• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
From the article:

"Only those aspects of the Ediacaran record relevant to the Cambrian diversification are noted here. Sponges, anthozoan cnidarians, and stem-group triploblasts can all be identified with reasonable confidence. Anthozoans, which are perhaps best known from such animals as sea anemones, are represented by frond-like fossils. These types persisted into the Cambrian (Fig. (Fig.22e) (13, 14) and are similar to the living sea-pens (pennatulaceans)."
I will research this more but I was referring to Foraminifera Platysolenites in my post:

One of the first fossilised foraminifera to have evolved is Platysolenites antiquissimus. It lived about 545 million years ago during the early Cambrian and has been found in rocks in Wales and in a borehole sunk below Oxfordshire. They are agglutinated tubes three or four centimetres long.

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/time/Fossilfocus/foraminifera.html

The last I knew there are no fauna that have ancestry to the Cambrian. I will need to research this and see if this paper is representative of the science consensus.
 
Upvote 0

Jan Volkes

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2015
1,302
231
45
UK
✟2,674.00
Gender
Female
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Yes, move on and believe that evolution a process devoid of intelligence produced their "best brains" which when taken to the only conclusion that can be made from such a process is that those best brains can only think that which they "can" think and they have no reason to believe in reason at all.
Complete drivel.
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I will research this more but I was referring to Foraminifera Platysolenites in my post:

One of the first fossilised foraminifera to have evolved is Platysolenites antiquissimus. It lived about 545 million years ago during the early Cambrian and has been found in rocks in Wales and in a borehole sunk below Oxfordshire. They are agglutinated tubes three or four centimetres long.

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/time/Fossilfocus/foraminifera.html

The last I knew there are no fauna that have ancestry to the Cambrian. I will need to research this and see if this paper is representative of the science consensus.

Here's another paper, which has 171 citations from other papers, which would mean it is a very well accepted paper.

http://www.dmns.org/media/2373985/1999-HagadornBottjer.pdf

And another: http://www.researchgate.net/profile...n_Platform/links/0046352a019cc0863d000000.pdf
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
From the article...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC34314/

Nothing to see here folks...

"Clearly, the fossil record from the Cambrian period is an invaluable tool for deciphering animal evolution. Less clear, however, is how to integrate the paleontological information with molecular phylogeny and developmental biology data. Equally challenging is answering why the Cambrian period provided such a rich interval for the redeployment of genes that led to more complex bodyplans."

Still nothing to see.....merely restating the obvious....

"William Buckland knew about it, Charles Darwin characteristically agonized over it, and still we do not fully understand it. “It,” of course, is the seemingly abrupt appearance of animals in the Cambrian “explosion.” "

And still..nothing to see....

"To conclude: The Cambrian explosion is real and its consequences set in motion a sea-change in evolutionary history. Although the pattern of evolution is clearer, the underlying processes still remain surprisingly elusive."

 
  • Like
Reactions: Oncedeceived
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here's another paper, which has 171 citations from other papers, which would mean it is a very well accepted paper.

http://www.dmns.org/media/2373985/1999-HagadornBottjer.pdf

And another: http://www.researchgate.net/profile...n_Platform/links/0046352a019cc0863d000000.pdf
From the first link:
Although such studies illustrated that Precambriancarbonate marine environments were dominated by microbial mats, including layered communities of phototrophic and chemotrophic microorganisms, much of the unbioturbated siliciclastic sedimentary record from this interval was thought to lack structures attributable to microbial processes. Recent studies of anomalous soft-bodied preservation (Gehling, 1996, this issue) and sedimentologic structures characteristic of the later Neoproterozoic (Pflu¨ger and Gresse, 1996; Pflueger and Sarkar, 1996; Hagadorn and Bottjer, 1997; McIlroy and Walter, 1997; Pflu¨ger, this issue; Schieber, this issue; Simonson and Carney, this issue), have begun to change these views, suggesting that many siliciclastic sediments were likely not only to have hosted a variety of layered microbial communities, but that such communities may have actually been the dominant biotic influence on clastic seafloor environments prior to the onset of bioturbation (Seilacher and Pflu¨ger, 1994).

From the second link:

Abstract
: The Sukharikha River section contains more than 800 m of fossiliferous Vendian and Lower Cambrian carbonate
rock deposited in ramp, shelf, and slope environments. A diverse fauna of small shelly fossils, calcibionts, brachiopods,
trilobites, and archaeocyaths has allowed us to develop a multi-taxa biostratigraphic framework for this section. A dearth of
distinctive fossils low in the Sukharikha Formation prevents us from determining the position of the VendianñCambrian
boundary. Abundant small shelly fossils and archaeocyaths in the uppermost Sukharikha Formation and low in the
Krasnoporog Formation provide ample biostratigraphic control near the base of the Tommotian Stage, but the
NemakitñDaldynian ñ Tommotian boundary, as defined at UlakhanñSulugur on the Aldan River, is temporally ambiguous.

