Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

Oncedeceived said:

Well yes, I did.

The fact that this eye was already present in a complete and complex form would not account for the "drive" behind the event itself. The eye is already developed and there are no precursors in the life forms in the strata. If the theory was to be accepted one would have to have the precursors with varying developing eye evolution to where it would have "exploded" into the diversity shown in the Cambrian.

Click to expand...

And you've yet again made a statement that is completely and utterly destroyed by the article.

USincognito said:

Why should we? I've told you repeatedly that the photo of Salem you kept posting claming it showed Lucy had no eyebrow ridges was wrong and yet you kept reposting it. I told you repeatedly that the photo of a modern H. sapiens skeleton you kept posting and claiming was Lucy was not her and last night conclusively showed you why you were wrong. Why should we take a single word you say seriously when you continue to wallow in error?

Perhaps when you have the intellectual honesty to admit you don't know what you're talking about and own up to the fact that you erroniously kept posting photos of things that were not what you claimed them to be we might be bothered to respond to you again.

Click to expand...

P may have missed some responses. However I am not wrong. Lucy was found incomplete, including fragments of skull that were reconstructed as they do.

This is Lucy's child

Lucy's child.

"An almost intact skeleton of an ancient child—complete with skull and face—has been uncovered in Ethiopia, scientists say. The 3.3 million-year-old fossil is the same species as "Lucy," who was found nearby in 1974.

Nicknamed "Lucy's baby," the child find is remarkable for both its age and completeness. Experts hope the find will provide numerous insights into the growth and development of early human ancestors"

Photo: "Lucy's Baby" -- World's Oldest Child -- Found by Fossil Hunters


I have no idea why you insist this skeleton is human when I am posting the evidence and the link to it.

If you think this skeleton is human you had best go tell your well credentialed researchers they are mistaken.

Denial is not a refute. However, you are correct in identifiying that this Australopithecus afarensis skull looks more human than the Homo erectus skulls purported to be more recent....and that, my dear, is the point. Your assertion 'why do I keep posting a human skull' is an excellent reply in support of my point. Case closed.

Chalnoth said:

And you've yet again made a statement that is completely and utterly destroyed by the article.

Click to expand...

Really it does not matter who says what here, because the truth of the matter is that evoluionists have no idea about what connects what from precambrian to cambrian. It is all supposition and speculation.

"Most major animal groups appear for the first time in the fossil record some 545 million years ago on the geological time scale in a relatively short period of time known as the Cambrian explosion. Of great worry to Darwin, the explanation of this sudden, apparent explosion persists as a sources of numerous major debates in paleobiology."

Cambrian Explosion

Hence the evidence is that most major groups appeared for the first time 545 million years ago. This is evidence of a creative day. The fitting of this evidence into an evolutionary paradign involves debated speculation to turn clear and convincing evidence of a creative day into an evolutionary mystery, as is often the case.

Creation=Science & Evolution=philosophy. This is yet another example of the 'evidence' actually fitting the creationist paradigm, not the evolutionary one.

What about the eyes of vertebrates and squids. These are homologous but they do not share a common ancestor. This is one point that mutes your comparasons and requires another theory of 'convergent' evolution to explain it.

What about the similarities in the frog and human legs?

When structures that appear to be similar to one another develop under the control of genes that are not related, the common ancestor idea fails. Evolution would predict that the structures would be formed from a derived gene that has undergone modification through mutation and natural selection. Frogs and humans supposedly share a common ancestor that would account for the similarity of the limb structures. The problem is that when a frog’s digits develop, they grow out from buds in the embryonic hand. In humans, the digits begin as a solid plate and then tissue is removed to form the digits. These entirely different mechanisms produce the same result, but they are not the result of the same genes.

Same result, different genes. How does that align with evolution? It doesn't. What it does demonstrate convincingly is that a wonderfull designer must have created it all.

Here is an example of the complexity associated in the aquisition of a fin.

