Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Cambrian explosion: Burgess Shale: punctuated equilibrium
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="NailsII" data-source="post: 60492820" data-attributes="member: 197098"><p>If 98% of the Cambrian species died off, leaving only 2% that doesn't change or evolve, how do we have such diversity nowadays?</p><p>If there were no changes to note of the Cambrian animals, why are there no mammals or reptiles or birds found there - they are only found in much younger rocks.</p><p> </p><p>Darwin noted - quite correctly - that the fossil record in his time was relatively sparce. 150+ years later, it is not so sparce anymore.</p><p>Wave after wave of mass extinctions cannot possibly support biblical creationism, and must poke the eye of intelligent design.</p><p>The bible tells of one mass extinction, a non-biblical intelligent designer wouldn't be that intelligent if he kept wiping everything out and starting again - unless I have missed something somewhere.</p><p> </p><p>How does an eight-fingered fish-with limbs (that probably couldn't bear its own weight and walk on land) support creationism?</p><p><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Acanthostega_BW.jpg/220px-Acanthostega_BW.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p><em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega" target="_blank">Acanthostega</a></em></p><p> </p><p>How about a whale's back legs?</p><p> </p><p><img src="http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/dscn5720.jpg?w=500&h=375" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p><em><a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/the-hind-legs-of-whales/" target="_blank">The hind legs of whales « Why Evolution Is True</a></em></p><p> </p><p><strong>Purely looking at the fossil record, your stance is untenable.</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NailsII, post: 60492820, member: 197098"] If 98% of the Cambrian species died off, leaving only 2% that doesn't change or evolve, how do we have such diversity nowadays? If there were no changes to note of the Cambrian animals, why are there no mammals or reptiles or birds found there - they are only found in much younger rocks. Darwin noted - quite correctly - that the fossil record in his time was relatively sparce. 150+ years later, it is not so sparce anymore. Wave after wave of mass extinctions cannot possibly support biblical creationism, and must poke the eye of intelligent design. The bible tells of one mass extinction, a non-biblical intelligent designer wouldn't be that intelligent if he kept wiping everything out and starting again - unless I have missed something somewhere. How does an eight-fingered fish-with limbs (that probably couldn't bear its own weight and walk on land) support creationism? [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Acanthostega_BW.jpg/220px-Acanthostega_BW.jpg[/IMG] [I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega"]Acanthostega[/URL][/I] How about a whale's back legs? [IMG]http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/dscn5720.jpg?w=500&h=375[/IMG] [I][URL="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/the-hind-legs-of-whales/"]The hind legs of whales « Why Evolution Is True[/URL][/I] [B]Purely looking at the fossil record, your stance is untenable.[/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Cambrian explosion: Burgess Shale: punctuated equilibrium
Top
Bottom