Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
"When Charles Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species " in 1859, the sudden appearance of animal fossils at the beginning of the Cambrian was of particular concern to him. It was at odds with his view that the diversification of life on earth through natural selection had required a long period of time. Darwin's theory predicted that the major groups of animals should gradually diverge during evolution. He knew that the sudden appearance of fossils would be used by his opponents as a powerful argument against his theories of descent with modification and natural selection. Consequently, he argued that a long period of time, unrepresented in the fossil record, must have preceded the Cambrian to allow the various major groups of animals to diverge. At that time the strata that we now regard as Cambrian were subsumed within the concept of the Silurian, so Darwin wrote,
'I cannot doubt that all the Silurian trilobites have descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age....Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian strata was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian to the present day.....The case must at present remain inexplicable; and may be truely urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained'
This is something I find interseting, this is agreed upon by all scientists:
5.1: There are no transitional forms between fish and amphibians.
5.2: There are no transitional forms between amphibians and reptiles.
5.3: There are no transitional forms between reptiles and mammals.
5.4: There are no transitional forms between early hominids and Homo sapiens.
5.5: There are no transitional forms between whales and their alleged Mesonychid ancestors.
5.6: The feather impressions in fossils of Archaeopteryx are forgeries. Feathers were pressed into a thin layer of artificial cement, or else the feather impressions were chiseled in directly.
5.7: Archaeopteryx is not a true transitional form; any reptilian characteristics it displays are mirrored in modern birds, like the hoatzin.
5.8: Protoavis precedes Archaeopteryx in the fossil record; hence, Archaeopteryx cannot be a transitional form.
5.9: The Cambrian explosion is a sure sign of the activity of a Creator, suddenly creating a multitude of complex forms out of nothing. There are no fossils before the explosion.
5.10: There are gaps in the fossil record; but evolution predicts that there should be no gaps.
5.11: Fossils are the remains of the organisms that perished in Noah's Flood.
5.12: In their search for transitional forms, evolutionists have been taken in by outright fraud, as in the case of Piltdown Man, and by unfounded speculation, as in the case of Nebraska Man.
To go into deep detail about these subjects 5:1 thur 5:12 please go to: http://vuletic.com/hume/cefec/5.html#5.1
The Fossil Record by John Morris, Ph.D., did a great finding that both evolutionist and creationist agree on, creationist seem to win this one.
95% of all fossils are marine invertebrates, particularly shellfish.
Of the remaining 5%, 95% are algae and plant fossils (4.75%).
95% of the remaining 0.25% consists of the other invertebrates, including insects (0.2375%).
The remaining 0.0125% includes all vertebrates, mostly fish, 95% of the few land vertebrates consist of less than one bone. (For example, only about 1,200 dinosaur skeletons have been found.) 95% of the mammal fossils were deposited during the Ice Age.
The fossil record is best understood as the result of a a marine cataclysm that utterly annihilated the continents and land dwellers (Genesis 7:18-24; II Peter 3:6).
The cambridge explosion is something that can't be agrued (Thank Goodness) between creationist and evolutionist because fossil's don't lie.
Yes, great thread, i see some problem areas in it, but lets address my thread. The other thread talks about transitional fossils. I'm making note to the cambrian explosion, transitional fossils are just a part of this thread.
"When Charles Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species " in 1859, the sudden appearance of animal fossils at the beginning of the Cambrian was of particular concern to him. It was at odds with his view that the diversification of life on earth through natural selection had required a long period of time. Darwin's theory predicted that the major groups of animals should gradually diverge during evolution.
the theory is a hundred and fifty years old. he thought it would all be plain sailing but at the time there was relatively little knowledge of how the world worked, very little knowledge of the environment at the time and so on. they didn't know about dating methods or anything like that. this is why people come up with things like punctated evolution and so on.
'I cannot doubt that all the Silurian trilobites have descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age....Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian strata was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian to the present day.....The case must at present remain inexplicable; and may be truely urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained'
again you can see here that his argument isn't very well polished, he assumes that all came from one ancestor, but this is highly unlikely and not erally considered anymore.
This is something I find interseting, this is agreed upon by all scientists:
5.1: There are no transitional forms between fish and amphibians.
5.2: There are no transitional forms between amphibians and reptiles.
5.3: There are no transitional forms between reptiles and mammals.
5.4: There are no transitional forms between early hominids and Homo sapiens.
5.5: There are no transitional forms between whales and their alleged Mesonychid ancestors.
see earlier link
5.6: The feather impressions in fossils of Archaeopteryx are forgeries. Feathers were pressed into a thin layer of artificial cement, or else the feather impressions were chiseled in directly.
there were forgeries, but there are plenty of Archaeopteryx specimins that aren't.
5.7: Archaeopteryx is not a true transitional form; any reptilian characteristics it displays are mirrored in modern birds, like the hoatzin.
all fossils are transitional unless they are the end of a line.
