*What Is Death To An Ahteist*?

[idb]

Evidently he must know what he is talking about if NAU was willing to create a class to rebuttal him. And have you ever visited these peaks that he gives tours on and shows the evidence ?

It really is too easy, but just one as an example...he stated that The Cambrian period only had single-celled organisms - is he simply lying, or is he really that ignorant?

And as for the ridiculous strawmen that he puts up, such as 'scientists teach that strata are only laid down over millions of years' or that there is no explanation for bones to be mixed up together except through a single global flooding event...well they are just embarrassing.

Wrong i will quote Professor Brown.

Concerning the Cambrian explosion.

" Evolution has promoted the idea of simple organisms forming first before the more complex follow. However, the very lowest level where fossils are found we see a sudden presence of abundant life forms. Both in complexity and in the numbers of species. In fact, there seems to be more kinds of life in the Cambrian than we presently have living today. The data seems to suggest a world that Evolution does not predict. "

But nowhere does evolution say that simple organisms die out when more complex ones come along.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Ok... If I may jump in here.

Why is it that if the Bible is wrong on certain things(like the age of the earth, dinosaurs and the like), that it all has to be wrong?

I am of the opinion that millenia of editing, translating and political influence has made the book flawed by man's fallible influence.

I think that God's Message to us is a very simple one, but has been altered so much by man that all of these contradictions and errors wove their way into it. I think one just has to use their hearts and brains to disseminate God's word from man's influence.

God's message is one of love.

The point being, if some of The Bible is bullshit, whose to say the really important parts, like the virgin birth and the empty tomb aren't caught up in the bullshit scandal?

Either The Bible is the infallible 'Word of God' or it's moderately interesting fiction based loosely on history. How can someone believe that God is powerful enough to pull off the Gospel Message, but impotent when it comes to preserving the story through our sordid political history? That makes less sense than the Gospel Message itself.

I believe it has been preserved perfectly. just because God did not answer all questions does not mean the bible is a fallacy.

God is cleary capable of doing things beyond our comprehension and maybe that is the problem for most people like you,you have a hard time accepting there is a magnificent being out there that is capable of things we can't explain.

Now THIS is a good Christian answer from a believer with a closed mind.
Personally, I believe that your wrong, but I defend your right to believe what you want.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It really is too easy, but just one as an example...he stated that The Cambrian period only had single-celled organisms - is he simply lying, or is he really that ignorant?

And as for the ridiculous strawmen that he puts up, such as 'scientists teach that strata are only laid down over millions of years' or that there is no explanation for bones to be mixed up together except through a single global flooding event...well they are just embarrassing.

Wrong i will quote Professor Brown.

Concerning the Cambrian explosion.

" Evolution has promoted the idea of simple organisms forming first before the more complex follow. However, the very lowest level where fossils are found we see a sudden presence of abundant life forms. Both in complexity and in the numbers of species. In fact, there seems to be more kinds of life in the Cambrian than we presently have living today. The data seems to suggest a world that Evolution does not predict. "

But nowhere does evolution say that simple organisms die out when more complex ones come along.

Then explain what role gene depletion + natural selection play.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well, I did mention it earlier in the thread, but he stated that the Cambrian only had single cellular life.

He did say thats what evolutionist claimed.

But, that's not right.
The Cambrian is recognised as a time of huge variation in life.

Now it is because of all the fossil findings that contradicted the view that the Cambrian was made up of less complex organisms.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The point being, if some of The Bible is bullshit, whose to say the really important parts, like the virgin birth and the empty tomb aren't caught up in the bullshit scandal?

Either The Bible is the infallible 'Word of God' or it's moderately interesting fiction based loosely on history. How can someone believe that God is powerful enough to pull off the Gospel Message, but impotent when it comes to preserving the story through our sordid political history? That makes less sense than the Gospel Message itself.

I believe it has been preserved perfectly. just because God did not answer all questions does not mean the bible is a fallacy.

God is cleary capable of doing things beyond our comprehension and maybe that is the problem for most people like you,you have a hard time accepting there is a magnificent being out there that is capable of things we can't explain.

Now THIS is a good Christian answer from a believer with a closed mind.
Personally, I believe that your wrong, but I defend your right to believe what you want.