"The other requirement, a mechanism for change, is also assumed to exist—even though it has never been observed. We mentioned earlier that natural selection tends to delete information from the population. If natural selection is the mechanism that explains the successive adaptations in the fish fin example above, it must provide new genetic information. To produce the new bones in the fins requires an elaborate orchestration of biologic processes. The bones don’t just have to be present; they must develop at the right time in the embryo, have their shape and size predetermined by the DNA sequence, be attached to the correct tendons, ligaments, and blood vessels, attach to the bones of the pectoral girdle, and so on. The amount of information required for this seemingly simple transformation cannot be provided by a process that generally deletes information from the genome."
Chapter 3: Natural Selection vs. Evolution - Answers in Genesis

Here you see the changes necessary just to produce a fin to 'evolve' a fish orgainism from something that was not a fish. These are complex systems that incorporate functions and mechanisms that are not going to change into a fitness advantage with a few simple mutations. These physical mutations are more likely to be deleterious eg drosophila.

The best evidence you have of this kind of change is your experiments with drosophila.

"Hox gene mutations that cause flies to grow extra wings are not accompanied by the muscular and other changes needed to make those wings functional—the extra wings would actually hinder the fly from flying, and the defect would be eliminated from the population. No matter how dramatic the changes may seem, losing or misplacing parts cannot explain the gain of information needed for molecules- to-man evolution"

This experiment demonstrates that mutations are not a simple as evolutionists would have us all believe. Genes work in families and it is not as simple as one little mutation means heading towards a change in kind. Apart from immunity, mutations are lethal or deleterious 70% of the time.
The Distribution of Fitness Effects of New Deleterious Amino Acid Mutations in Humans

Our system generally naturally deletes deleterious mutations, for a start. These poor fruitflys would have been eliminated from the population as their extra wings were a hinderance, not a benefit at all. The mutation for extra wings requires the formation of a completely new system that your researchers could not demonstrate.

The most parsinomous explanation is that a designer that knew what He was doing designed all life and used similar fantastic designs in various kinds, that had nothing to do with common descent...and the evidence supports this claim.

Astridhere said:

Really it does not matter who says what here, because the truth of the matter is that evoluionists have no idea about what connects what from precambrian to cambrian. It is all supposition and speculation.

Click to expand...

Even if what you say is true, how does the fossil record support the Biblical Creation story?

Astridhere:

Hence the evidence is that most major groups appeared for the first time 545 million years ago. This is evidence of a creative day.

Click to expand...

Just curious about this little snippet. Would that be a 24 hour day? Are you really trying to shoehorn Genesis into The Cambrian Explosion half a billion years ago? Seriously?

Astridhere said:

Hence the evidence is that most major groups appeared for the first time 545 million years ago. This is evidence of a creative day. The fitting of this evidence into an evolutionary paradign involves debated speculation to turn clear and convincing evidence of a creative day into an evolutionary mystery, as is often the case.

Click to expand...

These animals hardly appear overnight, but over a span of millions of years. And you're seriously going to try to compare this to creation week? I mean, come on! Do you even know what kinds of animals existed at that time?

Astridhere said:

What about the eyes of vertebrates and squids. These are homologous but they do not share a common ancestor. This is one point that mutes your comparasons and requires another theory of 'convergent' evolution to explain it.

Click to expand...

This would be an example of convergent evolution. When looked at in detail, the eyes of cephalapods and vertebrates form from different tissues and form in rather different ways.

Astridhere said:

What about the similarities in the frog and human legs?

Click to expand...

You do realize that frogs have webbed feet, right? That the programmed cell death would destroy that webbing? In reality, our hands and feet form in the exact same fashion, with the exact same genes, except our webbing is destroyed as embryos.

Psudopod said

"Astridhere, if humans are not apes, can you point out what part of the definition of ape humans fail to meet?"



I have said this so many times......

Mankind has advanced and superior reasoning ability and perception and can conceive thought of God and afterlife. Mankind also has sophisticated language capability. Mankind alone, has been created in the image of God.

Only evolutionists see 4 similar limbs and a head and say humans are apes with total disregard for the huge and obvious differences between beast and mankind.

Homo Erectus, particularly the Turkana Boy reconstruction, in so far as one can trust any of these reconstructions, demonstrates he did not have the capacity for sophisticated language, which is obvious as he is an ape, that researchers have tried to humanize as best they can.

Click to expand...

You haven't answered the question. The term ape has a strict definition. If humans are so obviously not apes then it should be easy to show what criteria humans do not meet.

