The Cambrian problem

[Gracchus]

You referred to 'Insane persons', given mankind's history, do you really believe mankind
is sane?

Some people are more or less sane. Some people are sixty-three squares short of a chess board. Because of forum rules, I can't clarify or specify.

 

[klutedavid]

Some people are more or less sane. Some people are sixty-three squares short of a chess board. Because of forum rules, I can't clarify or specify.

Hello Gracchus.

Mankind lives in an asylum, the people who run the asylum have thrown
the keys away.

 

[pat34lee]

So if gravity can't pull down gas clouds, how do you explain the atmosphere staying on the Earth?

Given that a stellar nebula will have a vastly larger mass then a planet, why wouldn't the gas and dust be pulled together?

Temperature for one. Raise the temperature and the gas gets active
and moves more, spreading out.

Try grabbing a handful of any gas. The only way to do it is
in some type of containment tank that limits the area that a gas
can expand into.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello SubductionZone.

In post #80, you made the following comment.

The assumption or even better SZ, the belief in 'Uniformitarianism'.

Uniformitarianism is the principle or assumption that the same natural laws...
(Wikipedia)

The definition of an 'assumption' by the way SZ, is a belief without proof.

Playing word games is not exactly honest. And this shows a very poor understanding of science. There is no "proof" in science so I suggest that you do not use that term. There is plenty of evidence that uniformitarianism is correct. But sadly most creationists are scared to death of evidence.

Do you like that definition SZ, notice the word 'belief'.

No because it is a poor definition.

Assumption = Belief

Repeating errors does not make them true.

Atheism as an idealism which it is SZ, is a lack of belief in a God or Gods.

Atheism in practice though, is the astounding acceptance of every assumption
or belief in existence. Your a true believer in every sense of the word, but you
never realized it.

Now this is just pure nonsense. I suggest that you try to get more serious and do not make false charges against others.

You take a snap shot of the present forces, states, and processes. Then believe (assume)
that everything that ever happened in the deeper past, will reflect these present processes.

Again wrong. These concepts are not assumed, they are tested. They have been tested many many times.

Your replied that the hydrogen density was greater in the past, SZ, will you please
in future list your assumptions first, before making any claim without proof.

No, I said the density of hydrogen atoms was higher in the past. That meant there were more hydrogen atoms in a given volume of space. This is not a claim without proof.

For example SZ your assumptions or beliefs, will be as follows.

1) You believe in the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe.

Wrong, that is strongly supported by evidence.

2) You believe that past processes never were the result of any supernatural forces

That is awkwardly stated on your part. Actually since you can't show any reasonable or reliable evidence that there are any supernatural forces I do not believe in any. You need to remember that the burden of proof is upon those making the positive claim. It is a positive claim to say that there were supernatural forces in the past. Evidence please.

3) You believe that present processes reflect exactly how all past processes occurred

That is because that is what is supported by all of the scientific evidence.

4) You believe that the evidence for the existence of God is unsatisfactory

Actually that is a logical conclusion on my part.

5) You believe that you can know and identify what this evidence for God is

No, I have asked for evidence of God but no reliable evidence has been given, and definitely no scientific evidence.

6) You believe that the information that your senses detect is always valid information

And how else are we to detect valid information?

7) You believe in an objective concensus for the establishment of all truth

No, but if one believes that the consensus is wrong the burden of proof is again upon the person going against the consensus.

8) You believe that experimentation will support your belief system

Two corrections, it is incorrect to call what I have a "belief system". "Belief" as you use it is a loaded term and you have been attempting to insult with it. Actually, since I do not "believe" in the same sense that you do all you have really done is to insult your own religions beliefs by implying that they are inferior. I suggest that you do not do that. Second, experimentation has supported what I "believe' so it would be more appropriate to change that to "know".

9) You believe that the claim of empiricism is valid

And again "know" is a better term since I can show that it works. You cannot claim that same.

10) You believe your cognitive thought patterns are trustworthy on all matters

No, I don't. That is why scientists do not trust just themselves when they do work. That is why they submit ideas for peer review. Though five people may be wrong the odds of it are less than one person being wrong.

11) You certainly believe that those that follow a creation account, do not understand
what an assumption (belief) is? This beggars belief (assumption).

Wrong. It can be shown time after time that the creation account is wrong and has no explanatory powers at all. It is a worthless idea. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is extremely useful.

By the way SZ, believe nothing of what you will ever read, and only five percent
of what you think you observe.

Unless you can check it out for yourself. One can test the theory of evolution. It has been tested hundreds of thousands of times at the very least and has no major failings. Creationists will not even come up with a scientific test of creationism. They can't even begin to claim the same. Perhaps that is why most Christians around the world accept the theory of evolution.

 

[Shemjaza]

Temperature for one. Raise the temperature and the gas gets active
and moves more, spreading out.

Try grabbing a handful of any gas. The only way to do it is
in some type of containment tank that limits the area that a gas
can expand into.

So, the gas in the upper atmosphere hands near the Earth for what reason? Friendship? Miracles?

And I'm not talking about grabbing it with my hand I'm talking about the combined mass 200 thousand times that of the Earth.