I have plenty of reasons to be closed minded towards a secular religion.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It really is too easy, but just one as an example...he stated that The Cambrian period only had single-celled organisms - is he simply lying, or is he really that ignorant?

And as for the ridiculous strawmen that he puts up, such as 'scientists teach that strata are only laid down over millions of years' or that there is no explanation for bones to be mixed up together except through a single global flooding event...well they are just embarrassing.

Wrong i will quote Professor Brown.

Concerning the Cambrian explosion.

" Evolution has promoted the idea of simple organisms forming first before the more complex follow. However, the very lowest level where fossils are found we see a sudden presence of abundant life forms. Both in complexity and in the numbers of species. In fact, there seems to be more kinds of life in the Cambrian than we presently have living today. The data seems to suggest a world that Evolution does not predict. "

But nowhere does evolution say that simple organisms die out when more complex ones come along.

Wrong i will quote Professor Brown.

Concerning the Cambrian explosion.

" Evolution has promoted the idea of simple organisms forming first before the more complex follow. However, the very lowest level where fossils are found we see a sudden presence of abundant life forms. Both in complexity and in the numbers of species. In fact, there seems to be more kinds of life in the Cambrian than we presently have living today. The data seems to suggest a world that Evolution does not predict. "


What did evolutionist predict that Professor Brown was talking about ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well, I did mention it earlier in the thread, but he stated that the Cambrian only had single cellular life.

He did say thats what evolutionist claimed.

But, that's not right.
The Cambrian is recognised as a time of huge variation in life.

Agreed and maybe russ miller was wrong in how he said it but the message was spot on. So there is no misunderstanding i will post this and you can give your rebuttal.