5.9: The Cambrian explosion is a sure sign of the activity of a Creator, suddenly creating a multitude of complex forms out of nothing. There are no fossils before the explosion.
or so you assume. God's fingerprints aren't all over it, and there is no proof that goddidit.
5.10: There are gaps in the fossil record; but evolution predicts that there should be no gaps.
evolution says nothing on the matter of fossilisation. for example, you migh as well say: I want an example of every single dog leading from a wolf to a yorkshire terrier, if you cannot provide me with this, then I will assume that God made yorshire terriers as they are.
5.11: Fossils are the remains of the organisms that perished in Noah's Flood.
are you saying there were 2 tyrannosaurus and 2 stegs, 2 triceratops and so on on the ark? or did noah leave all of those behind. Did he have 2 examples of every type of insect, every kind of hummingbird, every kind of plant that the hummingbirds are highly adapted to feeding from, some eucalyptis trees for the koalas some bamboo for the pandas and so on.
5.12: In their search for transitional forms, evolutionists have been taken in by outright fraud, as in the case of Piltdown Man, and by unfounded speculation, as in the case of Nebraska Man.
there have been fakes.... so what? we find they are fakes and deal with it accordingly, by rejecting it, and often ostracising the scientist who dared to fake something.
95% of all fossils are marine invertebrates, particularly shellfish.
Of the remaining 5%, 95% are algae and plant fossils (4.75%).
95% of the remaining 0.25% consists of the other invertebrates, including insects (0.2375%).
The remaining 0.0125% includes all vertebrates, mostly fish, 95% of the few land vertebrates consist of less than one bone. (For example, only about 1,200 dinosaur skeletons have been found.) 95% of the mammal fossils were deposited during the Ice Age.
when a fish dies it just falls to the bottom. when an animal dies there are lots of scavengers. the conditions for fossilisation are alot more difficult to find on land, and also life is far more abundant in the sea.. this is pretty obvious by the fact that on wandering round africa, you are not treading round in 6 ft deep of lion's leftovers.
The cambridge explosion is something that can't be agrued (Thank Goodness) between creationist and evolutionist because fossil's don't lie.
I'm not a fan of cambridge either, I think they are a bit pretentious. on the subject of the cambrian explosion though, I just debunked pretty much all of your argument.
The Cambrian was THE GREAT AGE of pointless creatures. Funnily, none of these made it through to today (even though the trilobites looked pretty sturdy) - which presents a number of problems for creationists arguing against the extinction of species...
This is something I find interseting, this is agreed upon by all scientists:
I'm not sure whether I should hope that you're intentionally lying or that you're just ignorant of all the scientists that know of the intermediates between these taxa.
5.3: There are no transitional forms between reptiles and mammals.
See Talkorigins link
5.4: There are no transitional forms between early hominids and Homo sapiens.
See Talkorigins link
5.5: There are no transitional forms between whales and their alleged Mesonychid ancestors.
See Talkorigins link
5.6: The feather impressions in fossils of Archaeopteryx are forgeries.
You'd better tell every single dinosaurian paleontologist in the world
Feathers were pressed into a thin layer of artificial cement, or else the feather impressions were chiseled in directly.
Wait, wait, does that mean that the actual skeleton is that of a dinosaur (please say yes )?
5.7: Archaeopteryx is not a true transitional form; any reptilian characteristics it displays are mirrored in modern birds, like the hoatzin.
A flat out lie. Every modern bird has a keeled sturnum, Archaeopteryx does not. Every modern bird has a toothless beak, Archaeopteryx does not. Every modern bird has a short bony tail, Archaeopteryx has a very long one. No modern bird has gastralia, Archaeopteryx does. Every single adult modern bird has fused fingers, Archaeopteryx does not.
5.8: Protoavis precedes Archaeopteryx in the fossil record; hence, Archaeopteryx cannot be a transitional form.
"Protoavis" is a chimera of 2+ different triassic species. Even it's alleged avian features are not at all impressive (but you wouldn't know this, you haven't researched it thoroughly). Basically, its most avian feature is its braincase (which was badly crushed in both "specimens") and, as a comparison, its braincase was less avian than those of either Dromeosaurs or Troodonts. So unless you want to call those birds too I suggest dropping "Protoavis" as a bird.
5.9: The Cambrian explosion is a sure sign of the activity of a Creator, suddenly creating a multitude of complex forms out of nothing. There are no fossils before the explosion.
5.12: In their search for transitional forms, evolutionists have been taken in by outright fraud, as in the case of Piltdown Man, and by unfounded speculation, as in the case of Nebraska Man.
To go into deep detail about these subjects 5:1 thur 5:12 please go to: http://vuletic.com/hume/cefec/5.html#5.1
Both of which were found to be fakes by evolutionists, just like Archaeoraptor.
Edit: Wow, I cannot spell lying
__________________
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
-Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine
Last edited by troodon; 29th June 2003 at 03:03 PM.
)?
Linear Mode
