the Watchtower Bible Society and not a peer reviewed document, rather a document with a predefined agenda.

"Natural History" is not a publication of Jehovah's Witnesses and I gave you a number of other references. Yes, we quoted those sources - however you have not responded on those quotes.

For example:

Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.

On peer review - did you realize many scientific discoveries were found by those who thought 'outside the box?' Not to mention you have not given evidence the sources quoted are not peer reviewed.
Susan Mazur is a reporter.

And Archaelogy.org?

The link is now in archive:


Did you actually read the link? It involves many branches of scientific research - note also this excerpt:

"The impetus for the Extended Synthesis, a graft onto, or a major departure from, the Modern Synthesis (depending on who is describing it), was the overwhelming data generated in recent years that just didn't fit the old formula. Phenomena like self-organization, epigenetics and plasticity intruded in ways that were complementary to, and sometimes contradictory to, natural selection. Then there was niche construction to consider--where organisms invent their habitats (burrows, bird nests, bee hives, etc.) rather than being selected by their fitness to pre-existing ones. And also punctuated evolution, abrupt transitions in the fossil record, and the even more puzzling episodes of stasis."

Epigenetic variation is just one example of micro-evolution not macro-evolution. For example, methyl and acetyl links to histones on the chromatin (formerly thought to be the inert backbone of the chromosome. It is c. 100,000 times faster than point mutations on the DNA.

From our literature on epigenetic research:


Excerpt:

"What is epigenetics?

Living cells contain genetic information, which is needed for the production of new cells. Much of this information is found in the genome, a term that refers to all the DNA in a cell. In recent times, however, scientists have delved deeper into another array of mechanisms within the cell—the epigenome, a word that can mean “above the genome.” Epigenetics is the study of this amazing group of mechanisms and their chemical reactions.

The molecules that make up the epigenome look nothing like DNA. Whereas DNA resembles a twisted ladder, or double helix, the epigenome is essentially a system of chemical marks, or tags, that attach to DNA. What is the role of the epigenome? Like a conductor directing an orchestra, the epigenome directs the way genetic information in the DNA is expressed. The molecular tags turn sets of genes on or off in response to both the needs of the cell and environmental factors, such as diet, stress, and toxins. Recent discoveries involving the epigenome have caused a revolution in the biological sciences...."

But what observed mechanism can you point to as evidence of macro-evolution?

 
Then you are on a wild goose chase, because the gaps in the fossil record diminish every day and are easily explained by the fact that most creatures do not end up fossilized. So your pile of "evidence" is ever diminishing. On the other hand, the evidence for evolution grows every single day. So you see where this is going.

:aug08_031:Atheists are wrong again. The atheist scientists cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion. They are done in so many ways with the fossil evidence.
Fundies are always wrong. Science explains the Cambrian Explosion

With what observational proof Hollie?

We do not agree with creationists on some of their beliefs so I don't know if you would but us in the fundie species classification. From our literature:

Excerpt:

"The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29."

From our more recent "Origin of Life" brochure after noting scientists acknowledgement of the "Cambrian Explosion" explains here:


The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”33

Reference 33:
33. Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.

You “quoted”:
“Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.”

“...scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found.”

What scientists is the “quote” referring to?

The context implies "some scientists." Obviously they are not prophets. So, what have scientists found during the subsequent 45 years. Note the quote from Archaelogy.org and the quote from our literature.

For example, do you think Archaeopteryx is a link between birds and reptiles?
 
I was commenting on your emotional outburst.

Not I. Let's not be an April Fool :abgg2q.jpg:.

I prayed for the brave and courageous medical people on the front lines and for a way to help them. OTOH, you became jealous and angry because God would help these people and instead accused him to be the bad guy. Trust me, God will help. That said, inadvertently you gave credit to Satan as the bad guy, your lord and master of evolution. Evolution is pagan materialism. He tricks you especially when you become angry and emotional.

So....your gods made the virus, were responsible for the deaths from that virus and you claim the gods are now helping those trying to save lives from the virus your gods created?

Very strange.

Actually, CNN reported that the current Corona virus may have come from bats and that this is due to man's destruction of the environment.

Viruses can mutate - that's why scientists keep making updated Flu vaccines, for one example.

I don't know if we know the actual origin of the bat variety of Corona or of the ultimate origin of all Corona viruses. It is interesting that you mention gods btw - there are other superior extraterrestrial intelligent life forms according to the Bible - some of these are evil.

But I concur with that CNN report - that man is ultimately the cause of the current pandemic.
 
