The Cambrian problem

[Loudmouth]

Martyrdom isn't everything,

So Joseph Smith was martyred for writing a fairy tale, in your opinion?

 

[AV1611VET]

So Joseph Smith was martyred for writing a fairy tale, in your opinion?

Joseph Smith, in my opinion, was not martyred.

 

[Loudmouth]

Joseph Smith, in my opinion, was not martyred.

Then the authors of the Bible were not martyred, for the same reasons.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then the authors of the Bible were not martyred, for the same reasons.

You're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Loudmouth]

You're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Then you are too.

 

[florida2]

No.

Religious texts have mitigating factors.

Such as single authors, claims of being written by post AD 96 prophets of God, blasphemous statements, or anything else that contradicts the KJB.

Therefore martyrdom is completely irrelevant?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Martyrdom isn't everything, and Mr. Smith fails more tests than he passes.

One of his biggest failures, if not the biggest, is claiming he was a prophet of God.

That incurs -- or should incur -- an automatic red flag among Bible believers.

So Bible believers should not believe the Bible by your "logic".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Therefore martyrdom is completely irrelevant?

It should be. AV is making a special pleading error, though he does not realize it, or does not care.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Oh wait, if creationists understood science they would not be creationists

So you are saying that these creationists, who studied and obtained their PhDs at the same secular universities that non-creation scientists obtained theirs are not really scientists at all? Just because they draw different conclusions to the majority viewpoint? Are the majority always right?

You should be trying to learn why your side lost the argument over 100 years ago.

That's why the argument is still raging?

 

[Loudmouth]

So you are saying that these creationists, who studied and obtained their PhDs at the same secular universities that non-creation scientists obtained theirs are not really scientists at all?

Do you have a PhD in the biological sciences?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you are saying that these creationists, who studied and obtained their PhDs at the same secular universities that non-creation scientists obtained theirs are not really scientists at all? Just because they draw different conclusions to the majority viewpoint? Are the majority always right?

In any field there will be a few truly delusional people. When it comes to the field of biology and geology far less than one percent deny the theory of evolution. They can be explained away as cranks, And those few cranks cannot seem to do any real research with their creationist beliefs.

That's why the argument is still raging?

It isn't. This theory is only disputed by the uneducated and willfully ignorant. The creationist side lost over one hundred years ago.

 

[lasthero]

So you are saying that these creationists, who studied and obtained their PhDs at the same secular universities that non-creation scientists obtained theirs are not really scientists at all? Just because they draw different conclusions to the majority viewpoint? Are the majority always right?

That's why the argument is still raging?

An argument between, at best, 5% of the relevant scientists against 95% isn't a 'raging argument'. Creationists have been plugging away for decades, but they're not any closer to overturning evolution now that they were at the start of the century.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Quite right. None of the scientists see any problem here with the Cambrian material.

Could they be ignoring it?

 

[Jfrsmth]

The answer to the Cambrian "problem" is simple. There isn't a problem. At least not one as you are posing it here. 25-40 million years is plenty of time for the evolution of new body plans, particularly given that there was little else filling those design spaces.

There are vastly more interesting questions though, like what combination of circumstances resulted in such comparatively rapid diversification and, why was it so rapid?

Your reply did not address the "problem" - you merely dismissed it, as we often encounter with evolutionists when faced with "falsifying" arguments.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Do you know that you are just repeating another creationist canard. (I am looking for alternatives to "lie" because it gets boring).

Valentine, James W.
2005 “On the Origin of Phyla” University of Chicago Press

Erwin, Douglas H., James W. Valentine
2013 "The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Diversity" New York: Roberts and Company Publishers

There are even more recent journal articles published. One I just read last night that was published in late November was on the newly discovered pre-Cambrian cell differentiation. See if you can work through the standard texts before venturing into the "state of the art."

That "sounds" like you are ignoring the question. Can you share with us the gist of what Mr. Valentine and Mr. Douglas have to say -- as it relates to the sudden appearance of fossils in the "Cambrian" period -- so that we may discuss it further in this thread?

Also, please do share with us the gist of the journal article you read as it relates to this topic, so that we may discuss it further.

Your reply contains no information with which we can develop the answers to this question further. Every "scientific" claim should be open for falsification and or verification - that is the very nature of scientific inquiry. The person asking the question presented a strong point that demonstrates that the evolutionist model has holes in it from the beginning.

It seems to me, that creationists are doing a LOT of reading and do want to present the facts and discoveries of science as well as have an honest, open, non-hostile discussion regarding them, while evolutionists seem to want to skirt past the science as presented in this thread question.

 

[Jfrsmth]

No one but you, thinks there's a problem.

No, I see a problem too.

 

[Loudmouth]

That "sounds" like you are ignoring the question. Can you share with us the gist of what Mr. Valentine and Mr. Douglas have to say -- as it relates to the sudden appearance of fossils in the "Cambrian" period -- so that we may discuss it further in this thread?

The first question that needs answering is how you determine that a fossil has suddenly appeared.

Your reply contains no information with which we can develop the answers to this question further. Every "scientific" claim should be open for falsification and or verification - that is the very nature of scientific inquiry. The person asking the question presented a strong point that demonstrates that the evolutionist model has holes in it from the beginning.

It seems to me, that creationists are doing a LOT of reading and do want to present the facts and discoveries of science as well as have an honest, open, non-hostile discussion regarding them, while evolutionists seem to want to skirt past the science as presented in this thread question.

What science are we skirting around?

 

[RickG]

It seems to me, that creationists are doing a LOT of reading and do want to present the facts and discoveries of science as well as have an honest, open, non-hostile discussion regarding them, while evolutionists seem to want to skirt past the science as presented in this thread question.

Really? What science have the creationists presented? All I have seen from them is baseless claims with zero evidence to back it.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Where did you get that idea? That's not true. Here's a few citations for your education.
http://dev.biologists.org/content/126/5/851.full.pdf
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/1/166.full
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic231258.files/Reading01_Lec23_OEB-113.pdf
http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstre...rRNA_sequence_data.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Rather than inundate our discussion with all of that "reading" do you think you might just give us the gist of it?

If you mean that there are no rabbit fossils in the Cambrian that would be a correct observation, because if evolution were false, we would find fossils of all life forms that ever existed in all layers of geologic strata, which we don't.

Oops, if evolution were "true" (i.e. accurate), the prediction made by Darwin of finding millions of transitional fossils would be verified, but it is is not. The Cambrian explosion falsifies Darwin's hypothesis of evolution / common decent.

I don't think you understand what the biological classification PHYLA encompasses.

That kind of changes the subject from the point made, i.e. why no "ancestral" lineage?

Over a period of 56 million years......and the problem is??????

56 million years, as you said is a relatively short time. How could all of that diversity suddenly arise through evolutionary processes? What is the minimum number of transitional forms that would be needed to go from one creature to another? 1 big, huge jump? 2 big steps? 10,000 steps? 50,000 steps? Either it happens in very long "gradual" processes (as Darwin predicted) or it happens suddenly (a new hypothesis would then be warranted - you cannot have both). Darwin predicted millions of transitional fossils leading from one creature to another, but the point of this question is that we do not see that.

It most certainly does. Where did you get that from?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160602907141
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7179/full/nature06510.html
http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2517/prpsj.7.43
http://www.researchgate.net/profile...early_life/links/54ad47f90cf2213c5fe398a6.pdf

Again, rather than bog down our discussion with all of that "reading" do you think you might just give us the gist?

 

[HitchSlap]

No, I see a problem too.

Well then, that's a problem.