For this reason there is no precise definition of this boundary.
In the Sukharikha River section we have provisionally placed
the base of the Tommotian Stage at the first occurrence of
Nochoroicyathus sunnaginicus
Zone archaeocyaths, about 1.5 m
below the top of the Sukharikha Formation. However, we suppose that this horizon actually predates the deposition of
nominally basal Tommotian taxa in the Aldan region. A new global stratotype section for the NemakitñDaldynian ñ
Tommotian boundary should be selected, and this section may turn out to be a good candidate. The paleontological richness
(especially small shelly fossils and archaeocyaths), the apparent absence of long depositional hiatuses, and the presence of
well-preserved limestones suggest that the Sukharikha River section contains the combination of paleontological,
sedimentological, and isotopic data to resolve some fundamental problems in Early Cambrian stratigraphy. Emphasis mine

Your links don't seem to support your view...
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
LOL. Another 'look for the needle in the haystack...if one exists' type post. Just a link, nothing else, no reference, no comment, no direction.
Confusing isn't it. Supplying papers that don't support his view seems somewhat illogical to me.
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
LOL. Another 'look for the needle in the haystack...if one exists' type post.

I know, science is hard. Especially when you have to actually read the scientific literature of which you have no background in the area to even begin to understand what they are describing.

Just a link, nothing else, no reference, no comment, no direction.

Yes, there was a comment which referred back to previous posts. I was providing "additional information". Do you have nothing more to do than misrepresent other people posts?
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I know, science is hard. Especially when you have to actually read the scientific literature of which you have no background in the area to even begin to understand what they are describing.

The hard part is finding the needle in the haystack when the needle doesn't exist. That's what you're doing with your ineffective links.

Yes, there was a comment which referred back to previous posts. I was providing "additional information". Do you have nothing more to do than misrepresent other people posts?

You provided 'additional information' as usual...just a link.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I know, science is hard. Especially when you have to actually read the scientific literature of which you have no background in the area to even begin to understand what they are describing.



Yes, there was a comment which referred back to previous posts. I was providing "additional information". Do you have nothing more to do than misrepresent other people posts?
You haven't even explained what information they are providing is applicable to the point. Additional information for what exactly?
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
From the first link:
Although such studies illustrated that Precambriancarbonate marine environments were dominated by microbial mats, including layered communities of phototrophic and chemotrophic microorganisms, much of the unbioturbated siliciclastic sedimentary record from this interval was thought to lack structures attributable to microbial processes. Recent studies of anomalous soft-bodied preservation (Gehling, 1996, this issue) and sedimentologic structures characteristic of the later Neoproterozoic (Pflu¨ger and Gresse, 1996; Pflueger and Sarkar, 1996; Hagadorn and Bottjer, 1997; McIlroy and Walter, 1997; Pflu¨ger, this issue; Schieber, this issue; Simonson and Carney, this issue), have begun to change these views, suggesting that many siliciclastic sediments were likely not only to have hosted a variety of layered microbial communities, but that such communities may have actually been the dominant biotic influence on clastic seafloor environments prior to the onset of bioturbation (Seilacher and Pflu¨ger, 1994).

Which is from the first page under the Introduction describing the history of prior research, which is common practice in peer review format. Try going to page 7 under Trace Fossils and Wrinkle Structures, and then to page 10 under Discussion and Conclusions.

From the second link:

Abstract
: The Sukharikha River section contains more than 800 m of fossiliferous Vendian and Lower Cambrian carbonate
rock deposited in ramp, shelf, and slope environments. A diverse fauna of small shelly fossils, calcibionts, brachiopods,
trilobites, and archaeocyaths has allowed us to develop a multi-taxa biostratigraphic framework for this section. A dearth of
distinctive fossils low in the Sukharikha Formation prevents us from determining the position of the VendianñCambrian
boundary. Abundant small shelly fossils and archaeocyaths in the uppermost Sukharikha Formation and low in the
Krasnoporog Formation provide ample biostratigraphic control near the base of the Tommotian Stage, but the
NemakitñDaldynian ñ Tommotian boundary, as defined at UlakhanñSulugur on the Aldan River, is temporally ambiguous.

For this reason there is no precise definition of this boundary.
In the Sukharikha River section we have provisionally placed
the base of the Tommotian Stage at the first occurrence of
Nochoroicyathus sunnaginicus
Zone archaeocyaths, about 1.5 m
below the top of the Sukharikha Formation. However, we suppose that this horizon actually predates the deposition of
nominally basal Tommotian taxa in the Aldan region. A new global stratotype section for the NemakitñDaldynian ñ
Tommotian boundary should be selected, and this section may turn out to be a good candidate. The paleontological richness
(especially small shelly fossils and archaeocyaths), the apparent absence of long depositional hiatuses, and the presence of
well-preserved limestones suggest that the Sukharikha River section contains the combination of paleontological,
sedimentological, and isotopic data to resolve some fundamental problems in Early Cambrian stratigraphy. Emphasis mine

Your links don't seem to support your view...