Then you are on a wild goose chase, because the gaps in the fossil record diminish every day and are easily explained by the fact that most creatures do not end up fossilized. So your pile of "evidence" is ever diminishing. On the other hand, the evidence for evolution grows every single day. So you see where this is going.

:aug08_031:Atheists are wrong again. The atheist scientists cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion. They are done in so many ways with the fossil evidence.
Fundies are always wrong. Science explains the Cambrian Explosion

With what observational proof Hollie?

We do not agree with creationists on some of their beliefs so I don't know if you would but us in the fundie species classification. From our literature:

Excerpt:

"The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29."

From our more recent "Origin of Life" brochure after noting scientists acknowledgement of the "Cambrian Explosion" explains here:


The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”33

Reference 33:
33. Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.

You “quoted”:
“Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.”

“...scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found.”

What scientists is the “quote” referring to?

The context implies "some scientists." Obviously they are not prophets. So, what have scientists found during the subsequent 45 years. Note the quote from Archaelogy.org and the quote from our literature.

For example, do you think Archaeopteryx is a link between birds and reptiles?
“Some scientists” tells us nothing. “Some people” believe in space aliens visiting the planet. So what? Is there any evidence for it?

 
I was commenting on your emotional outburst.

Not I. Let's not be an April Fool :abgg2q.jpg:.

I prayed for the brave and courageous medical people on the front lines and for a way to help them. OTOH, you became jealous and angry because God would help these people and instead accused him to be the bad guy. Trust me, God will help. That said, inadvertently you gave credit to Satan as the bad guy, your lord and master of evolution. Evolution is pagan materialism. He tricks you especially when you become angry and emotional.

So....your gods made the virus, were responsible for the deaths from that virus and you claim the gods are now helping those trying to save lives from the virus your gods created?

Very strange.

Actually, CNN reported that the current Corona virus may have come from bats and that this is due to man's destruction of the environment.

Viruses can mutate - that's why scientists keep making updated Flu vaccines, for one example.

I don't know if we know the actual origin of the bat variety of Corona or of the ultimate origin of all Corona viruses. It is interesting that you mention gods btw - there are other superior extraterrestrial intelligent life forms according to the Bible - some of these are evil.

But I concur with that CNN report - that man is ultimately the cause of the current pandemic.
We’re lectured frequently about evilution being a fraud.

It suggests incompetent designers who would design viruses not understanding they could evolve.
 
Then you are on a wild goose chase, because the gaps in the fossil record diminish every day and are easily explained by the fact that most creatures do not end up fossilized. So your pile of "evidence" is ever diminishing. On the other hand, the evidence for evolution grows every single day. So you see where this is going.

:aug08_031:Atheists are wrong again. The atheist scientists cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion. They are done in so many ways with the fossil evidence.
Fundies are always wrong. Science explains the Cambrian Explosion

With what observational proof Hollie?

We do not agree with creationists on some of their beliefs so I don't know if you would but us in the fundie species classification. From our literature:

Excerpt:

"The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29."

From our more recent "Origin of Life" brochure after noting scientists acknowledgement of the "Cambrian Explosion" explains here:


The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”33

Reference 33:
33. Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.

You “quoted”:
“Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.”

“...scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found.”

What scientists is the “quote” referring to?

The context implies "some scientists." Obviously they are not prophets. So, what have scientists found during the subsequent 45 years. Note the quote from Archaelogy.org and the quote from our literature.

For example, do you think Archaeopteryx is a link between birds and reptiles?
I have an inherent mistrust of your literature. It is intended to promote a specific agenda and will skew / distort the facts to press that agenda. That type of agenda is as intellectually dishonest as I can imagine. I can’t help but be blunt as we all have to make choices and decisions about what we’re presented with.
 
Then you are on a wild goose chase, because the gaps in the fossil record diminish every day and are easily explained by the fact that most creatures do not end up fossilized. So your pile of "evidence" is ever diminishing. On the other hand, the evidence for evolution grows every single day. So you see where this is going.

:aug08_031:Atheists are wrong again. The atheist scientists cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion. They are done in so many ways with the fossil evidence.
Fundies are always wrong. Science explains the Cambrian Explosion

With what observational proof Hollie?

We do not agree with creationists on some of their beliefs so I don't know if you would but us in the fundie species classification. From our literature:

Excerpt:

"The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29."

From our more recent "Origin of Life" brochure after noting scientists acknowledgement of the "Cambrian Explosion" explains here:


The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”33

Reference 33:
33. Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.