!"#$%&'()*&+$,-./01*0+$
The Cambrian Explosion is the best evidence from science that disproves the Theory of
Evolution. It is so pronounced in the fossil record that Scientific American calls it “life’s big
bang.” What is interesting is that most school textbooks barely mention this phenomenon. They
either pass over it briefly or relegate it to a paragraph within a chapter. In the book “Evolution
Exposed”, author Roger Patterson points out that of the three major science text books used in
high school today there are only 6 total pages dedicated to this major event in geological history.
Two of those pages are only found in the teacher’s editions. There are many very reputable
scientists at major accredited universities worldwide that say the evidence from this period is an
insurmountable challenge to evolution. To me, it is simply proof that evolution is no more that a
myth of popular culture.
!"#$%&'()*+
The Cambrian Explosion is the name for a geological era in which nearly all of the phyla
of complex life appear in the fossil record. The rock layer for this era is one of the earliest dated
rock layers. The period has been dated between 530 and 565 million years ago, so the
commonly accepted date for the start of the period is 545 million years ago. Prior to this period,
in the pre-Cambrian period, there were only simple life forms like worms and jellyfish in the
fossil record. Nothing that had an exoskeleton or spine is noted in the fossil record prior to the
Cambrian period. Yet nearly every known type of phyla today existed during the Cambrian
period.
The entire period covered 5 to 10 million years. In geological time this is an instant.
“Stephen Jay Gould writes: ‘ . . an elegant study, published in 1993, clearly restricts this period
of phyletic flowering to a mere five million years.’” (Buckna, 1999). This is not near enough
time for evolution to produce the complex life forms that were found in this rock layer. In Lee
Strobel’s book “The Case for a Creator”, Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., describes this short period of
time in a very interesting way. He says, “Imagine yourself on one goal line of a football field.
That line represents the first fossil, a microscopic, single-celled organism. Now start marching
down the field. You pass the twenty-yard line, the forty yard line, you pass midfield, and you’re
approaching the other goal line. All you’ve seen this entire time are these microscopic, singlecelled
organisms. You come to the sixteen-yard line of the far end of the field, and now you see
these sponges and maybe some jellyfish and worms. Then – boom! – in the space of a single
stride, all these other forms of animals suddenly appear.” (Strobel, 2004, p. 44). Another
anonymous scientist used the football field analogy and I can summarize his statement this way.
He said that if the entire time the earth has been in existence can be covered in the length of a
football field, the Cambrian period is approximately 4 inches long.
There are many arguments that this period completely eliminates the possibility of
evolution. There are also arguments that defend evolution in spite of this evidence. The
empirical evidence that is there suggests that the fossil record disproves Darwin’s Theory of
Evolution. So the majority of this paper will try to focus on the secular scientist’s explanation
for this empirical data. But first I will attempt to show how the evidence eliminates the
possibility of evolution.
,-.()$/)%+01'2(3/')+
Evolutionary theory states that everything evolved from a common ancestor that climbed
out of the primordial soup. This ancient ancestor gradually evolved. Its evolutionary progress
branched out into different paths and these different paths led to the creation of increasingly
complex and divergent organic forms. The paths continued to branch out resulting in the great
diversity of life we have today. Now, if this is true, what would anyone expect to see in the
fossil record? Of course you would expect to see simple organisms in the lowest layers and a
gradual increase in diversity and complexity of life as you progress to more recent layers in the
geologic time scale. But what do we really find in the fossil record? We find the exact opposite.
Not something ambiguous like everything found in each layer. This scenario could easily be
explained as not having fossils from the very beginning of evolution. What is found is the exact
opposite of what is predicted by evolution. If a score of 1 means the fossil record shows
evolution as predicted, and a score of 0 means the fossil record shows no evolution; the fossil
record would get a score of negative 1 (-1) because the fossil record shows the exact opposite of
what evolution predicts.
The Cambrian layer has virtually every phylum known to man. All major body plans and
many varieties of each all coexist in this layer. What that means is there was no branching out of
a tree like neo-Darwinism would expect. There was no sequencing or order. All the different
varieties of the same phyla co-existed during the Cambrian explosion. This layer is on top of a
layer that has virtually nothing as far as fossilized specimens. The older layers, below the
Cambrian, only produced a few creatures in the fossil record that are all soft-bodied organisms.
Nothing complex existed prior to the Cambrian explosion in the fossil record. To up the ante and
make this problem even more troublesome for evolutionists; the layers above the Cambrian,
which give us the more recent fossil record, show a gradual decrease with each successive layer.
The most recent layers show a 98% decrease in the types of animals. That means all but 2% of
the known phylum of animals has become extinct. Evolution should have not only kept these
phyla alive, but improved upon them to the point of new, more advanced animals in the phyla
now being alive.
A reasonable and honest person must conclude from the evidence that the fossil record is
diametrically opposite what would be predicted by evolutionary theory. It is what science calls
the “Empirical Principle.” The physical evidence shows an sudden explosion of complex animal
life. Not the gradual growth that evolution would predict. Then there is a steady loss of the
different types of animal life. Again this is not what evolution would predict. It is noteworthy
that these conclusions are derived from a geologic time framework that is put forth by scientists
own interpretation of geologic evidence. In fact, the belief that the strata represent different
geologic ages is just that, a belief. Nevertheless, it is a belief held among scientists world-wide.
