Creationists: What are the reasons general acceptance of deep time and evolution

[createdtoworship]

That does not look like a peer reviewed article, it looks more like a vanity press article. And I don't have time to see if Wiley fits that category right now. It seems that they are calling the evolution that results from punctuated equilibrium macroevolution. And trying to distinguish that from the slow steady state evolution that Darwin first proposed. The author does not really have anything new and is simply putting terms on different scales and types of evolution. I am not sure if I agree with his approach either. Especially in light of the way that creationists abuse those two terms.

perhaps not peer review as I thought, but still has phd in related studies. FI you disagree with it, you should make a case, not simply state "I don't know if I agree with it".

 

[Subduction Zone]

perhaps not peer review as I thought, but still has phd in related studies. FI you disagree with it, you should make a case, not simply state "I don't know if I agree with it".

When you post a claim it is up to you to defend it. When you find a faulty sorce to defend your article then you have failed to defend your idea.

There are a million bogus articles out there. I do not have time to debunk all of them. Quit blaming others when you make a mistake.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are a million bogus articles out there. I do not have time to debunk all of them.

Looks like we've got one of the world's greatest scientists right here on CF!

Perchance have you a Nobel?

 

[createdtoworship]

When you post a claim it is up to you to defend it. When you find a faulty sorce to defend your article then you have failed to defend your idea.

I presented a qualified paper, what else you want? You want me to read it for you too, to come over and do your homework for you?

There are a million bogus articles out there. I do not have time to debunk all of them. Quit blaming others when you make a mistake.

well how do you know if this is one of them if you won't even be open minded about it?

You ask me to address every post of yours with a honest answer, and yet all you do is dodge mine?

 

[createdtoworship]

Darwin couldn't, but that was 150 years ago. Presently, it is quite well understood, as well as the fossil and geochemical record 3 billion years prior to it.

well do you have any evidence of this? Or just a hunch? I am afraid it's another argument from silence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Looks like we've got one of the world's greatest scientists right here on CF!

Perchance have you a Nobel?

It does not take a great scientist to recognize a bogus source.

I know that you are totally ignorant about science. Don't project your flaws upon others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I presented a qualified paper, what else you want? You want me to read it for you too, to come over and do your homework for you?



well how do you know if this is one of them if you won't even be open minded about it?

You ask me to address every post of yours with a honest answer, and yet all you do is dodge mine?

NO, you claimed it was a qualified paper. A quick exam of the site shows that it is merely a glamour publisher.

 

[Damian79]

You handwaved an argument in. All that it takes to refute it is a handwave in return

There are other Precambrian fossils, but they are exceedingly rare since there were no hard body parts before the Cambrian.

Put forth a bit more effort and you will get more effort in return.

He gave a video in that regard. Maybe you can do the same?

 

[AV1611VET]

There are a million bogus articles out there.

Looks like we've got one of the world's greatest scientists right here on CF!

It does not take a great scientist to recognize a bogus source.

And the other 999,999?

I know that you are totally ignorant about science. Don't project your flaws upon others.

Or perhaps you're just exaggerating?

 

[createdtoworship]

l

NO, you claimed it was a qualified paper. A quick exam of the site shows that it is merely a glamour publisher.

Science | From AAAS

shows a conundrum of controversy

 

[Subduction Zone]

l
Science | From AAAS

shows a conundrum of controversy

Hardly. All you have is a catchy title.

Do any of those scientists have any doubt about evolution? No, they know it is a proven fact. What they are trying to find out is exactly how life evolved.

Your side has less than nothing. You have never, ever shown any evidence for creation here. The best that creationists can do is to try to find flaws in the theory of evolution. Flaws in the theory of evolution, and there are some, are not evidence for creation. All they are evidence for is that we do not have all of the answers yet.

 

[createdtoworship]

You have never, ever shown any evidence for creation here.

probably because the op is as follows:

"Note that I'm not asking you to explain why you are a creationist or what you believe, or to defend your position."

so I ask you again, instead of saying "I don't think it's true", make a case for evolution. Because in 10 years I haven't seen a case for macro evolution that holds up under scrutiny.

 

[Subduction Zone]

probably because the op is as follows:

"Note that I'm not asking you to explain why you are a creationist or what you believe, or to defend your position."

so I ask you again, instead of saying "I don't think it's true", make a case for evolution. Because in 10 years I haven't seen a case for macro evolution that holds up under scrutiny.

That is only because you are not telling the truth.

Name one claim that has not held up under scrutiny. Now like most creationists you may have rejected evidence, that only means that you are wrong if you did so.

 

[Damian79]

I have been reading the counterpoint to the cambrian explosion issue from talk origins and the counter point to that on evolution news. It seems the talk origins counter point is very flimsy.

CC300: Cambrian Explosion

More Problems with TalkOrigins' Response on the Cambrian Explosion - Evolution News & Views

Do you have a link that counterpoints evolutionnews?

 

[Damian79]

I have been reading the counterpoint to the cambrian explosion issue from talk origins and the counter point to that on evolution news. It seems the talk origins counter point is very flimsy.

CC300: Cambrian Explosion

More Problems with TalkOrigins' Response on the Cambrian Explosion - Evolution News & Views

Do you have a link that counterpoints evolutionnews?

 

[Strathos]

How is it flimsy?

 

[Damian79]

Well it seems the only have one transitional fossil for "animals" of the Cambrian explosion(ie the worm with legs) but apparently that is in doubt it seems as a transitional fossils. Plants they have transitional fossils though.

 

[Strathos]

How are you defining "transitional"?

Second of all, you are aware that the entire reason we even know about the Cambrian explosion is due to scientific dating techniques, which creationists don't accept? The same dating techniques that say it took place over a period of millions of years? And the same techniques that show the existence of complex life hundreds of millions of years before the Cambrian? You can't just accept some of the results of the radiometric dating and ignore others to fit your narrative.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't just accept some of the results of the radiometric dating and ignore others to fit your narrative.

I can.

 

[Damian79]

How are you defining "transitional"?

Second of all, you are aware that the entire reason we even know about the Cambrian explosion is due to scientific dating techniques, which creationists don't accept? The same dating techniques that say it took place over a period of millions of years? And the same techniques that show the existence of complex life hundreds of millions of years before the Cambrian? You can't just accept some of the results of the radiometric dating and ignore others to fit your narrative.

There are other ways to define transitional fossils?

As for radiometricdating:

1. This is an intelligent design argument. The believe in the old earth.

2. I only use it to see if evolution works in the first place. Is it really that bad to try to understand both sides of the story?