I note your “quote” here:Natural History, October 1959, p. 467., is a publication of the Watchtower Bible Society and not a peer reviewed document, rather a document with a predefined agenda.

"Natural History" is not a publication of Jehovah's Witnesses and I gave you a number of other references. Yes, we quoted those sources - however you have not responded on those quotes.

For example:

Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.

On peer review - did you realize many scientific discoveries were found by those who thought 'outside the box?' Not to mention you have not given evidence the sources quoted are not peer reviewed.
Susan Mazur is a reporter.

And Archaelogy.org?

The link is now in archive:


Did you actually read the link? It involves many branches of scientific research - note also this excerpt:

"The impetus for the Extended Synthesis, a graft onto, or a major departure from, the Modern Synthesis (depending on who is describing it), was the overwhelming data generated in recent years that just didn't fit the old formula. Phenomena like self-organization, epigenetics and plasticity intruded in ways that were complementary to, and sometimes contradictory to, natural selection. Then there was niche construction to consider--where organisms invent their habitats (burrows, bird nests, bee hives, etc.) rather than being selected by their fitness to pre-existing ones. And also punctuated evolution, abrupt transitions in the fossil record, and the even more puzzling episodes of stasis."

Epigenetic variation is just one example of micro-evolution not macro-evolution. For example, methyl and acetyl links to histones on the chromatin (formerly thought to be the inert backbone of the chromosome. It is c. 100,000 times faster than point mutations on the DNA.

From our literature on epigenetic research:


Excerpt:

"What is epigenetics?

Living cells contain genetic information, which is needed for the production of new cells. Much of this information is found in the genome, a term that refers to all the DNA in a cell. In recent times, however, scientists have delved deeper into another array of mechanisms within the cell—the epigenome, a word that can mean “above the genome.” Epigenetics is the study of this amazing group of mechanisms and their chemical reactions.

The molecules that make up the epigenome look nothing like DNA. Whereas DNA resembles a twisted ladder, or double helix, the epigenome is essentially a system of chemical marks, or tags, that attach to DNA. What is the role of the epigenome? Like a conductor directing an orchestra, the epigenome directs the way genetic information in the DNA is expressed. The molecular tags turn sets of genes on or off in response to both the needs of the cell and environmental factors, such as diet, stress, and toxins. Recent discoveries involving the epigenome have caused a revolution in the biological sciences...."

But what observed mechanism can you point to as evidence of macro-evolution?


talkorigins is an evolutionist website which is generally on the opposite side from creationist websites in evolution vs. creation debate. I cannot respond to such a long link. However, do you also consult creationist websites? I have found that in most debates there is some truth on both sides but that both sides incorrectly state the other side has presented no evidence. It is not easy to find the actual truth between those two sides - it involves in depth research and a subjective examination of the actual observations of (some) scientists.

I am glad you responded on a specific example in the fossil record - I will therefore switch to your more recent post until you specify some point in the talkorigins website.
 
Then you are on a wild goose chase, because the gaps in the fossil record diminish every day and are easily explained by the fact that most creatures do not end up fossilized. So your pile of "evidence" is ever diminishing. On the other hand, the evidence for evolution grows every single day. So you see where this is going.

:aug08_031:Atheists are wrong again. The atheist scientists cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion. They are done in so many ways with the fossil evidence.
Fundies are always wrong. Science explains the Cambrian Explosion

With what observational proof Hollie?

We do not agree with creationists on some of their beliefs so I don't know if you would but us in the fundie species classification. From our literature:

Excerpt:

"The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29."

From our more recent "Origin of Life" brochure after noting scientists acknowledgement of the "Cambrian Explosion" explains here:


The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”33

Reference 33:
33. Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.

You “quoted”:
“Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.”

“...scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found.”

What scientists is the “quote” referring to?

The context implies "some scientists." Obviously they are not prophets. So, what have scientists found during the subsequent 45 years. Note the quote from Archaelogy.org and the quote from our literature.

For example, do you think Archaeopteryx is a link between birds and reptiles?
I have an inherent mistrust of your literature. It is intended to promote a specific agenda and will skew / distort the facts to press that agenda. That type of agenda is as intellectually dishonest as I can imagine. I can’t help but be blunt as we all have to make choices and decisions about what we’re presented with.

Yes, that is your imagination. And you fail to specify what (on topic) in our literature you are referring to. I posted from our literature on epigenetics - which you have thus far ignored So, do you think the fact that our article only refers to epigenetic variation due to marks/links on the DNA (e.g. methyl links) but not to totally epigenetic (not on the DNA at all) variation due to methyl and acetyl links on histones on the chromatin is because, in your words, of some "agenda?"