Darwin and his contemporaries were aware of this problem with the fossil record some
150 years ago, but they believed that the fossil record had been insufficiently sampled up to that
time. Their “belief” was that paleontological research in the future would more adequately
sample the fossil record and show it to be more in line with evolutionary theory. This proof is
very compelling proof that evolution did not happen. This begs the question, how much proof do
evolutionary scientists need anyway?
+4#/-)3/5/#+6&%(7-)38+
There are scientific arguments that try to explain away the fossilized record. There are
also scientific arguments that try to explain why the fossil record shows what it does. The basic
argument that tries to explain away what is found in the fossil record is the pre-Cambrian fossils
were too small or did not contain enough hard body parts like teeth or skeletons. This is an
attempt to explain why the transitional forms are not found in the fossil record. The argument is
discredited by the finding of many soft bodied fossils in the Cambrian layer. There were also
many microscopic soft-bodied organisms found within the pre-Cambrian fossil records.
4#/-)3/5/#+09:2")"3/')8++
Punctuated Equilibrium
“Punctuated Equilibrium” refers to a concept in evolutionary biology that is both
controversial and widely misunderstood. Both punctuated equilibrium and its alternatives have
significant drawbacks, either in plausibility or evidence. Punctuated equilibrium seeks to
reconcile the idea of natural evolution with the missing links in the fossil record. The debate
within science over the validity of punctuated equilibrium demonstrates many of the problems
with evolutionary theory in general.
Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge published a paper in 1972 on punctuated equilibrium.
They believed that the gaps in the fossil record could be explained by gaps in evolution itself.
They contended that most species, particularly those who reproduce sexually, did not change
much over time, but occasionally experienced major changes in brief periods of time. “Classic”
Darwinian evolution is presumed to take place very gradually, with a steady and slow change of
organisms over time. Punctuated equilibrium replaces this slow change with long periods
lacking any change at all, mixed with relatively short periods of rapid change.
Another way of looking at this is to say that, according to punctuated equilibrium, species
are normally not evolving, and when they do evolve, it is relatively quick and dramatic. At
times, this has become a source of controversy within the scientific community. Depending on
whom you ask, punctuated equilibrium is either a refutation of gradual evolution, or just a
specific form of it. This is one of the major disagreements over the theory – whether it replaces
or enhances the classical notion of naturalistic evolution.
Despite a better agreement with available evidence, there are many scientific problems
with punctuated equilibrium itself. The mechanism for punctuated equilibrium is assumed to be
small groups of a particular organism separated in some way from the main population. This
would accelerate the transmission of mutated genes through the population, and much more
quickly produce a new species. Multiple studies have found that inbreeding such as this
produces extremely negative effects, which run counter to the idea of rapid advancement. The
fossil record also calls into question the plausibility of this notion.
Species Selection
Another, much less supported idea is “species selection.” Classic neo-Darwinism
assumes competition among animals within the same species. “Species selection refers to the
fact that traits may be unusually common or rare among species because different groups have
different rates of two processes: speciation and extinction. We expect many species within a
group if it has had a high rate of speciation (producing many species) or if it has had a low rate
of extinction (so most of the species that have been produced still exist.) We expect few species
within a group if it has had a low rate of speciation (so few species have been produced) or if it
has had a high rate of extinction (so few of the species that have been produced still exist.)
(University of Tennessee Martin, 2005). Scientists use species selection to postulate that there
was a period of competition between different species that produced a huge rise of a particular
species. This could then account for the explosion of advance life forms in the Cambrian layers.
The problem with this theory is that there is no proof. Also, there has been no evidence of this in
other layers of strata.
Environmental
Another theory posits that the Cambrian geological period was a period of rapidly
increasing atmospheric oxygen. This theory assumes that prior to the Cambrian period the
oxygen level in the atmosphere was inadequate to support the larger “trilobite” animals. The
problem with this theory is there is no way to test this hypothesis. It is completely unknown
what the oxygen level in the pre-Cambrian period was, or what the level was in the Cambrian
period.
Some scientists contend that a major player in the advancement of life during the
Cambrian period was the “snowball earths” that were occurring prior to the Cambrian period and
stopped occurring after the start of the Cambrian period. “Snowball earths” refer to geological
periods in which the earth was very cold. 635 million years ago (90 million years prior to the
Cambrian period) saw the Marionan glacial period. 580 million years ago (approximately 35
million years prior to the Cambrian period) saw a more localized Gaskiers glacial period. The
Marionian period was so extensive that it is believed that glaciers may have reached the equator
causing the massive accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This accumulation of
greenhouse gases would have started a warming period on the earth that eventually
accommodated the larger animals that appeared during the Cambrian explosion.
The main problem with this theory is the Marionan period was too early and the warming
should have occurred much earlier than the Cambrian period. It is doubtful that the warming
alone would have been responsible for the Cambrian explosion.
A third environmental element is the carbon isotopic anomaly that separates the pre-
Cambrian and Cambrian period. This indicates a major environmental disturbance. This
disturbance is similar to the one that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. This theory does not
