Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[chad kincham]

I don't really care what you think you remember from research years ago, octopus didn't exist in the Cambrian.

If you think otherwise, provide a source or admit that you're wrong.

Your arrogance and ignorance is off the charts right now.

I said I meant thesquid, look it up, the squid has a complex human type eye, and it does appear in the Cambrian with zero progenitor eyes existing

If that’s not good enough to suit you stop posting to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said I meant thesquid, look it up, the squid has a complex human type eye, and it does appear in the Cambrian with zero progenitor eyes existing

If that’s not good enough to suit you stop posting to me.

The squid today has a complex eye. It is not "human type". We really don't know what the cephalopod (not squid) life of the Cambrian had for eyes. Eyes and surrounding tissues on a squid are all soft tissue and do not fossilize well at all:

Evolution of cephalopods - Wikipedia

Where are there "squids" in that article? Once again reality does not seem to support your claims.

 

[Job 33:6]

I said I meant thesquid, look it up, the squid has a complex human type eye, and it does appear in the Cambrian with zero progenitor eyes existing

If that’s not good enough to suit you stop posting to me.

Ok, so you were wrong. That's all you needed to say.

When you're ready to be open and honest about the topic, and ready to put aside your preconceptions, and ready to admit that you aren't particularly familiar with the topic, feel free to let me know.

The moment someone comes around talking about stephen J gould and octopus in the Cambrian, that's a huge red flag that suggests that you have a lot of reading to do before you're ready to understand evolution.

You've made a mistake in reaching your conclusion before developing an informed position through asking questions and listening to others.

 

[SelfSim]

If that’s not good enough to suit you stop posting to me.

You mean you're following the same lame tactic you did with me there, eh? What a joke!

 

[Astrid]

So you can't even name one single of the 250.000 species you bragged about.

This is pretty silly

 

[Astrid]

That’s just spin and not true.




Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

Except that’s not what he said, originally- ever hear of spin?


"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradulaism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connectign together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.
"Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never `seen' in the rocks.
"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the process we profess to study." (Gould, Stephen Jay [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Evolution's erratic pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, pp.12-16, May 1977)




Big deal. I was going by memory from many years back..

It’s the squid that suddenly appeared in the Cambrian explosion, with eyes that are very similar to the human eye, not an octopus.

It's a huge deal for a creationist to admit to the tiniest error.
That's why I chose a tiny one, to see if you.could handle it.

Now, see if you can admit that there are no Cambrian
squids. You got that wrong, and, the sudden appearance.

As for similar to human eyes, sure some similarities.
A butterfly wing is a bit similar to a chicken wing too.
So?

Oh, don't forget, two more errors to admit.
Let's do this one at a time, you will eventually see
you have nothing left.

 

[chad kincham]

Bogus claim. Numerous natural mechanisms are known to exist. (Here's one of em).

Bogus claim. Researchers vary the concentration (see figures 2A and 2B) of reactants to observe net effects ... the result doesn't impact the prebiotic chemical abiogenesis impacts.

Bogus claim.

Actually you did quote mine him.

Do you not know what a quote mine is? The spin comes from the quote miners.

That’s from your talk origins weste and it’s a ridiculous complaint.

Ever written a college level paper? I guess not.

 

[Bradskii]

Same thing as the quotes from evolutionist that include they will ignore any data pointing towards creation, “ because we cannot allow a divine foot in the door”

Given how many times they’ve had to backtrack about claims they made, why would anyone be in any hurry to immediately accept the latest claimed evidence?

You know that science isn't involved with religion. You've quoted Gould so you'll know the term 'non overlapping magisteria'. Could you PLEASE bear that in mind. We all know that you know it, so it becomes embarrasing when you continually have to revert to it when all else has failed.

And because science is self correcting it's one of the reasons we can trust it. If someone believes and promotes something which is not true, then when the evidence is presented we accept it and move on.

As you have been shown, the hierarchy on your side of the fence will admit to ignoring evidence even if it is true.

That you'll not even acknowledge that when the people involved are quoted as saying just that is an embarresment in itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s from your talk origins weste and it’s a ridiculous complaint.

Ever written a college level paper? I guess not.

LOL! Oh my. Such projection.

You used the quote function wrong as well. Neither of the two of us linked Talk Origins in your attempted quote. Though of course there is nothing wrong with Talk Origins, you are just angry because you can never refute it.

 

[Bradskii]

Except it does.

Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, published an article in the January 1979 issue of the museum's journal entitled "Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology" in which he stated that the 250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.5 The following April, Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History, wrote in a letter to the author that he didn't know of any real evidence of evolutionary transitions either among living or fossilized organisms.6

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Stephen J. Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pg 127)


Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. (Eugene V. Koonin, “The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution,” Biology Direct 2 (2007).)

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places." (Francis Hitching).

Remember I said that if you quoted anyone except creationists they could be shown to have said or written articles or papers that directly contradict your views? Do you remember? Well, this will be the first of many examples that I will give you every time you post anything by anuone who is not a creationist.

So you want to go with Raup as someone who back us your position? Someone we can trust? Fair enough...

"Raup contributed to the knowledge of extinction events and suggested that the extinction of dinosaurs 66 mya was part of a cycle of mass extinctions that may have occurred every 26 million years. He was a contributor to the book Scientists Confront Creationism." David Raup - RationalWiki

And Gould? You want to use him to prop up arguments against evolution? Seriously?

"Gould favored the argument that evolution has no inherent drive towards long-term "progress". Uncritical commentaries often portray evolution as a ladder of progress, leading towards bigger, faster, and smarter organisms, the assumption being that evolution is somehow driving organisms to get more complex and ultimately more like humankind. Gould argued that evolution's drive was not towards complexity, but towards diversification."

Maybe you consider that to be a nail in the evolutionary coffin. You wish.

And Colin Patterson was used to bolsrer what you thought was an argument for creationism. What do you think, Colin?

'Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context.' Colin Patterson (biologist) - Wikipedia

Not enough? OK, more from Patterson:

'In addition to his many works on classification of fossil fishes, he authored a general textbook on evolution, Evolution,[4] in 1978 (and a revised 2nd edition in 1999), and edited Molecules and Morphology in Evolution: Conflict or Compromise? (1987),[5] a book on the use of molecular and morphological evidence for inferring phylogenies. He also wrote two classic papers on homology.'

And these are guys you quote in an attempt to deny evolition. Good work, Chad. Got any more?

 

[chad kincham]

Ok, so you were wrong. That's all you needed to say.

When you're ready to open and honest about the topic, and ready to put aside your preconceptions, and ready to admit that you aren't particularly familiar with the topic, feel free to let me know.

The moment someone comes around talking about stephen J gould and octopus in the Cambrian, that's a huge red flag that suggests that you have a lot of reading to do before you're ready to understand evolution.

You've made a mistake in reaching your conclusion before developing an informed position through asking questions and listening to others.

No. I haven’t read about the Cambrian explosion for over ten years.

I didn’t just start studying evolution yesterday.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Remember I said that if you quoted anyone except creationists they could be shown to have said or written articles or papers that directly contradict your views? Do you remember? Well, this will be the first of many examples that I will give you every time you post anything by anuone who is not a creationist.

So you want to go with Raup as someone who back us your position? Someone we can trust? Fair enough...

"Raup contributed to the knowledge of extinction events and suggested that the extinction of dinosaurs 66 mya was part of a cycle of mass extinctions that may have occurred every 26 million years. He was a contributor to the book Scientists Confront Creationism." David Raup - RationalWiki

And Gould? You want to use him to prop up arguments against evolution? Seriously?

"Gould favored the argument that evolution has no inherent drive towards long-term "progress". Uncritical commentaries often portray evolution as a ladder of progress, leading towards bigger, faster, and smarter organisms, the assumption being that evolution is somehow driving organisms to get more complex and ultimately more like humankind. Gould argued that evolution's drive was not towards complexity, but towards diversification."

Maybe you consider that to be a nail in the evolutionary coffin. You wish.

And Colin Patterson was used to bolsrer what you thought was an argument for creationism. What do you think, Colin?

'Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context.' Colin Patterson (biologist) - Wikipedia

Not enough? OK, more from Patterson:

'In addition to his many works on classification of fossil fishes, he authored a general textbook on evolution, Evolution,[4] in 1978 (and a revised 2nd edition in 1999), and edited Molecules and Morphology in Evolution: Conflict or Compromise? (1987),[5] a book on the use of molecular and morphological evidence for inferring phylogenies. He also wrote two classic papers on homology.'

And these are guys you quote in an attempt to deny evolition. Good work, Chad. Got any more?

I wonder how Chad would do if I used his technique on the Bible. Fifteen different times it says some form of "There is no God". If I gave him the fifteen quotes I wonder if he could find them all.