But, since you do not trust our literature - did you make an attempt to research epigenetics in the body of scientific literature?
 
You
I was commenting on your emotional outburst.

Not I. Let's not be an April Fool :abgg2q.jpg:.

I prayed for the brave and courageous medical people on the front lines and for a way to help them. OTOH, you became jealous and angry because God would help these people and instead accused him to be the bad guy. Trust me, God will help. That said, inadvertently you gave credit to Satan as the bad guy, your lord and master of evolution. Evolution is pagan materialism. He tricks you especially when you become angry and emotional.

So....your gods made the virus, were responsible for the deaths from that virus and you claim the gods are now helping those trying to save lives from the virus your gods created?

Very strange.

Actually, CNN reported that the current Corona virus may have come from bats and that this is due to man's destruction of the environment.

Viruses can mutate - that's why scientists keep making updated Flu vaccines, for one example.

I don't know if we know the actual origin of the bat variety of Corona or of the ultimate origin of all Corona viruses. It is interesting that you mention gods btw - there are other superior extraterrestrial intelligent life forms according to the Bible - some of these are evil.

But I concur with that CNN report - that man is ultimately the cause of the current pandemic.
We’re lectured frequently about evilution being a fraud.

It suggests incompetent designers who would design viruses not understanding they could evolve.

You are assuming that viruses were all engineered by one God whereas even man now knows how to do genetic engineering. It may be that all viruses were created by God to be in specific life forms, like Corona in bats - but I doubt that. Then again, I am a doubting Thomas type person.

There is a problem with our current environment - evolution and adaptation is now in an environment which has devolved from God's purpose as stated in Genesis 1:28.

We believe that Satan is the ruler of this world - of course, he just manipulates usually. When our Creator brings to ruin those ruining the earth as foretold in Revelation 11:18, it will involve the destruction of much of mankind as well.

Sorry some have lectured you (plural?) about evolution being a fraud. The statement ignores the difference between macro & micro evolution.
 
Then you are on a wild goose chase, because the gaps in the fossil record diminish every day and are easily explained by the fact that most creatures do not end up fossilized. So your pile of "evidence" is ever diminishing. On the other hand, the evidence for evolution grows every single day. So you see where this is going.

:aug08_031:Atheists are wrong again. The atheist scientists cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion. They are done in so many ways with the fossil evidence.
Fundies are always wrong. Science explains the Cambrian Explosion

With what observational proof Hollie?

We do not agree with creationists on some of their beliefs so I don't know if you would but us in the fundie species classification. From our literature:

Excerpt:

"The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29."

From our more recent "Origin of Life" brochure after noting scientists acknowledgement of the "Cambrian Explosion" explains here:


The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”33

Reference 33:
33. Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.

I note your “quote” here:Natural History, October 1959, p. 467., is a publication of the Watchtower Bible Society and not a peer reviewed document, rather a document with a predefined agenda.

"Natural History" is not a publication of Jehovah's Witnesses and I gave you a number of other references. Yes, we quoted those sources - however you have not responded on those quotes.

For example:

Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.

On peer review - did you realize many scientific discoveries were found by those who thought 'outside the box?' Not to mention you have not given evidence the sources quoted are not peer reviewed.
Susan Mazur is a reporter.

And Archaelogy.org?

The link is now in archive:


Did you actually read the link? It involves many branches of scientific research - note also this excerpt:

"The impetus for the Extended Synthesis, a graft onto, or a major departure from, the Modern Synthesis (depending on who is describing it), was the overwhelming data generated in recent years that just didn't fit the old formula. Phenomena like self-organization, epigenetics and plasticity intruded in ways that were complementary to, and sometimes contradictory to, natural selection. Then there was niche construction to consider--where organisms invent their habitats (burrows, bird nests, bee hives, etc.) rather than being selected by their fitness to pre-existing ones. And also punctuated evolution, abrupt transitions in the fossil record, and the even more puzzling episodes of stasis."

Epigenetic variation is just one example of micro-evolution not macro-evolution. For example, methyl and acetyl links to histones on the chromatin (formerly thought to be the inert backbone of the chromosome. It is c. 100,000 times faster than point mutations on the DNA.

From our literature on epigenetic research:


Excerpt:

"What is epigenetics?