account for the disparity in types of animals from the pre-Cambrian to Cambrian period. The
dinosaur to mammal period saw a similar anomaly with little disparity in the types of animals.
A fourth environmental factor is called “True Polar wander.” This is the term for the rapid
movement of the continents. This movement was geological and not ecological. However, the
movement would have caused huge amounts of methane gas to be released in the atmosphere
causing a greenhouse effect and increase in air temperature. This effect, combined with the
carbon isotopic anomaly, could have produced a massive change in the environment. There is no
clear explanation of how this could cause the disparity found in the fossil record though.
Developmental
The debate persists today about whether the evolutionary "explosion" of the Cambrian
was as sudden and spontaneous as it appears in the fossil record. The discovery of new pre-
Cambrian and Cambrian fossils help, as these transitional forms support the hypothesis that
diversification was well underway before the Cambrian began. More recently, the sequencing of
the genomes of thousands of life forms is revealing just how many and what genes and the
proteins they encode have been conserved from the Precambrian. The explosion of external form
in the fossil record is what we see, but more gradual adaptation was taking place at the molecular
level.
The apparent explosion could have been caused by the combinatorial genome (HOX
gene). “These genes are typically involved in controlling aspects of morphogenesis that involve
assigning identities to various segment along the cranio-caudal body axis.” (Filler, 2007). In
layman terms this means the genes that are involved in producing bilateral arms, legs, etc. It has
been called the “toolbox” of morphological development. It is believed that the HOX gene was
in place long before the Cambrian explosion. The gene then became active at the onset of the
Cambrian explosion. Basically it was a long fuse that ‘exploded’ at the start of the Cambrian
period.
Micro RNAs (miRNAs) are another attempt by scientists to explain the Cambrian
explosion. Recent studies suggest that miRNAs can inhibit and change messenger RNA
(mRNA) and could be instrumental in the canalization of development. In other words they
assist in focusing rapid development. This information is very new and has not been properly
studied but shows the possibility of being part of the solution for the Cambrian conundrum for
science.
Ecological
Many of the animals in the early Cambrian period were small indicating a push to get
away from the predators in the sea. Also the fossil record of algae indicates a defense system
was developed that protected it from animals. This is only speculative but like the other
explanations above, could be part of the explanation.
Finally, scientists believe it is likely that evolutionary lineages originated in rocks older
than the first ones we see in fossil records. Again this is only speculative and there is no
empirical evidence available.
Problems
The problems with all of these scientific explanations are many. First, environmental
explanations are not sufficient to explain the emergence of animal disparity, the animal phyla.
Second, both developmental and ecological explanations seem important in explaining the origin
of animal body plans, so what is the relationship between the two? Third, most explanations do
not explicitly explain why there should be an increase in diversity through the radiation; usually,
an increase in diversity seems to simply follow from the arguments for the origin of disparity.
Fourth, only environmental explanations have any direct bearing on the time of onset of the
explosion. These only speak to the emergence of the conditions conducive to the onset of the
radiation, but are unable to address how long after those conditions are met whether or when the
radiation might proceed.
4(77"&;+
However fast or slow evolution was there is still a lack of transitional forms. This has
been an issue since Darwin first postulated the evolution theory and remains to this day. Darwin
believed that the fossil record was simply incomplete and eventually these transitional forms
would be found. However, in the 150 years of fossil recovery there have been no legitimate
transitional forms discovered. The actual findings have made the problem of explaining the
Cambrian explosion worse. Contrary to the tree of life depicted in the school books, the fossil
record depicts exactly the opposite story.
The record shows that there is evidence of supernatural intervention within the fossil
record of life forms. This is what a person who is looking at the biblical record would expect.
“The Cambrian explosion does fit RTB’s biblical model, which proposes that the Creator worked
efficiently and effectively to prepare a home for humanity.” (Ross, 2006, p. 140). The historical
record in the rock layers of earth show a Creator who meticulously prepared earth for advanced
life to flourish. Even secular scientists who logically look at the record conclude that the fossil
records do not show evolution as a person would expect. Richard Dawkins, one of the most
outspoken critics of creation and intelligent designs states; “And we find many of them
[Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is
as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this
appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” (Dawkins, 1987, p. 229). The only
legitimate scientific conclusion from the fossil record is that there was supernatural intervention.
<'&$8+=/3-*+
!"#$%&'()*(+,---.*(!"#$%&'()#%$*+#,'-.'/00$,.'12#0'32+*+45%'6,5%78+8'+,'*".'!4+.,4.'3%5882##09(
/01230405(6071(8-'(899-'2;<(=%>131"10;2(?20&13;%(/0>0&2#@A(@117ABBCCC*3#2*;2DB&213#E0B>@;"E5F
04;E"13;%FG0F3<<"%0F:2;<F#2313#&EF&%&EH>3>FB(
)&C$3%>'(/*(+,-IJ.*".';%+,&'<5*4"05=.2>(K;%5;%A(L*L*(M;21;%(N(?;<7&%H*(
O3EE02'(P*(Q*(+899J'()0#(8R.*(?%#88527'@5A.*(/01230405(6071(S9'(899-'2;<(T@0(U723D@1(P70A(P(M0C(V23D3%(
;1@0(670#30>A(@117ABBCCC*"723D@1&70*%01BUPWQE;>>&2H*@1<EXQE;>>WYW&%#@;2(
Z&2>@&EE'(?*(/*(+899[.*(\]7E&3%3%D(1@0(?&<G23&%(^\]7E;>3;%_(;P%3<&E>*(6,,$5%'B.)+.C8'#1'(52*"'5,&'
D%5,.*527'!4+.,4.8(E'FG'(S``(F(SIR*(
/;>>'(Y*(+899[.*(32.5*+#,'58'!4+.,4.>(?;E;2&5;(6723%D>A(M&4a20>>*(
612;G0E'(K*(+899R.*".'358.'1#2'5'32.5*#2>(Q2&%5(/&735>A(b;%5024&%*(
U%3402>31H(;T0%%0>>00(Z&213%*(+899`'(V#1(S.*([email protected]+.8'!.%.4*+#,*(/01230405(V#1(,'(899-'2;<(U%3402>31H(
;T0%%0>>0(Z&213%(F()07&21<0%1(;!3;E;D3#&E(6#30%#0>A(
@117ABBCCC*"1<*05"B507&21<0%1>B#0%>BG3;E;DHB232C3%BS-,BS-,670#30>60E0#13;%*@1<(
(
(

