dad said:
Could you show how is is not in accord with a nice young earth? And a creation?
Do you think that, somehow throwing a question back at me, you can avoid answering my question? Because I still need to know how this failure for humans to be able to calssify organism X
precisely does not accord with the theory of evolution.
Nevertheless, I will explain why it is not in accordance with a young earth and a creation: It is a 500-million-years old extinct animal.
No. As for so called accord with evolution, we can see here they will bang it in, and weld it, and whatever it takes to try to make it sound like it does, which is the point.
Can you provide an example or some evidence to support this claim? If you read the article, you will see that there appear to be two competing schools of thought: create a new classification (i.e. modify the hypothesis in light of data), try to classify it in some existing phylum, or even place it at the stem of an existing phylum.
I can assure you, however, that the taxon is already acceptably classified as "Bilateria" (a broader classification than 'pylum') because of its bilateral symmetry. However, they are finding difficulty in classifying it much beyond that.
Well, for having predicted it, they seem surprised, and unable to bang it into some phoney phylia right away!
The difficulty in classifying animal forms in the Cambrian is precisely what we
would expect following the early divergence of animal forms, as Mystman has pointed out for you (she even drew you a picture!) That is precisely what a "transitional form" is -- it is an organism that presents morphological similarities between groups. You'll notice that they're talking about its potential classification as either an ecdysozoan (arthropods and co.) or a lophotrochozoan (annelids, molluscs, and co.) Comparative embryology and genetics have already suggested that these groups form a 'clade' and so it is not surprising to find an animal that is hard to place in either phylum appears in the early fossil record of animal life.
Nevertheless, animals from the Cambrian are strange. They're very peculiar-looking creatures, no doubt about that. This is compounded by the fact that fossils don't allow us to dissect the soft body parts of an animal. What we see is what we get.
The evo dreams will embrace anything but the bible, or creation, or God, so nothing really is not reconcilable with it.
That's because the Bible and Creation offer nothing to "embrace" scientifically. I've explained this already: creationism is the opposite of science. It is not a
search for answers, it is an unwavering proclamation of an answer.
Well, if there was a few things, than it would get more of a splash than this little article. This just shows them doing their thing.
I don't know what you're trying to say, but if it means anything to you, it was published in
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B - one of the most hightly respected journals in all of the life sciences.
This [not knowing] they should be good at.
Everybody is good at this. This is the point.
Some of us also do it for fun, and money.
And society pays for it because the gains in the economy of
knowledge are so great. We do science because we aren't born in this world with all the knowledge of its workings. Creationists pretend that a book has all the answers, but have never sought to question its literal interpretation.
But when it comes to a past and future, that is unknown, that is not science.
I would agree that the future is mostly speculation, and that much about the past is speculation. However, since the past has occurred, it has left traces. However, human beings are not stupid. We are in fact capable of employing logic and reasoning to these traces and clues and reconstructing events in the past. It is the basis of a court of law, history, archaeology, and palaeontology. The past is not indecipherable just because you don't want it to be. All questions of empirical knowledge are legitimate targets for scientific inquiry. It is those questions that are empirically unfalsifiable (i.e. God) that cannot become the subject of science. Many broad historical questions certainly can be answered by science.
Look who's talking. Let's see a field study of their dreamed up billions of years ago.
You could see one either by getting a graduate degree in earth sciences, or simply volunteering for a group of geologists or paleontologists doing field studies. Have you ever done any field work? Would you It's a process whereby scientists gather data from the world by means of systematic observation. This is kind of like how forensic scientists go to the scene of a crime, rather than relying on eyewitness testimony to tell them everything. Rather, the purpose of a forensic investigation is often to
test the veracity of the claims of eyewitnesses.
If you would like to do field work, PM me. We could arrange something for next summer.
Evos pretend to know some lifeform appeared somehow, and many other things.
Actually, evolutionists don't pretend to know. In fact, creationists are always pointing out that evolutionists often say "we don't know..." -- just like you did in the OP of this thread! You're completely contradicting yourself!
It is creationists that pretend to know the answer to all questions and then try to veto any attempt at an independent investigation of the question. Basically, everything you have said in this thread is in evidence of this statement!
Believers in creation have te whole world, and all creatures, and the heavens screaming to them that they were wonderfully made!
Those are the screams of birthing spotted hyenas as they are smothered to death by their mother's overly long, but 'wonderfully made', birth canal and strangled on the 'wonderfully made' umbilicus.
They also have a world of fullfilled prophesies, miracles, changed hearts, and a perfect bible for good measure.
And how might you verify these claims?
Who cares? Who says it [Creationism] is [science]? Cretionism is believing in creation of God. Creationists also believe in real science, and own it as much as some evo dreamers do.
Nobody owns science. However, all are welcomed to participate in it. Unfortunately, sometimes this takes the consideration of other peoples' ideas as though they may be true. Creationism doesn't allow you to do this. Therefore, it is not admissible as science. It quite evidently makes you hostile towards the ideas of others. Science cannot thrive in such an atmosphere. One day, maybe (but unlikely), scientists will discover that the methods and inferences in geology, physics, biochemistry, paleontology, systematics, genetics, and ecology were all wrong - at least with respect to evolution. Perhaps one day this will happen (I know you think it already has). However, this will be discovered - not revealed - by the careful process of hypothesis testing.
I certainly hope you are right! We understand it was created, and where you end up welding it into is of no concequence.
Who am I to say otherwise? Mayeb you're right, too, and we'll learn that it was created. Perhaps this will come in a day when creationism gives us a theory that will allow us to derive expectations about what a created organims might look like and how it would differ from an organism that is the product of a Markov Chain known as evolution by natural selection.