Living cells contain genetic information, which is needed for the production of new cells. Much of this information is found in the genome, a term that refers to all the DNA in a cell. In recent times, however, scientists have delved deeper into another array of mechanisms within the cell—the epigenome, a word that can mean “above the genome.” Epigenetics is the study of this amazing group of mechanisms and their chemical reactions.

The molecules that make up the epigenome look nothing like DNA. Whereas DNA resembles a twisted ladder, or double helix, the epigenome is essentially a system of chemical marks, or tags, that attach to DNA. What is the role of the epigenome? Like a conductor directing an orchestra, the epigenome directs the way genetic information in the DNA is expressed. The molecular tags turn sets of genes on or off in response to both the needs of the cell and environmental factors, such as diet, stress, and toxins. Recent discoveries involving the epigenome have caused a revolution in the biological sciences...."

But what observed mechanism can you point to as evidence of macro-evolution?


talkorigins is an evolutionist website which is generally on the opposite side from creationist websites in evolution vs. creation debate. I cannot respond to such a long link. However, do you also consult creationist websites? I have found that in most debates there is some truth on both sides but that both sides incorrectly state the other side has presented no evidence. It is not easy to find the actual truth between those two sides - it involves in depth research and a subjective examination of the actual observations of (some) scientists.

I am glad you responded on a specific example in the fossil record - I will therefore switch to your more recent post until you specify some point in the talkorigins website.
I’m not sure what an “evolutionist” website is. The term “evolutionist” is, more often than not, a term used by the fundamentalist Christian / “intelligent design” folks. TalkOrigins is a science related website that presents a science-based analysis with clear footnotes and references to what they present.

I generally find it rather easy to find the truth. Creation based websites invariably have the same “statement of faith” that precludes them as honest participants in the exploration of life sciences and the natural world. Their agenda is that all knowledge must conform to a biblical rendition of history. Very clearly, much of our biological world and the universe we understand is in clear and sharp contrast to biblical tales and fables.

The development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation tales and fables. ID / creationism has no plausible means to investigate its claims of supernatural creation. ID / Creationism doesn't even present a tentative hypothesis or a beginning of a framework to explain how magic and supernaturalism answers anything. So what useful role can "it happened by supernatural means" have in advancement of knowledge?
 
You
I was commenting on your emotional outburst.

Not I. Let's not be an April Fool :abgg2q.jpg:.

I prayed for the brave and courageous medical people on the front lines and for a way to help them. OTOH, you became jealous and angry because God would help these people and instead accused him to be the bad guy. Trust me, God will help. That said, inadvertently you gave credit to Satan as the bad guy, your lord and master of evolution. Evolution is pagan materialism. He tricks you especially when you become angry and emotional.

So....your gods made the virus, were responsible for the deaths from that virus and you claim the gods are now helping those trying to save lives from the virus your gods created?

Very strange.

Actually, CNN reported that the current Corona virus may have come from bats and that this is due to man's destruction of the environment.

Viruses can mutate - that's why scientists keep making updated Flu vaccines, for one example.

I don't know if we know the actual origin of the bat variety of Corona or of the ultimate origin of all Corona viruses. It is interesting that you mention gods btw - there are other superior extraterrestrial intelligent life forms according to the Bible - some of these are evil.

But I concur with that CNN report - that man is ultimately the cause of the current pandemic.
We’re lectured frequently about evilution being a fraud.

It suggests incompetent designers who would design viruses not understanding they could evolve.

You are assuming that viruses were all engineered by one God whereas even man now knows how to do genetic engineering. It may be that all viruses were created by God to be in specific life forms, like Corona in bats - but I doubt that. Then again, I am a doubting Thomas type person.

There is a problem with our current environment - evolution and adaptation is now in an environment which has devolved from God's purpose as stated in Genesis 1:28.

We believe that Satan is the ruler of this world - of course, he just manipulates usually. When our Creator brings to ruin those ruining the earth as foretold in Revelation 11:18, it will involve the destruction of much of mankind as well.

Sorry some have lectured you (plural?) about evolution being a fraud. The statement ignores the difference between macro & micro evolution.
I’m not assuming that any virus (or anything else), was engineered by any gods. An international team of researchers has concluded that the corona virus was a product of evolution; not a weapons experiment gone bad.

As to Satan ruling the world, I really can’t accept fear and superstition as an excuse for human frailties, bad decisions and poor judgement.
 
Then you are on a wild goose chase, because the gaps in the fossil record diminish every day and are easily explained by the fact that most creatures do not end up fossilized. So your pile of "evidence" is ever diminishing. On the other hand, the evidence for evolution grows every single day. So you see where this is going.