 

[Steelplate]

Right so you're saying the bible was not inspired by God ?

I just showed you where a dionsaur is mentioned in the bible that was written long before mans first discovery of dinosaur fossils.

And a God that was capable of creating all living things does not have the ability to protect his divine writings ?

1. No... but inspiration is different than God's Word. I believe that God's word is in there... but there's a lot that MAN added,

2. I saw no mention of the word Dinosaur... that's YOUR conclusion. What is described there could have been an elephant or even perhaps a Mastodon.

3. Yes God is Capable of protecting his writings.. but he also gave us free will to do as we please, didn't he? Like perhaps an ex-Pagan emperor who wants to unite his former faith with his current?

You know... It is not un-christian to question. It is un-christian to deny God and Jesus. So don't sit there and doubt my faith.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Right so you're saying the bible was not inspired by God ?

I just showed you where a dionsaur is mentioned in the bible that was written long before mans first discovery of dinosaur fossils.

And a God that was capable of creating all living things does not have the ability to protect his divine writings ?

1. No... but inspiration is different than God's Word. I believe that God's word is in there... but there's a lot that MAN added,

2. I saw no mention of the word Dinosaur... that's YOUR conclusion. What is described there could have been an elephant or even perhaps a Mastodon.

3. Yes God is Capable of protecting his writings.. but he also gave us free will to do as we please, didn't he? Like perhaps an ex-Pagan emperor who wants to unite his former faith with his current?

You know... It is not un-christian to question. It is un-christian to deny God and Jesus. So don't sit there and doubt my faith.

Sorry for the comment but you make empty accusations.


Some videos for you i hope you watch them.

28-Dinosaurs and Man

30-Pre-Historic or Pre-Flood?

 

[idb]

Wrong i will quote Professor Brown.

Concerning the Cambrian explosion.

" Evolution has promoted the idea of simple organisms forming first before the more complex follow. However, the very lowest level where fossils are found we see a sudden presence of abundant life forms. Both in complexity and in the numbers of species. In fact, there seems to be more kinds of life in the Cambrian than we presently have living today. The data seems to suggest a world that Evolution does not predict. "

But nowhere does evolution say that simple organisms die out when more complex ones come along.

Then explain what role gene depletion + natural selection play.

You're falling back on the old Creationist argument..."if we are descended from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?".

 

[Mr Natural]

But nowhere does evolution say that simple organisms die out when more complex ones come along.

Then explain what role gene depletion + natural selection play.

You're falling back on the old Creationist argument..."if we are descended from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?".

And if we're all descended from simple single-cell organisms, why are there still simple single-cell organisms?

 

[JScott]

Wrong i will quote Professor Brown.

Concerning the Cambrian explosion.

" Evolution has promoted the idea of simple organisms forming first before the more complex follow. However, the very lowest level where fossils are found we see a sudden presence of abundant life forms. Both in complexity and in the numbers of species. In fact, there seems to be more kinds of life in the Cambrian than we presently have living today. The data seems to suggest a world that Evolution does not predict. "

But nowhere does evolution say that simple organisms die out when more complex ones come along.