By suggesting extra things that humans have you are showing that you perhaps do not understand how classification works. It does not matter that "Mankind has advanced and superior reasoning ability and perception and can conceive thought of God and afterlife. Mankind also has sophisticated language capability. Mankind alone, has been created in the image of God." because this does not exclude humans from being apes, it excludes other apes from being human.

Psudopod said:

You haven't answered the question. The term ape has a strict definition. If humans are so obviously not apes then it should be easy to show what criteria humans do not meet.

By suggesting extra things that humans have you are showing that you perhaps do not understand how classification works. It does not matter that "Mankind has advanced and superior reasoning ability and perception and can conceive thought of God and afterlife. Mankind also has sophisticated language capability. Mankind alone, has been created in the image of God." because this does not exclude humans from being apes, it excludes other apes from being human.

Click to expand...

Just to try to drive this point home even stronger, what Astridhere is saying is rather like saying that dachshunds are not dogs because they have short legs and long bodies.

Chalnoth said:

You clearly didn't read the article.

Click to expand...

As I said, eyes, very complex eyes were on the scene. It didn't "cause' the event, it was already there in full force.

Oncedeceived said:

As I said, eyes, very complex eyes were on the scene. It didn't "cause' the event, it was already there in full force.

Click to expand...

But if you agree that the eyes were on the scene first, and the 'explosion' happend after..

What makes you say it can't have been the cause? Eyes already being there (at the start of the 'explosion') is what we'd expect if they caused the arms race wouldnt it be? It can't very well have started it if they arose later.

Chalnoth said:

These animals hardly appear overnight, but over a span of millions of years. And you're seriously going to try to compare this to creation week? I mean, come on! Do you even know what kinds of animals existed at that time?

Click to expand...

The Creation narrative is supported by fossil evidence.

This would be an example of convergent evolution. When looked at in detail, the eyes of cephalapods and vertebrates form from different tissues and form in rather different ways.

Click to expand...

Who developed the explanation of convergent evolution and when?


You do realize that frogs have webbed feet, right? That the programmed cell death would destroy that webbing? In reality, our hands and feet form in the exact same fashion, with the exact same genes, except our webbing is destroyed as embryos.[/quote]

Which supports common designer.

This to show how fossil evidence can be supportive of Creation:
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This is like a heading or title rather than what many see as the first act in Creation. It is stating that there was a beginning to our universe and that God created both the heavens and the earth. This is supported later in Genesis. The Big Bang theory supports that the universe did have a beginning.

Now the earth was unformed and void,

This is stating that the earth was not formed yet. Which supports my viewpoint that the first verse is not the first act of Creation.


and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

Science has shown that the early universe was dark (see below)
Up until recently, there was a conflict with Science due to the fact that it was considered impossible for a liquid form to be present during the formation of the universe. This also comes in below.



And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

2 3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ht_010808.html

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Astronomers announced Tuesday they have seen through the fog of the early universe to spy some of the first light emitted during a "cosmic renaissance" that occurred when the first galaxies were born.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The announcement came just days after a different research group said they had spotted the first evidence of the cosmic dark ages, the period long thought to have preceded this newly spotted cosmic brightening.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Together, the studies provide glimpses into the earliest mechanisms of the universe, after the Big Bang. Astronomers familiar with the studies called them important for helping create a timeline of the universe's evolution.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Evidence for the two epochs have long been sought by astronomers and cosmologists, who believe the universe began in a Big Bang some 12 to 15 billion years ago, after which the universe expanded rapidly but remained dark for millions and millions of years. Lumps and bumps were thought to form in an otherwise smooth distribution of matter during these dark ages, and the first galaxies were born after gravity caused these clumps of matter to grow larger. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The galaxies marked the end of the dark ages and the beginning of the cosmic renaissance.[/FONT]


6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. {P}


In the beginning was ... a perfect liquid? - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com

Liquid, not a gas
The quark-gluon plasma was made in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider — a powerful atom smasher at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y. Unexpectedly, the quark-gluon plasma behaved like a perfect liquid of quarks, instead of a gas, the physicists said.