:aug08_031:Atheists are wrong again. The atheist scientists cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion. They are done in so many ways with the fossil evidence.
Fundies are always wrong. Science explains the Cambrian Explosion

With what observational proof Hollie?

We do not agree with creationists on some of their beliefs so I don't know if you would but us in the fundie species classification. From our literature:

Excerpt:

"The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29."

From our more recent "Origin of Life" brochure after noting scientists acknowledgement of the "Cambrian Explosion" explains here:


The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”33

Reference 33:
33. Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.

You “quoted”:
“Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.”

“...scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found.”

What scientists is the “quote” referring to?

The context implies "some scientists." Obviously they are not prophets. So, what have scientists found during the subsequent 45 years. Note the quote from Archaelogy.org and the quote from our literature.

For example, do you think Archaeopteryx is a link between birds and reptiles?
I have an inherent mistrust of your literature. It is intended to promote a specific agenda and will skew / distort the facts to press that agenda. That type of agenda is as intellectually dishonest as I can imagine. I can’t help but be blunt as we all have to make choices and decisions about what we’re presented with.

Yes, that is your imagination. And you fail to specify what (on topic) in our literature you are referring to. I posted from our literature on epigenetics - which you have thus far ignored So, do you think the fact that our article only refers to epigenetic variation due to marks/links on the DNA (e.g. methyl links) but not to totally epigenetic (not on the DNA at all) variation due to methyl and acetyl links on histones on the chromatin is because, in your words, of some "agenda?"

But, since you do not trust our literature - did you make an attempt to research epigenetics in the body of scientific literature?
If you can point me to literature on epigenetics that your organization has submitted for peer review, I’ll look at it. Once again, however, we’re left to be critical of your research methods when that research is performed under an absolute “statement of faith”.

Can you direct me to the research institutions affiliated with your organization that perform controlled studies / testing / evaluation?
 
Then you are on a wild goose chase, because the gaps in the fossil record diminish every day and are easily explained by the fact that most creatures do not end up fossilized. So your pile of "evidence" is ever diminishing. On the other hand, the evidence for evolution grows every single day. So you see where this is going.

:aug08_031:Atheists are wrong again. The atheist scientists cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion. They are done in so many ways with the fossil evidence.
Fundies are always wrong. Science explains the Cambrian Explosion

With what observational proof Hollie?

We do not agree with creationists on some of their beliefs so I don't know if you would but us in the fundie species classification. From our literature:

Excerpt:

"The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29."

From our more recent "Origin of Life" brochure after noting scientists acknowledgement of the "Cambrian Explosion" explains here:


The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”33

Reference 33:
33. Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.

You “quoted”:
“Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.”

“...scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found.”

What scientists is the “quote” referring to?

The context implies "some scientists." Obviously they are not prophets. So, what have scientists found during the subsequent 45 years. Note the quote from Archaelogy.org and the quote from our literature.

For example, do you think Archaeopteryx is a link between birds and reptiles?
“Some scientists” tells us nothing. “Some people” believe in space aliens visiting the planet. So what? Is there any evidence for it?


Hmmm - do you believe there are likely superior extraterrestrial life forms in our universe or other universes? See SETI research and the reason for it. However, others promote Panspermia models such as earth being seeded with informational molecules from space.

OK, all seriousness aside - I am not sure I can or even want to de-feet the article since the article's evidence is in de-feet! For fun, compare the Platypus!

Ok, taming my sense of humor- I will start with our literature since you distrust it (sorry - I am tired and when that happens my sense of humor is not easily tamed).


"The fossil feather is from archaeopteryx, an extinct creature sometimes presented as a “missing link” in the line of descent to modern birds. Most paleontologists, however, no longer consider it an ancestor of modern birds."


"A thoughtful study of birds gives convincing proof of the Biblical teaching that they are of divine creation. While birds and reptiles are both oviparous, reptiles are cold-blooded, often sluggish, whereas birds are warm-blooded and among the most active of all earth’s creatures; they also have an unusually rapid heartbeat. The evolutionary view that reptilian scales and front limbs eventually developed into feathered wings is both fanciful and baseless. The fossils of birds called by scientists Archaeopteryx (or, ancient wing) and Archaeornis (or, ancient bird), though showing teeth and a long vertebrated tail, also show that they were completely feathered, had feet equipped for perching, and had fully developed wings. No intermediate specimens, exhibiting scales developing into feathers or front legs into wings, exist to give any semblance of support to the evolution theory."