Here is an example:

"there is no God" The Bible.

I know which verse I quoted. I doubt if he will find it. By the way, my fifteen verses was an undercount.

That is the same sort of quotes that he has made of various scientists. I wonder how he would feel if we argued that way.

By the way, please note to any moderators, I am using this as an example of why someone should never quote mine.

 

[Bradskii]

No. I haven’t read about the Cambrian explosion for over ten years.

I didn’t just start studying evolution yesterday.

Our apologies. It just seems like you did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. I haven’t read about the Cambrian explosion for over ten years.

I didn’t just start studying evolution yesterday.

Then why do you have such a poor understanding of it? It is almost as if you try not to understand.

 

[chad kincham]

Remember I said that if you quoted anyone except creationists they could be shown to have said or written articles or papers that directly contradict your views? Do you remember? Well, this will be the first of many examples that I will give you every time you post anything by anuone who is not a creationist.

So you want to go with Raup as someone who back us your position? Someone we can trust? Fair enough...

"Raup contributed to the knowledge of extinction events and suggested that the extinction of dinosaurs 66 mya was part of a cycle of mass extinctions that may have occurred every 26 million years. He was a contributor to the book Scientists Confront Creationism." David Raup - RationalWiki

And Gould? You want to use him to prop up arguments against evolution? Seriously?

"Gould favored the argument that evolution has no inherent drive towards long-term "progress". Uncritical commentaries often portray evolution as a ladder of progress, leading towards bigger, faster, and smarter organisms, the assumption being that evolution is somehow driving organisms to get more complex and ultimately more like humankind. Gould argued that evolution's drive was not towards complexity, but towards diversification."

Maybe you consider that to be a nail in the evolutionary coffin. You wish.

And Colin Patterson was used to bolsrer what you thought was an argument for creationism. What do you think, Colin?

'Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context.' Colin Patterson (biologist) - Wikipedia

Not enough? OK, more from Patterson:

'In addition to his many works on classification of fossil fishes, he authored a general textbook on evolution, Evolution,[4] in 1978 (and a revised 2nd edition in 1999), and edited Molecules and Morphology in Evolution: Conflict or Compromise? (1987),[5] a book on the use of molecular and morphological evidence for inferring phylogenies. He also wrote two classic papers on homology.'

And these are guys you quote in an attempt to deny evolition. Good work, Chad. Got any more?

You missed where Collin Patterson said he decided evolutionary theory is anti knowledge.

Gould and the PE hypothesis was that evolution is in stasis for long periods of time, punctuated by intense short bursts of evolution in isolated populations that leave behind no fossils..

It seemed very unlikely to me that isolated populations would increase genetic information - Gould is no biologist - and just a little research showed that wildlife biologists working with endangered species - definitely isolated populations - state that isolated populations lose diversity and genetic information.

So the paleontologist was wrong about biology.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here is an example:

"there is no God" The Bible.

I know which verse I quoted. I doubt if he will find it.

Psalm 14:1 and ... and ... and ... I think 52:1 (or 53:1)?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Psalm 14:1 and ... and ... and ... I think 52:1 (or 53:1)?

Nope. And it is cheating to guess more than one.

Do you understand the purpose of my quote? It was not to say that the Bible disproves God, though that is the sort of argument that Chad is making. Is it honest to quote mine?

 

[Job 33:6]

You missed where Collin Patterson said he decided evolutionary theory is anti knowledge.

Gould and the PE hypothesis was that evolution is in stasis for long periods of time, punctuated by intense short bursts of evolution in isolated populations that leave behind no fossils..

It seemed very unlikely to me that isolated populations would increase genetic information - Gould is no biologist - and just a little research showed that wildlife biologists working with endangered species - definitely isolated populations - state that isolated populations lose diversity and genetic information.

So the paleontologist was wrong about biology.

This too is just incorrect. Speciation via geographic isolation can be viewed in present time in ring species. There's nothing improbable about it. But rather it can be observed.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

No. I haven’t read about the Cambrian explosion for over ten years.

I didn’t just start studying evolution yesterday.

Maybe not, but it appears you stopped a long time ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. And it is cheating to guess more than one.

Do you understand the purpose of my quote? It was not to say that the Bible disproves God, though that is the sort of argument that Chad is making. Is it honest to quote mine?

I have no idea what's going on between you and Chad. I saw the question and thought I'd answer it.

Carry on.