9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good.
This again was thought conflicting with Scientific findings, it was thought that the early earth was too hot for a liquid state but that has been shown not to be the case. Early earth did have water on its surface.
More to follow: __________________

20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'
This is stating what God wants done and the next verse says that is what he did.
21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
The Cambrian era was the time period which consisted of all phyla alive today and some that have gone extinct. The waters literally swarmed with life. This period which is called the Paleozoic period includes the Silurian era in which there were centipedes and millipedes, the Devonian with its sharks and amphibians. This also includes the next period which is the Mesozoic period which then includes dino's and of course within this period comes the first appearance of birds. This is a general overview of what was created during this period. So an overview of this is that the day includes first the Paleozoic and next the Mesozoic.

24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Now life moves to land. This is describing the Cenozoic period. The first mammals appear during this period.

26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. 28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 29 And God said: 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed--to you it shall be for food; 30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, [I have given] every green herb for food.' And it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. http://mediatheek.thinkquest.nl/~ll125/en/life-3.htm
The Cenozoic is the most current era, taking place from the last mass extinction of all land-based dinosaurs (approximately 65 million years ago) to the present day.
This era saw the rise of many mammals, such as whales, the great hunter cats, as well as Humans. But it also saw the rise of the birds, insects, and many new plants, including flowering plants.
Much of life as we know it today evolved during this era.

So we have in the general overview:
1. The Hadean, the Archeozoic and the Proterozioc eras.
2. The Paleozoic
3. The Mesozoic
4. The Cenozoic
All wrapped up in the Genesis narrative.

Oncedeceived said:

The Creation narrative is supported by fossil evidence.

Click to expand...

Okay then. Lets say that all we look at in the creation narrative is the order.

Order of Biblical Creation • ChristianAnswers.Net
Day Five

1. Water creatures of all kinds. (All that had “the breath of life” were vegetarian.)
2. Birds (all vegetarian).

Day Six

1. Land animals (all vegetarian): (a) creatures that move close to the ground (small animals), (b) large animals, and (c) animals of use to man as livestock.

You may notice that the fossil record shows..
1. No birds before land animals.
2. Land animals before Marine mammals

There for, your claim is false.

Who developed the explanation of convergent evolution and when?

Click to expand...

I do not know.

But I would like to direct your attention to the following..

Oncedeceived said:

Chalnoth said:

You do realize that frogs have webbed feet, right? That the programmed cell death would destroy that webbing? In reality, our hands and feet form in the exact same fashion, with the exact same genes, except our webbing is destroyed as embryos.

Click to expand...

Which supports common designer.

Click to expand...

Astride said:

Frogs and humans supposedly share a common ancestor that would account for the similarity of the limb structures. The problem is that when a frog’s digits develop, they grow out from buds in the embryonic hand. In humans, the digits begin as a solid plate and then tissue is removed to form the digits. These entirely different mechanisms produce the same result, but they are not the result of the same genes.

Same result, different genes. How does that align with evolution? It doesn't. What it does demonstrate convincingly is that a wonderfull designer must have created it all.

Click to expand...

Same genes? Evidence for 'Common Designer' God.
Different genes? Evidence for 'Wonderful Designer' God.

I'm sorry but what the heck? Talk about unfalsifiable.

Atleast evolution explains and predicts why we'd see this.

Oncedeceived said:

So we have in the general overview:
1. The Hadean, the Archeozoic and the Proterozioc eras.
2. The Paleozoic
3. The Mesozoic
4. The Cenozoic
All wrapped up in the Genesis narrative.

Click to expand...

This looks familiar...

Did you ever come up with a solution to those discrepencies?

According to science, fruit-bearing trees evolved at most 140 million years ago, corresponding to the Jurassic/Cretaceas periods of the Mesozoic Era. According to you, they were created on the Third Day, which you say corresponds to Palaeozoic Era. So, which is it? Did fruit-bearing plants arrive in the Mesozoic Era or the Palaeozoic Era?

And what about the Fourth Day? Where does this fit into all of this?

Oncedeceived said:

20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'
This is stating what God wants done and the next verse says that is what he did.
21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
The Cambrian era was the time period which consisted of all phyla alive today and some that have gone extinct. The waters literally swarmed with life. This period which is called the Paleozoic period includes the Silurian era in which there were centipedes and millipedes, the Devonian with its sharks and amphibians. This also includes the next period which is the Mesozoic period which then includes dino's

Click to expand...