"At one time evolutionists believed that Archaeopteryx, meaning “ancient wing” or “ancient bird,” was a link between reptile and bird. But now, many do not. Its fossilized remains reveal perfectly formed feathers on aerodynamically designed wings capable of flight. Its wing and leg bones were thin and hollow. Its supposed reptilian features are found in birds today. And it does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period as Archaeopteryx.⁠12"

reference 12 - "12. The Neck of the Giraffe, [by Francis Hitching, 1982] pp. 34, 35; Science, “Feathers of Archaeopteryx: Asymmetric Vanes Indicate Aerodynamic Function,” by Alan Feduccia and Harrison B. Tordoff, March 9, 1979, pp. 1021, 1022."

More recent scientific literature shows how paleontologists keep changing their viewpoint about this kind/variety:


But these articles only address outward appearance and ignore the points brought up in the quotes from our literature - like the origin of feathers, or the gap between warm-blooded and cold-blooded, or the fact that other bird fossils are found in the same rock strata.

Homology (similarity) does not prove decent and is more likely due to a common designer rather than a common ancestor.

A human example:
1. closest in intelligence - Porpoise
2. Closest in outward appearance - ape
3. Closest eye - octapus
4 Closest skin - pig
5. Closest heart valve - pig?
6. Closest blood - rat or mouse.

And when one goes into pleiotropy in genetics (one gene for unrelated traits) it becomes even more obvious that homologies are due to a common designer not common descent.
 
Hollie - peer review is no guarantee of accuracy - peer reviewed articles on subjects often postulate contradictory models. Truth is what I am interested in - whether accurate scientific observations are shown in peer-reviewed and approved articles or not. Peer review promotes stasis in beliefs as alternate beliefs are rejected by peers. Peer review reflects what is accepted in popular science, or simply: what is popular.

So, what about the actual evidence for Archaeoptyx or from pleiotropy and homologies?

And doesn't your not wanting to read the evidence from our literature constitute an evidence of bias on your part?

Oh, btw - I am tired and hungry so I will be offline for awhile - take your time in researching - have fun! I love doing research myself, btw - including your links (and mine of course),
 
Then you are on a wild goose chase, because the gaps in the fossil record diminish every day and are easily explained by the fact that most creatures do not end up fossilized. So your pile of "evidence" is ever diminishing. On the other hand, the evidence for evolution grows every single day. So you see where this is going.

:aug08_031:Atheists are wrong again. The atheist scientists cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion. They are done in so many ways with the fossil evidence.
Fundies are always wrong. Science explains the Cambrian Explosion

With what observational proof Hollie?

We do not agree with creationists on some of their beliefs so I don't know if you would but us in the fundie species classification. From our literature:

Excerpt:

"The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29."

From our more recent "Origin of Life" brochure after noting scientists acknowledgement of the "Cambrian Explosion" explains here:


The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”33

Reference 33:
33. Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.

You “quoted”:
“Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.”

“...scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found.”

What scientists is the “quote” referring to?

The context implies "some scientists." Obviously they are not prophets. So, what have scientists found during the subsequent 45 years. Note the quote from Archaelogy.org and the quote from our literature.

For example, do you think Archaeopteryx is a link between birds and reptiles?
“Some scientists” tells us nothing. “Some people” believe in space aliens visiting the planet. So what? Is there any evidence for it?


Hmmm - do you believe there are likely superior extraterrestrial life forms in our universe or other universes? See SETI research and the reason for it. However, others promote Panspermia models such as earth being seeded with informational molecules from space.

OK, all seriousness aside - I am not sure I can or even want to de-feet the article since the article's evidence is in de-feet! For fun, compare the Platypus!

Ok, taming my sense of humor- I will start with our literature since you distrust it (sorry - I am tired and when that happens my sense of humor is not easily tamed).


"The fossil feather is from archaeopteryx, an extinct creature sometimes presented as a “missing link” in the line of descent to modern birds. Most paleontologists, however, no longer consider it an ancestor of modern birds."


"A thoughtful study of birds gives convincing proof of the Biblical teaching that they are of divine creation. While birds and reptiles are both oviparous, reptiles are cold-blooded, often sluggish, whereas birds are warm-blooded and among the most active of all earth’s creatures; they also have an unusually rapid heartbeat. The evolutionary view that reptilian scales and front limbs eventually developed into feathered wings is both fanciful and baseless. The fossils of birds called by scientists Archaeopteryx (or, ancient wing) and Archaeornis (or, ancient bird), though showing teeth and a long vertebrated tail, also show that they were completely feathered, had feet equipped for perching, and had fully developed wings. No intermediate specimens, exhibiting scales developing into feathers or front legs into wings, exist to give any semblance of support to the evolution theory."