Again, try reading the full paper instead of quoting the Abstract and drawing incorrect conclusions. It describes the boundary uncertainty in detail which does support my position. Also note that that paper was published in 1998. There is another paper published in 2006, (KOUCHINSKY, et al, 2006) That clearly supports the Rowland et al, 1998 time line. (Carbon isotope stratigraphy of the Precambrian–Cambrian Sukharikha River section, northwestern Siberian platform)

So YES, both papers support my position when they are taken in full context.
 
Upvote 0

Jan Volkes

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2015
1,302
231
45
UK
✟2,674.00
Gender
Female
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
That is what you are determined to think.
It's not what I think it's what you said and it's not your fault it's your arguments fault,
your argument is based on nothing but conjecture, someone heard stories about other Gods and deities and decided to change a few names and write it all down, now it's your job to find some way to show that their thoughts were derived from some kind of facts or truths and not just pulled out of thin air, you have some job on there so good luck with that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
From the first link:
Although such studies illustrated that Precambriancarbonate marine environments were dominated by microbial mats, including layered communities of phototrophic and chemotrophic microorganisms, much of the unbioturbated siliciclastic sedimentary record from this interval was thought to lack structures attributable to microbial processes. Recent studies of anomalous soft-bodied preservation (Gehling, 1996, this issue) and sedimentologic structures characteristic of the later Neoproterozoic (Pflu¨ger and Gresse, 1996; Pflueger and Sarkar, 1996; Hagadorn and Bottjer, 1997; McIlroy and Walter, 1997; Pflu¨ger, this issue; Schieber, this issue; Simonson and Carney, this issue), have begun to change these views, suggesting that many siliciclastic sediments were likely not only to have hosted a variety of layered microbial communities, but that such communities may have actually been the dominant biotic influence on clastic seafloor environments prior to the onset of bioturbation (Seilacher and Pflu¨ger, 1994).

From the second link:

Abstract
: The Sukharikha River section contains more than 800 m of fossiliferous Vendian and Lower Cambrian carbonate
rock deposited in ramp, shelf, and slope environments. A diverse fauna of small shelly fossils, calcibionts, brachiopods,
trilobites, and archaeocyaths has allowed us to develop a multi-taxa biostratigraphic framework for this section. A dearth of
distinctive fossils low in the Sukharikha Formation prevents us from determining the position of the VendianñCambrian
boundary. Abundant small shelly fossils and archaeocyaths in the uppermost Sukharikha Formation and low in the
Krasnoporog Formation provide ample biostratigraphic control near the base of the Tommotian Stage, but the
NemakitñDaldynian ñ Tommotian boundary, as defined at UlakhanñSulugur on the Aldan River, is temporally ambiguous.

For this reason there is no precise definition of this boundary.
In the Sukharikha River section we have provisionally placed
the base of the Tommotian Stage at the first occurrence of
Nochoroicyathus sunnaginicus
Zone archaeocyaths, about 1.5 m
below the top of the Sukharikha Formation. However, we suppose that this horizon actually predates the deposition of
nominally basal Tommotian taxa in the Aldan region. A new global stratotype section for the NemakitñDaldynian ñ
Tommotian boundary should be selected, and this section may turn out to be a good candidate. The paleontological richness
(especially small shelly fossils and archaeocyaths), the apparent absence of long depositional hiatuses, and the presence of
well-preserved limestones suggest that the Sukharikha River section contains the combination of paleontological,
sedimentological, and isotopic data to resolve some fundamental problems in Early Cambrian stratigraphy. Emphasis mine

Your links don't seem to support your view...

One of the elements that both these papers don't address is the 10 million year gap between the Ediacaran and the Cambrian which only show stacks of unknown shells that is called the "small shelly fauna" and none of the Ediacaran or Cambrian fauna.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's not what I think it's what you said and it's not your fault it's your arguments fault,
your argument is based on nothing but conjecture, someone heard stories about other Gods and deities and decided to change a few names and write it all down, now it's your job to find some way to show that their thoughts were derived from some kind of facts or truths and not just pulled out of thin air, you have some job on there so good luck with that.
Of course, you can't defend your own position, but that's ok if your position is correct your point of view is the only one you can have and it is not based on reason but on chemical interaction of your brain.
 
Upvote 0

FollowerOfJesus

Active Member
Jul 30, 2015
79
16
68
✟22,790.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Can anyone tell me why we should debate Hovind? I mean, even more than other creationists. He's the kind of creationist that makes other creationists cringe and say, "Dude, stop it, you're making us look like idiots". He has no credentials in any field; his alleged doctorate is from an unaccredited diploma mill; his dissertation is laughable; and his ideas are the dumbest I have ever heard.


I have to admit, that is pretty embarrassing, scratch Kent Hovind of the list!
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Cadet
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.