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON



Moved from Physical & Life Sciences.


MOD HAT OFF

 

[Loudmouth]

Hello Gracchus.

If that is what you believe in, then for you that is true.

If the observable scientific evidence supported a young Earth and separate creation, why would you have to invent reasons to ignore it? Obviously, the scientific evidence points to an old Earth and evolution. That is why you have had to invent a spiritual realm as a rather poor justification for ignore the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Temperature for one. Raise the temperature and the gas gets active
and moves more, spreading out.

How does that compare to the force of gravity pulling it in? Why hasn't the Sun expanded out to the point where fusion stops at its core?

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Loudmouth.

Thanks for the reply.

You stated the following.

If the observable scientific evidence supported a young Earth and separate
creation, why would you have to invent reasons to ignore it? Obviously, the scientific
evidence points to an old Earth and evolution. That is why you have had to invent a
spiritual realm as a rather poor justification for ignore the evidence.

I never made any claim regarding a young Earth or even a separate creation,
Loudmouth.

On the contrary Loudmouth, you need to justify the claims you have made.

In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to
supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces, operate in the world." (wikipedia)

Will you know provide the proof, that this cosmos has a natural causation.

You also need to justify the following claim, that a spiritual realm does not exist.

 

[Loudmouth]

I never made any claim regarding a young Earth or even a separate creation,
Loudmouth.

On the contrary Loudmouth, you need to justify the claims you have made.

Perhaps you can clear up any misunderstanding, if there is any. Do you think the Earth is much younger than the commonly accepted figure of 4.5 billion years? Do you think that species such as humans share a common ancestor with other species?

In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to
supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces, operate in the world." (wikipedia)

Will you know provide the proof, that this cosmos has a natural causation.

You also need to justify the following claim, that a spiritual realm does not exist.

We aren't discussing the origin of the universe. We are discussing the Cambrian deposits and the life they contain.

Also, none of us are excluding any evidence presented by those who believe that life had a supernatural origin because no such evidence has been provided.

 

[klutedavid]

Perhaps you can clear up any misunderstanding, if there is any. Do you think the Earth is much younger than the commonly accepted figure of 4.5 billion years? Do you think that species such as humans share a common ancestor with other species?



We aren't discussing the origin of the universe. We are discussing the Cambrian deposits and the life they contain.

Also, none of us are excluding any evidence presented by those who believe that life had a supernatural origin because no such evidence has been provided.

Hello Loudmouth.

No misunderstanding that I can observe.

Please address the following.

You will need to justify the claims you have made.

In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to
supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces, operate in the world." (wikipedia)

Will you know provide the proof, that this cosmos has a natural causation.

You also need to justify the following claim, that a spiritual realm does not exist.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Will you know provide the proof, that this cosmos has a natural causation.

You also need to justify the following claim, that a spiritual realm does not exist.

So, you have admitted this phony "Cambrian Problem" is not a problem at all.

That is progress of a sort.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hello Loudmouth.

No misunderstanding that I can observe.

Please address the following.

You will need to justify the claims you have made.

In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to
supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces, operate in the world." (wikipedia)

Will you know provide the proof, that this cosmos has a natural causation.

You also need to justify the following claim, that a spiritual realm does not exist.

I take it that you are not going to discuss the topic, nor other people's posts?

 

[Gracchus]

No misunderstanding that I can observe.

No offense intended, but your powers of observation are somewhat problematic.

Will you know provide the proof, that this cosmos has a natural causation.

Why must anyone provide "proof"? No one has ever shown that there is any causation other than the natural.

You also need to justify the following claim, that a spiritual realm does not exist.

There is no reason to believe in any "spiritual realm". Propositions asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If you can demonstrate the "spiritual realm", then James Randi has a million dollars for you.

 

[loveofourlord]

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."

no no no, don't you know, we havn't discovered anything new since darwins time, thats why arguments from the 80 and 90's are still good!!.

I wish Creationists would at lesat update their facts heh.

 

[loveofourlord]

Fossils layers typically represent the biome and fauna in which they lived. I wouldn't expect to find a rabbit there.

Fine show us any aquatic modern species like dolphins, jawed fish and such.

 

[pat34lee]

So, the gas in the upper atmosphere hands near the Earth for what reason? Friendship? Miracles?

And I'm not talking about grabbing it with my hand I'm talking about the combined mass 200 thousand times that of the Earth.

Where does the mass come from? Gas? It isn't dense enough.

 

[pat34lee]

How does that compare to the force of gravity pulling it in? Why hasn't the Sun expanded out to the point where fusion stops at its core?

Have you seen what is at the sun's core?
We don't even know for sure what's at the earth's core.
That goes for any planet and sun.

 

[Loudmouth]

Have you seen what is at the sun's core?

We have seen the neutrinos produced by nuclear fusion in the Sun's core.

Can you stop avoiding the question?

Why hasn't the Sun expanded into a gravitationally unbound cloud of thin gas?

 

[Loudmouth]

Where does the mass come from? Gas? It isn't dense enough.

Let's see your math.