"At one time evolutionists believed that Archaeopteryx, meaning “ancient wing” or “ancient bird,” was a link between reptile and bird. But now, many do not. Its fossilized remains reveal perfectly formed feathers on aerodynamically designed wings capable of flight. Its wing and leg bones were thin and hollow. Its supposed reptilian features are found in birds today. And it does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period as Archaeopteryx.⁠12"

reference 12 - "12. The Neck of the Giraffe, [by Francis Hitching, 1982] pp. 34, 35; Science, “Feathers of Archaeopteryx: Asymmetric Vanes Indicate Aerodynamic Function,” by Alan Feduccia and Harrison B. Tordoff, March 9, 1979, pp. 1021, 1022."

More recent scientific literature shows how paleontologists keep changing their viewpoint about this kind/variety:


But these articles only address outward appearance and ignore the points brought up in the quotes from our literature - like the origin of feathers, or the gap between warm-blooded and cold-blooded, or the fact that other bird fossils are found in the same rock strata.

Homology (similarity) does not prove decent and is more likely due to a common designer rather than a common ancestor.

A human example:
1. closest in intelligence - Porpoise
2. Closest in outward appearance - ape
3. Closest eye - octapus
4 Closest skin - pig
5. Closest heart valve - pig?
6. Closest blood - rat or mouse.

And when one goes into pleiotropy in genetics (one gene for unrelated traits) it becomes even more obvious that homologies are due to a common designer not common descent.

“Most paleontologists, however, no longer consider it an ancestor of modern birds."

What is the source for “most paleontologists”?


“Homology” is a mis-characterization, one that oozed out of th3 Disco’tute.




Claim CB810:
Homology is defined as similarity due to common ancestry. The claim then that it is evidence for common ancestry is a circular argument.

Source:
Wells, Jonathan, 2000. Icons of Evolution, Washington DC: Regnery Publishing Inc., pp. 63-65.
Response:
  1. Homology is not defined as similarity due to common ancestry and then used as evidence for common ancestry. Rather, the evidence for common ancestry comes from the patterns of similarity of many traits. These similarities show that organisms group naturally into a nested hierarchy. For example, that ladybugs and scarabs are both types of beetle is based on various common traits such as hardened front wings; beetles, flies, and grasshoppers are types of insect; insects, scorpions, and centipedes are types of arthropod. Such grouping does not depend on any assumptions about origins and in fact was first codified by Linnaeus, a creationist. A grouping suggested by many common traits is evidence of common ancestry. This is true no matter what you choose to call the traits. The homology label gets added after the evidence for common ancestry is already in.




Wells is an intelligent design creationist (in fact, he is just as often described as an “anti-evolution activist”, which is revealing) and a prominent member of the Discovery Institute. He is also a pronounced Moonie – indeed, a “Unification Church Marriage Expert” – and has been known to be involved in AIDS denialism together with his old friend and mentor Phillip Johnson. It is as a creationist (or “intelligent design proponent”) that he has made the biggest impact, however – though it was allegedly his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers that convinced him to devote his life to “destroying Darwinism”.
 
Darwin noted accurately the micro-evolution of finches on the Galapagos Islands due to survival of the fittest and natural selection.
He also noted speciation. This is what you usually refer to with the fake, useless, madeup term, "macro evolution".
 
Breezewood - I am not quoting your post - metaphysics is a branch of philosophy - discussed here:


We do not base our beliefs on philosophy - the Bible warns against philosophy:

Colossians 2:8 - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
8 Look out that no one takes you captive* by means of the philosophy and empty deception+ according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;
metaphysics
metaphysical - to be more exact

is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.

substance and attribute -
the spiritual composition for a composite physiology.

We do not base our beliefs on philosophy - the Bible warns against philosophy:
Colossians 2:8 - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
8 Look out that no one takes you captive* by means of the philosophy and empty deception+ according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;
the religious itinerant never claimed to be a messiah ... nor disavowed their beliefs, the religion of antiquity.

as pointed out before, the 4th century christian bible is a book of forgeries, a political document disguised as a religion.
 
So....your gods made the virus, were responsible for the deaths from that virus and you claim the gods are now helping those trying to save lives from the virus your gods created?

Very strange.

I said let's not be an April Fool :abgg2q.jpg:, but you are :laughing0301:.
 

Forum List

Back
Top