What so now all Dino's fall under water creatures instead of land creatures? if you are going to make THAT big of a leap you could make it fit litteraly anything.

and of course within this period comes the first appearance of birds. This is a general overview of what was created during this period. So an overview of this is that the day includes first the Paleozoic and next the Mesozoic.

24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Now life moves to land. This is describing the Cenozoic period. The first mammals appear during this period.

Click to expand...

So you redefined 'beast of the earth' as 'mammal' apparently the dinosaurs and their ancestors even though living on land dont fit on this label?

To recap.
The T-rex is a "Water creature"
The Blue Whale is a "Earth creature"

I'm sorry but you are simply defining things the way you want them too with no ryme or reason to it other then to shoehorn all the species that would be required into it. (That is to say, everything from first life to bird HAS to be shoehorned into the water/air/creep catagory for no other reason then that otherwise it would be false.)

If I wanted to define "water and air" included everything from singlecelled orgamisms to primative birds. Then define "Earth beasts" as All modern animals Id have made genesis 'fit' just as accurately as you did.


You cannot simply change the definitions to whatever you NEED it to be.

Oncedeceived said:

As I said, eyes, very complex eyes were on the scene. It didn't "cause' the event, it was already there in full force.

Click to expand...

From the article:

AND NOW, AS a result of the Chengjiang fossils, we are armed with better and more accurate dates for our commonly found trilobite, and we have been able to determine that it pre-dates the finale of evolution’s big bang by just five million years – exactly the length of time taken for all the Precambrian worms to evolve their hard parts.

Suddenly, the hard body parts that evolved during the Cambrian explosion seem they might be adaptations to a new world with sight. Some animals evolved shells and spines – some with bright colours – a visual warning of their new armour.

Others evolved streamlined appearances and swimming oars to enlighten trilobites that they could not be caught. Again, the gap in the evidence is now well and truly bridged.

Click to expand...

Source: The eyes have it | COSMOS magazine

As I said, you clearly didn't read it.

Oncedeceived said:

The Creation narrative is supported by fossil evidence.

Click to expand...

Nice claim. Too bad you have nothing to back it up with.

Oncedeceived said:

Who developed the explanation of convergent evolution and when?

Click to expand...

That is completely irrelevant.

Oncedeceived said:

Which supports common designer.

Click to expand...

And how is that, precisely? Why wouldn't a designer simply have the fingers grow, with or without webbing depending upon the species? Why would a designer make the webbing grow in all tetrapod species, and then kill the cells that make up the webbing in many of them?

Exiledoomsayer said:

But if you agree that the eyes were on the scene first, and the 'explosion' happend after..

What makes you say it can't have been the cause? Eyes already being there (at the start of the 'explosion') is what we'd expect if they caused the arms race wouldnt it be? It can't very well have started it if they arose later.

Click to expand...

No, I said that they were in full force when the Cambrian Explosion was already there. The arm race was already present as well. The fossil evidence shows this. Why would sight cause such an explosion when smell and pressure detection did not.

The ability to avoid or recover from predation often makes the difference between life and death, and is therefore one of the strongest components of natural selection. The pressure to adapt is stronger on the prey than on the predator: if the predator fails to win a contest, it loses its lunch; if the prey is the loser, it loses its life.[106]
But there is evidence that predation was rife long before the start of the Cambrian, for example in the increasingly spiny forms of acritarchs, the holes drilled in Cloudina shells, and traces of burrowing to avoid predators. Hence it is unlikely that the appearance of predation was the trigger for the Cambrian "explosion", although it may well have exhibited a strong influence on the body forms that the "explosion" produced.[42] However, the intensity of predation does appear to have increased dramatically during the Cambrian[107] as new predatory "tactics" (such as shell-crushing) emerged.

Source

Chalnoth said:

Nice claim. Too bad you have nothing to back it up with.

Click to expand...

I supplied that.

That is completely irrelevant.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It is very relevant because it was due to the fact that evolution alone did not fit with the evidence so this convergent evolution was introduced to make it fit.

And how is that, precisely? Why wouldn't a designer simply have the fingers grow, with or without webbing depending upon the species? Why would a designer make the webbing grow in all tetrapod species, and then kill the cells that make up the webbing in many of them?

Click to expand...

Why not? Nothing says that God has to start from scratch so to speak.