Then explain what role gene depletion + natural selection play.

How about you explain it.

 

[idb]

He did say thats what evolutionist claimed.

But, that's not right.
The Cambrian is recognised as a time of huge variation in life.

Agreed and maybe russ miller was wrong in how he said it but the message was spot on. So there is no misunderstanding i will post this and you can give your rebuttal.
<snip>

I will look over this.
One of the things I enjoy is the learning that I do in the course of researching replies on this and other message boards.
It's a bit long for me to do at the moment though.

One thing I will say though is that in general, science presents theories, seldom facts, that are supposed to be continuously tested and questioned.
If new evidence seems to contradict the prevailing theory then new theories have to be proposed and tested.
That doesn't make science wrong.
That is the scientific method.

You will find no honest scientist that says that all (or even most) of evolutionary processes are 'known'.

 

[idb]

Then explain what role gene depletion + natural selection play.

You're falling back on the old Creationist argument..."if we are descended from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?".

And if we're all descended from simple single-cell organisms, why are there still simple single-cell organisms?

Exactly.

 

[Youwerecreated]

One more video for you guys to absorb.

29-Fire Breathing Dragons?

29-Fire Breathing Dragons?

 

[Youwerecreated]

But nowhere does evolution say that simple organisms die out when more complex ones come along.

Then explain what role gene depletion + natural selection play.

You're falling back on the old Creationist argument..."if we are descended from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?".

Nope never said we evolced from monkeys.

Natural selection + Gene depletion makes sure evolution is an impossibility. This is why humans remain humans and dogs remain dogs and so on and so on. It also is a major cause for many of the organisms from the Cambrian explosion to go extinct.

I am asking you how "natural selection" produces evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Then explain what role gene depletion + natural selection play.

You're falling back on the old Creationist argument..."if we are descended from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?".

And if we're all descended from simple single-cell organisms, why are there still simple single-cell organisms?

Whoa you're forgetting the old theory of gene splitting.

And you need to understand it was your side that said all things evolved from the very first cell,if not how would you explain evolution beginning ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

But nowhere does evolution say that simple organisms die out when more complex ones come along.

Then explain what role gene depletion + natural selection play.

How about you explain it.

I am not gonna keep repeating myself not to mention keep posting videos that explain it and you ask for further explanations when the previous videos and explanations explained it.

Please keep up.

 

[Youwerecreated]

But, that's not right.
The Cambrian is recognised as a time of huge variation in life.

Agreed and maybe russ miller was wrong in how he said it but the message was spot on. So there is no misunderstanding i will post this and you can give your rebuttal.
<snip>

I will look over this.
One of the things I enjoy is the learning that I do in the course of researching replies on this and other message boards.
It's a bit long for me to do at the moment though.

One thing I will say though is that in general, science presents theories, seldom facts, that are supposed to be continuously tested and questioned.
If new evidence seems to contradict the prevailing theory then new theories have to be proposed and tested.
That doesn't make science wrong.
That is the scientific method.

You will find no honest scientist that says that all (or even most) of evolutionary processes are 'known'.

I understand the scientific method and how it works but the problem is purposely misleading explanations or suggestions with no evidence to support it is where real science draws a line. Science also is being able to produce empirical evidence along with being able to test and prove not specluate on maybes like assuming life exists beyond our atmosphere with no evidence to support the view. That my friend is based on faith and that is a religous belief.

 

[idb]

Then explain what role gene depletion + natural selection play.

You're falling back on the old Creationist argument..."if we are descended from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?".

Nope never said we evolced from monkeys.

Natural selection + Gene depletion makes sure evolution is an impossibility. This is why humans remain humans and dogs remain dogs and so on and so on. It also is a major cause for many of the organisms from the Cambrian explosion to go extinct.

I am asking you how "natural selection" produces evolution.

As I understand, you're right to a degree.
Gene depletion limits variation and is a result of in-breeding, and it will happen all the time over the ages.
Not every life-form carries on, there are dead-ends all over the place.

I'm not sure what your question is but natural selection depends on variations that are naturally occuring in any population.
Some variations prove themselves to be more fitting to the environment or conditions and some don't and are naturally selected to multiply.